Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 January 13
< 12 January | 14 January > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Invader Zim. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Zim (Invader Zim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unsourced, this Invader Zim character has no real world coverage or sources to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 23:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because INVADER'S BLOOD MARCHES THROUGH MY VEINS LIKE RADIOACTIVE RUBBER PANTS!Merge to Invader Zim. Not enough out-of-universe info for a separate article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Invader Zim. Per TenPound. I have little doubt that Zim is a notable character but I don't see any particular need for a separate article at this time.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Koteski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's just no sources on this guy that I can see, at least not in English. The german source I found didn't seem to have much, but my German is so-so. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Found this link but it appears he has not yet played a game. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this player appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 19:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Same as above. There is no indication that this player passes either of the notability guidelines relevant to footballers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Renaming also (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 21:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of active drive-in theatres in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Same reasoning as List of active drive-in theaters, which was deleted. Only one source. Article is nothing but a list of third-party links to active drive-in theaters, violating WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINK. Blatant WP:OR given the outright lack of sources and terms such as "Until recently Blacktown was Sydney's last remaining drive-in". As with the US list, I can't find a feasible way to source that a certain drive-in is open without using their own website (if they even have one), whic h would still put the article in violation of WP:NOTLINK and WP:NOTDIR. If consensus agrees that the US shouldn't have such a list, then neither should Australia for the same reasons. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Obviously the nominator hasn't actually had a look at the article, as otherwise he would note that it is more than just a list of third party links. I agree that it is lacking references but the article is more than just a simple list it actually covers the history of drive-in theatres in Australia. I would suggest that the article is better served by renaming it to Drive-in theatres in Australia. Dan arndt (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan arndt did some work on the article right after I nominated it. Good start, but I'm concerned that at least one of the sources is not a reliable site. I also think that it's better suited as a merge to the main drive-in article to give that more worldly balance (presently it's mostly about American drive-ins). At the least, the list should go because there doesn't seem to be a feasible way to verify its content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree with the view that it should be merged. Australia has had a rich history with Drive-In theatres, and fully deserves it's own article. Australian drive-ins whilst similar to their American cousins, exist in an Australian cultural context with their own histories and characteristics. Most city drive-ins in Australia were for example owned by a handful of owners (Village, BCL, Hoyts etc) and often had names that ended in -line or - way. At this stage I have only just started (in a fairly short time) tapping into that history. As indicated I have only just started referencing the article but have come up with numerous independent references already - don't think that it will be too hard to verify the one reference that TenPoundHammer has identified. Dan arndt (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dan arndt did some work on the article right after I nominated it. Good start, but I'm concerned that at least one of the sources is not a reliable site. I also think that it's better suited as a merge to the main drive-in article to give that more worldly balance (presently it's mostly about American drive-ins). At the least, the list should go because there doesn't seem to be a feasible way to verify its content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Support Rename - I believe the subject, the references and the intent of the article - list or not - is notable and defendable SatuSuro 11:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rename to Drive-in theatres in Australia. There'd be many many more closed than open driveins in Australia and hopefully details and histories of those will eventually be incorporated into this useful article. Thus, I see NOTDIR being particularly irrelevant here. I also see nothing to be gained by a merge—that would only devalue the historically important place these institutions had in the social fabric of Australian suburbia and towns. –Moondyne 13:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Support Rename This looks to me to be an active and informative encyclopaedic article with a number of reliable references. Punkrocker1991 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per Moondyne. A much better article than I expected to see when first looked at it. Well done to the editors who developed this article. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. A comprehensive and interesting article. WWGB (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clean up the links! Even if this could be an appropriate article, it's currently a spam nest. There's no reason to have external links to every operational theatre in Australia within the body of the article. ThemFromSpace 01:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per Moondyne. Also having done some research Drive-in theatres were common and popular in Australia, so this has a potential to be a good article. Bidgee (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per the above, with sincere appreciations to those addressing the original perceived issues. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep N --Anna O'Leary (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per arguments above. walk victor falk talk 17:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Diagonal#Polygons Mandsford 00:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Diagonal formula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable topic, pure WP:OR. Author removed PROD without explanation. — Timneu22 · talk 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is real, the title is bad (albeit also real, in some circles), and the explanation is sophomoric. There's actually a fair amount to be said about the diagonals of a polygon, including theorems about the intersection points of diagonals of regular polygons, partially trangulated polygons, and so forth. Some of it is already said in Regular polygon#Diagonals and diagonal#Polygons. Certainly this is already said, and said better. There's no worthwhile content to retain here. Redirect to one or the other, according to taste.
This is not original research, by the way. There's no new thesis that doesn't exist outwith Wikipedia here. I could point you to a "Dummies" book that contains this thesis (and even that is better written). "Original research" is not a catch-all name for poorly written stuff. Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan, Mark (2007). Geometry for Dummies. For Dummies (2nd ed.). For Dummies. ISBN 9780470089460.
- Comment I'm less than convinced that this is the most likely target for the search term diagonal formula. A Google Scholar search does not appear to be referring to this notion on the first page of hits. --Trovatore (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Dummies" book (Ryan 2007, pp. 201) harv error: no target: CITEREFRyan2007 (help) calls it the diagonal formula. "Here's where the diagonal formula comes from and why it works.", it says, going on to provide a derivation for the formula that Wikipedia lacks. Yes, there are other things called a diagonal formula, but since someone took it into xyr head to write about this diagonal formula here, and since it is called that, a redirect seems reasonable. It's not as if it is beyond the wit of Wikipedia editors to make a disambiguation if someone comes up with some other place that a redirect should point to in the future. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nom: I guess I meant "OR" in the sense of, it's in his own words. Like if I tried to write about E = mc2 in my own words. — Timneu22 · talk 23:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I forget what the antonym of brilliant prose is. We do have one, though. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Ummm... most text for most articles are written in one's own words. That's not original research. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Uncle G, or write a proper disambiguation entry. The subject is obviously not original research, but it is equally clear to me that the topic is unworthy of a separate article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Diagonal#Polygons. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Untitled Myles Kennedy solo album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. An upcoming album released that may come about in December 2012. Not yet notable. E. Fokker (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a notable release by a notable musician featuring guest appearances by 2 additional notable musicians, regardless of when it will come out. It was originally going to be out in 2010 and has been in the works since 2009. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It will exist" isn't enough. Please quit looking at your crystal ball. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I dithered about this, but after looking thoroughly WP:NALBUMS I think this should be a delete. The two most important sentences are 'Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources' and 'generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label'. The sources in this article consist of two blog posts by the musician, a fan-site interview and a couple of interviews regarding an upcoming tour for a recently released band album that have passing mentions of the solo album. I can't consider this 'significant indepedent coverage' of the solo album, and at present we only have the possible names of a few tracks with some comments on the feel of the album. Should be deleted, to be recreated when appropriate. - ManicSpider (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:HAMMER is getting such wide acceptance as a guideline, and this article is directly implicated, that the only reasonable outcome is Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. ManicSpider sums up my opinion. No album title, confirmed tracklisting or significant indepedent coverage. HrZ (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Woodburn, Midlothian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
We have never settled whether a mere neighborhood in a town distinguished only by a postoffice and a postcode is individually notable. I do not think so. FWIW, the population of it and the 5 neighbouring postcodes all together are less than 96--the UK Census does not break it down further. [1] DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a community/neigbhorhood and is even a postal code. It's mildly helpful to have even just a stub article, like this one is, to keep helpful structure in place, such as mention of this location within Woodburn disambiguation page. It would be deleted from dab page if article is deleted i think. Some readers will look for this place, and find nothing. Serve the readers; it does no harm; etc. Or, develop the article more. --Doncram (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge and redirect to Dalkeith as it's just an estate. Post offices get named after settlements, estates and roads, so are not a guide to the status of a place. Postcodes are allocated on the basis of the amount of mail received, so while some postcodes cover several streets or isolated farms, some large office buildings have more than one (the DVLA building in Swansea has at least three, for example). Almost every building in the country that receives post (and many that don't) has a postcode, and so it's not all an indicator of anything. There is a library and a school named "Woodburn", but there are countless of these named after estates up and down the country, so that tells us nothing either. The most convincing evidence though is that I've looked at almost all the relevant mapping services listed on the geohacks page, and not one of them labels "Woodburn". Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only source in the article (Google Maps) doesn't even name the area as Woodburn. Google news search suggests some local papers loosely refer to the "Woodburn area", but I can only see that being worth a mention in the Dalkeith article. At a push, the entry on the disambiguation page could be changed to "Woorburn, an area of Dalkeith", but I won't lose much sleep if that doesn't happen. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Search Google maps. "Woodburn, Dalkeith, Midlothian, United Kingdom" pops up as search option for me now, anyhow, and points to a center point location on Woodburn Avenue. This is not the same as Google identifying an area, but the location is findable using Google Maps and other services. That said i wouldn't mind this being redirected to Dalkeith and having Woodburn disambiguation page entry updated as Chris Neville-Smith suggests. --Doncram (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but mention in Dalkeith article. If it's not even significant enough to be mapped, there's probably not much that can be uniquely said about it. Fix disambiguation page per Chris Neville-Smith above. --Polaron | Talk 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It does seem to be consistently referred to as a distinct area by secondary sources [2]. --Oakshade (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those hits are irrelevant (e.g. one is about a retired US Colonel Woodburn whose family came from somewhere unspecified in Midlothian), but of the ones that aren't the only one on the first three pages about the only two that aren't just a passing mention are a very-local newspaper article about the opening of a skatepark, and an estate agent telling me I can buy a house from them there. Even the ones that are passing mentions universally describe it as an area of Dalkeith. We don't have articles for every area of every town and city - unless they individually meet the WP:GNG we mention them on the article about the settlement they are an area of. From everything I've seen about Woodburn, pretty much all we can encyclopaedically say about it is that it is an area of Dalkeith with a school, post office, library and skatepark - very far from meeting the GNG. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/redirect/merge (any are fine with me). I accept the premise that notability standards, elastic as they are, should be a little looser for geographical places. But I can't support loosening them so much as to allow an article on such an ill-defined geographical area that reliable sources tell us so little about. I'm ok with the merge suggestion but there's so little content to be merged over, we may as well just write a new sentence or two in the Dalkeith article, which isn't really a merge.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources have been put forward by the keep side that come close to GNG so the delete side have this Spartaz Humbug! 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A2Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable software. Article created by software creator. No independent sources and not yet released. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2011 (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}} . |
What better sources are there than the project website which includes all documentation, screen shots, WORKING DOWNLOADABLE CODE, SOURCE CODE, issue tracking and access to the developers? Just because the article was created by the software creator does not mean the article is any any way factually incorrect nor inappropriate. And what does "Disputed prod" mean? Plbyrd (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:Original research and WP:reliable sources. noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
non notable software. - I'm not exactly sure what 'notable' means, but if it means "commonly well known", then whats the point of wikipedia if everyone on the planet that shares an interest in something, "already knows" about whatever "it" is?
- Again see WP:Original research as well as WP:GNG noq (talk)
Arcticle created by software creator. - Well, someone has to start it.
- See WP:Conflict of interest 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
No independent sources - Here's an independent voice who has no disagreement with the content and make up of the article.
- where? noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and not yet released. - It's downloadable, with source code, and is a working application. How much more released can you get?
- As a release candidate. Just because something exists does not mean it qualifies for a wikipedia article. noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at how many mainstream products have "beta" in their actual name, and for how long it has been there. For that matter, computing as we know it is one giant beta test game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apl24ever (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does Other Stuff Exists come into the equation here? The author of the comment did not say "such and such is listed, this must be too!" Just because you know how to pull up all of these fringe documents doesn't mean your argument holds water. Plbyrd (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The program does have notability within the Apple II community. I've done some work on the article, and removed the trivia section. It needs work, but IMO, it should be kept. --Bhtooefr (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet WP:GNG? New software for what is an obsolete platform is unlikely to get notice outside very small groups. Unless that notice is shown there is no notability. noq (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- external reference that caused HUNDREDS of page visits to the A2Command website. How is this not notable? By your definition of an obsolete platform, you must have some definition of what a very small group is. Please link to your WP:???? that defines a "very small group". Plbyrd (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter is not a WP:reliable source. When was the last time Apple made an Apple IIe? Have you read the links I provided earlier that explain why this article is here? noq (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read them and your argument is circular. You have arbitrarily decided that the Apple II, being a discontinued system, is no longer notable. However, the documents you point to claim that notability is NOT temporary. So, you are in essence declaring that the Apple II was never notable! Also, you want to attribute the scope of notability of A2Command to be a very small group, yet when presented with the type of interest a single Twitter reference can generate, you dismiss the group as insignificant because it came from Twitter. Are you now also declaring that Twitter is not notable? Are you declaring that all information that comes from Twitter is not notable? You are painting with a VERY WIDE BRUSH of non-notability when prominent members of the Apple II community have already come on here and stated their support for the A2Command article to be kept. Are you declaring yourself to be more expert at knowing the wants and needs of the Apple II community? Plbyrd (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say the Apple II was not notable? Where did I say Twitter was not notable? Where is your reliable third party reports of "hundreds of page visits" generated by a twitter post? Twitter is not a reliable source as there is no editorial oversight. Anyone can sign up for a twitter account and say anything they like. Individuals that could be literally anyone saying "I think it is notable" does not make it notable. This discussion is about a new software application that has not had widespread coverage in reliable sources. If it has and you can show them then the article will survive, if not it will be deleted. You claim to have read the documents but then complain that I am arguing for things I did not say. For an article to remain on Wikipedia it needs to show notability via references to independent reliable sources - articles on what these are have been linked to for you to read so you know what is required. There are a large number of articles created daily and some articles will get through and others will be spotted and challenged. Even if an article gets through initially it can still be challenged in the future when it is noticed. The conflict of interest article also explains why creating pages about things related to you is generally a bad idea. noq (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Page visit statistics for A2Command project page Please note all of the references from Twitter. Also not the references from A2Central.com, which happens to be THE AUTHORITATIVE NEW SITE FOR APPLE II ENTHUSIASTS. 208.88.170.49 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did I say the Apple II was not notable? Where did I say Twitter was not notable? Where is your reliable third party reports of "hundreds of page visits" generated by a twitter post? Twitter is not a reliable source as there is no editorial oversight. Anyone can sign up for a twitter account and say anything they like. Individuals that could be literally anyone saying "I think it is notable" does not make it notable. This discussion is about a new software application that has not had widespread coverage in reliable sources. If it has and you can show them then the article will survive, if not it will be deleted. You claim to have read the documents but then complain that I am arguing for things I did not say. For an article to remain on Wikipedia it needs to show notability via references to independent reliable sources - articles on what these are have been linked to for you to read so you know what is required. There are a large number of articles created daily and some articles will get through and others will be spotted and challenged. Even if an article gets through initially it can still be challenged in the future when it is noticed. The conflict of interest article also explains why creating pages about things related to you is generally a bad idea. noq (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have read them and your argument is circular. You have arbitrarily decided that the Apple II, being a discontinued system, is no longer notable. However, the documents you point to claim that notability is NOT temporary. So, you are in essence declaring that the Apple II was never notable! Also, you want to attribute the scope of notability of A2Command to be a very small group, yet when presented with the type of interest a single Twitter reference can generate, you dismiss the group as insignificant because it came from Twitter. Are you now also declaring that Twitter is not notable? Are you declaring that all information that comes from Twitter is not notable? You are painting with a VERY WIDE BRUSH of non-notability when prominent members of the Apple II community have already come on here and stated their support for the A2Command article to be kept. Are you declaring yourself to be more expert at knowing the wants and needs of the Apple II community? Plbyrd (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter may not be a WP:RS, but what about A2Central? I know it's based on a blogging platform, but it's one of the two remaining major edited news sources in the Apple II community (the other being Juiced.GS, a print magazine.) Either the Apple II itself is no longer notable enough to have reliable sources of its own, or A2Command has been covered by a reliable source. Oh, and as for WP:OSE, I've nominated ADTPro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhtooefr (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference supplied is just a reposting of an announcement from the creator - so just a press release. Not sure about whether A2Central would be regarded as a reliable source, generally blogs are not. noq (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is ADTPro any more notable through reliable sources than A2Command? ADTPro is simply a well known program within the Apple II community just as is A2Command. Plbyrd (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - We are not discussing ADTPro, we are discussing A2Command. The state of other articles in Wikipedia have no bearing on this discussion (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not using OSE here, I'm asking what's the threshold of notability supposed to be when the target community says that something is notable, another well known program is listed, yet has no notable sources, and yet the article to be deleted has shown notability within the target community. You're reinforcing my point that the argument against this article is completely arbitrary. Plbyrd (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard is embodied in Wikipedia:Notability. Essentially, there needs to be significant coverage multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not using OSE here, I'm asking what's the threshold of notability supposed to be when the target community says that something is notable, another well known program is listed, yet has no notable sources, and yet the article to be deleted has shown notability within the target community. You're reinforcing my point that the argument against this article is completely arbitrary. Plbyrd (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - We are not discussing ADTPro, we are discussing A2Command. The state of other articles in Wikipedia have no bearing on this discussion (see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't_overuse_shortcuts_to_policy_and_guidelines_to_win_your_argument Plbyrd (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The shortcuts are to direct you to articles that explain why this article is here - not to win an argument noq (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you are abusing the system to further your pneed to place your lack of understanding of the subject matter and its significance above the stated significance of the target audience. 208.88.170.49 (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All I'm seeing here is a blizzard of verbiage from the Keep proponents concerning anything and everything but providing reliable, independent, third-party, published sources describing the subject in "significant detail". That's the bottom line. Fulfill that fundamental requirement, and the article passes. Fail to do so, and it must be deleted. The Keep proponents are making a common error among newcomers in believing that when we use the word "notable," it means "I think it's important." Rather, "notable" in the context of AfDs means "Considered to meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability." In the case of this article, that means passing WP:GNG AND WP:NOR. The number of page views a website allegedly gets is irrelevant. The number of Twitter feeds supposedly generated is irrelevant. The article creator's unproven assertion that the "target community" believes the subject to be notable is irrelevant. Ravenswing 17:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another idea... maybe merge with Norton Commander inspired software? --Bhtooefr (talk) 22:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- George M Daniel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Eliminate the middle initial and add fly fishing to the Google News terms, and ample references from reliable sources are found. One good example: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, October 14, 2007, "Daniel national fly-fishing champ". There are many more, which document that he is an international competitor as well. Cullen328 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is covered as the primary subject in multiple articles: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article, and Denver Post article. Google News shows a lot more but these 3 are sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've expanded the article, which now has five references. Thanks to Kugao for finding more references. If the closing administrator agrees to keep the article, I will move it to "George M. Daniel" with a period after the middle initial. I will also place a disambiguation hat note on George Daniel, the lacrosse official. Cullen328 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of fastest production cars. Leaving the redirect in place and deleting history per consensus. The fate of the redirect can be discussed at WP:RFD if someone wishes to nominate it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of SuperCars (top speed 240 mph or faster) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly named superlative list with arbitrary criteria, no references, much speculation (several cars lised as "estimated", estimated by whom?) and a health dose of WP:FANCRUFT. Unencyclopedic and fails notability as no attempt has been made to establish any. Falcadore (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Falcadore's reasoning. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as we already have List of Fastest Production Cars. Mattg82 (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per Falcadore's reasoning. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for all the reasons noted by Falcadore. Not impressed with List of Fastest Production Cars either, but at least a better effort. Warren Whyte (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Got a Speedy criteria in mind we can use to speed this up? --Falcadore (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think it meets A10: It has information duplicate to List of Fastest Production Cars and the redirect isn't a plausible one either. Minimac (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone can find an RS defining 240 mph as a significant cutoff. Even that doesn't work as the implication is that a supercar must have a top speed of 240 or more, which ain't the case. Greglocock (talk) 04:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment while the article has since been reduced to a redirect - would like to see the AfD go forward as the article title is so clumsily worded it is a very unliekly search option. --Falcadore (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also List of fastest production cars which is a different article to the one above, as it just focuses on the record holders. Mattg82 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Having two articles with identical names was nonsensical, I've redirect the unreferenced one to the referenced one. --Falcadore (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also List of fastest production cars which is a different article to the one above, as it just focuses on the record holders. Mattg82 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 20:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- General average/New version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is an attempted rewrite of the general average article which appears to have stalled and got nowhere. There's been no merge although one editor did ask if some expert could help merge. However, the sourcing in this huge article has no inline sourcing, and reading some of the text, I don't see that merging it into the main article would actually help. Whpq (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate. This doesn't belong in the mainspace, but it does appear to include sources that the main article does not, so there may potentially be something of value that can be merged there.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That might be a good option if somebody can step forward to take it on. The article really has 2 major pieces consisting of a history, and then a detailed recitation of the rules. The history might be useful for a merge if the material can be supported with sources (the refs here are not inline), but the writing is not very accessible and needs a significant bit of copyeditting. The recitation of the rules just simply looks inappropriate as material for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually has three major pieces. That should be clearer now. I've wasted a soon-to-be-deleted edit on making it so. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That might be a good option if somebody can step forward to take it on. The article really has 2 major pieces consisting of a history, and then a detailed recitation of the rules. The history might be useful for a merge if the material can be supported with sources (the refs here are not inline), but the writing is not very accessible and needs a significant bit of copyeditting. The recitation of the rules just simply looks inappropriate as material for an article. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One might think what a grievous loss this would be, were it to be deleted — until, that is, one reads the 1911 Britannica's "average" article and realizes that this is all Britannica prose, with the top part of the article moved to the bottom. That's why it reads as strangely as it does. That the 1911 Britannica article still does a better job of explaining the subject than our article is certainly incentive to improve the Heck out of general average. But reasons for retaining this somewhere should hinge on something more than the 1911 prose, which is available directly from the source should it be needed, without need for keeping this around. Note that even the citations in the References section are in the 1911 original. Not even they are reasons for keeping this somewhere. Uncle G (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks Uncle G for pointing this out. For the edification of other editors who may participate, here is a link to the Encyclopedia Britannica article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uncle G. If someone wants to use the Brittanica text to improve the main article, that's fine, but there's no need to keep this subpage around when editing should go on in the main article anyways. --Jayron32 23:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate -- I do not know about the subject, but it is clearly important and the present article is much shorter. Somehow the existing and new versions need to be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Given that Uncle G has pointed out that the article is a re-arranged copy of the text from the public domain 11th ed of the Encyclopedia Britannica, what material should be put in incubation? Anybody wanting to merge the material has one of many choices for online copies of the Britannica text, and they are even listed at Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. -- Whpq (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Computer Games Artist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is redundant to Game art design. The latter already addresses the overview of what this role involves (i.e. what "Computer games artist" and "Computer and Video Games" covers), and the various division into individual roles (i.e. what "The Different Roles" covers). "Generative art mods" section is already in Video game art. "The Websites" and "Places To Study Games Art" is basically spam. "The Skills" is OR and guide/advice. None of references in "References" actually address game art design, they are miscellaneous topics. Further, none are used inline. Besides uncited OR, this article has no info not covered by the referenced Game art design. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge if there's anything worth saving. Otherwise
supportdelete. SharkD Talk 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- "Support" is confusing in AfDs; do you mean "delete"? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, delete. SharkD Talk 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Support" is confusing in AfDs; do you mean "delete"? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant to another, better article. Also has a strange howto/POV air about it, including such highly questionable assertations as claiming that "enthusiasm" is the most important thing to getting a job in the field. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I agree, this is virtually the same topic as Game art design, which is a more suitable title. –MuZemike 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is covered in both Game art design and Video game art and is basically a how-to. There wouldn't be much worth merging, more of a redirect. freshacconci talktalk 01:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 07:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chhu kar mere man ko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NSONG. Logan Talk Contributions 16:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a popular Hindi song featured in the Binaca Geetmala annual list 1980. Kishore Kumar earned a Filmfare Award nomination for the song. utcursch | talk 10:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am withdrawing this request due to the addition of notable information to the article. Logan Talk Contributions 07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bleed from Within (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not sure if the coverage for this band is significant. Does not appear so. The intro states they have a "reputation" on the "underground" metal circuit, and are significant in the "growing" genre. None of this warrants inclusion. No significant, reliable coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 15:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND. Note that 99.99% of the time, "underground" means "non-notable", especially in music articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BAND, no evidence it meets the GNG. I'm definitely with Starblind; "underground" = "no one's heard of us except for the patrons of the four pubs we play regular gigs at and the somewhat-bored "indie" music staff writer of the local alternative weekly newspaper." Ravenswing 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:BAND. No reliable sources, whether notable or not. --Kudpung (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a source that might help. I think I'm too new here to vote, but have a look and rethink, please. 84.224.241.61 (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The source you added - presuming this metalhammer.co.uk qualifies as a "reliable source" under WP:RS - directs to the site's main page; do you have a current URL for your source? That being said, a reliable source must, in order to qualify, discuss the subject in "significant detail." A single sentence or two along the lines of "Our tour will include X band, Y band and Bleed From Within" won't do it. (That aside, you can certainly register your opinion here, new or not - we just decide here based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, something of which newcomers often have shaky command. I recommend going through the links you'll find on WP:PILLAR to start!) Ravenswing 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Purnell's Old Folks Country Sausage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third-party coverage, no sources. — Timneu22 · talk 15:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm the one that wrote the article and I think it's ridiculous that it's even been marked for deletion (with some pretty weak excuses at that). There's articles for other brands of sausage and this brand most definitely deserves an article. And it does have a source; the company's website; if other sources are needed, how about people take the time and add them instead of just slapping an undeserved bad label on an article? Also, the article for Jimmy Dean sausage is written in much the same format (with only its website as its main source) and I don't see no "marked for deletion" label slapped on it.75.81.204.244 (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
- Keep, weakly. This is a well known brand that's one of the traditional sponsors of the Grand Old Opry. I'm surprised that I haven't been able to find more, but I did find what looks to be several pages of discussion in this book, and some discussion of the business when the founder died. This is one of the leading brands of bulk breakfast sausage, comparable to Jimmy Dean's or Bob Evans. May ultimately be a merger candidate, but keep for the moment. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I grew up in Kentucky, so the brand and the slogan ("It's gooooooood!") are very familiar to me, but probably not at all elsewhere. A very odd name that seemed to take on a new dimension after the film Soylent Green came out in 1972. It might not be notable, but my original research confirms that, indeed, it's goooooood. Mandsford 03:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is third-party coverage of this item that can be added to the article, I think enough to establish its a notable brand.[3] (1996 Associated Press article); [4] (2001 associated press article); [5] ("Old Folks Country Sausage is sold in 24 states"); [6]--Milowent • talkblp-r 06:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear Lake - The Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant coverage or third-party, reliable sources. Possibly {{db-band}} but unsure. — Timneu22 · talk 15:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND and WP:TOOSOON (and as far as Josh Radnor, WP:NOTINHERITED). Everything I could find about them were passing mentions. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Dmol (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is some very minor coverage in sources [http://www.mlive.com/entertainment/detroit/index.ssf/2009/11/music_by_rochester_band_bear_l.html, perhaps even reliable ones, so I don't think db-band is necessary. But I don't believe the coverage meets the standard of WP:GNG or WP:BAND. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion that the band as such is notable. Travelbird (talk) 11:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ligia Filotti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person, however respectable, does not fit whatever notability criteria are required for biographical articles, under any definition. The "references" cited in the article are laughable - other than a few primary and self-published texts, they include a passing mention in a full list of all RFE contributors and, get this, a guy's post in a forum (here). Dahn (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is just one of the questionable notability articles started by User:Afil, most of which have to do with the Filotti family (an article which is itself of questionable notability). What makes it difficult is that Afil has mixed such articles with (poorly-written) ones on arguably more notable people, such as Eugen Filotti (who is notable) or Gheorghe Taşcă (ditto) or Maria Filotti (ditto). But have a look over the provincial nobodies, who are arguably here only because they are part of the Filotti clan - I submit Mircea Filotti, Ion Filotti, Traian Filotti, Victor Filotti, Liviu Filotti, Ion Filotti Cantacuzino, Nestor Filotti, Eugenia Filotti Atanasiu - and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. The plethora of personal archive photos, the addition to wikisource of this non-relevant text, and so many other issues (including the even more ludicrous proliferation of Filotti articles on Romanian wikipedia) may point to a serious POV/conflict of interest that wikipedians might wish to look into. I want to make this a centralized discussion about all those articles and the user's conduct, but I have no idea of how to best approach this. Dahn (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Totally against deletion The subject of each article should be discussed on its own merits. This is in any case not the place to discuss articles in Romanian Wikipedia (who has only three articles on members of the Filotti family, which is hardly a proliferation) or in Romanian Wikisource.
- The objection regarding the Filotti family is difficult to understand. There are many articles on families of importance in various countries. While many of them may be aristocratic, there is and should not be any rule to limit the articles related to families only to aristocrats or royalty. Actually Wikipedia includes rightfully so articles on less notable families which could present some interest to some readers or researchers. Some of these articles present only a list of members of the family which are considered important, others present the genealogy, which also has some importance. There is no reason why the Filotti family should be considered less important or more important than the Rebreanu family, the Hrisoverghi family, the Schaechter Gottesman family or the Orvitz family.
- The term of provincial nobodies just to indicate that some persons have been important mostly in their own countries and not at the top international level is incorrect and unfair. I will not go through the entire list to justify every article, however, just to present some examples. Ion Filotti Cantacuzino was the most important romanian film critic and producer in the era before WWII. Mircea Filotti was also a film producer and his productions are mentioned in IMDB. Sava Dumitrescu was not exactly a nobody, as he was rector of the University of Medicine and Pharmacology of Iaşi. Nestor Ignat was a romanian writer and journalist, chairman of the Union of Journalists and member of the National Council on the Romanian State Radio and Television Networks. He was also dean of the Faculty of Journalism of the University of Bucharest, not exactly a nobody.Gheorghe Pohrib was the organizer of the firefighters in Romania after WWI - maybe Dahn is not interested in firefighters, however it is an important activity even if less covered in Wikipedia. Ion Manolescu-Strunga was minister in various romanian governments. Eugenia Filotti Atanasiu was a well known painter in Romania. Vasile Atanasiu was a romanian general active in WWII. Liviu Filotti is professor at the Oil and Gas University of Ploieşti - maybe not the greatest univesity in the World but still the most important university preparing petroleum engineers in Romania. Victor Filotti was an active politician in the years after WWI. They all have their merits and their importance, even if Mr. Dahn does not know it. I do not see any reason why Wikipedia should limit the number of persons who are part of a family, when they have had achievements at the national level in their countries.
- As far as Ligia Filotti is concerned, she was one of the leaders of the anticommunist student movement in Romania in 1956. Maybe that for Mr. Dahn, this movement was less important than the Hungarian uprising. However the student movement in Romania in 1956, even if unsuccessful, was the first attempt to change the communist regime in Romania. It is important that the participants to this movement be remembered.
- In this respect I would like to make a comparison with the series of articles on the Stauffenberg family, which also has a lengthy genealogy of the family. Some of the members of the family have their own articles:Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern who's only merit, apparently, was that he was head of the House of Hohenzollern, which may be important but I hardly think that it is more notable that being a general or a minister. Berthold Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg co-conspirator against Hitler, Alexander Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg professor of ancient history in Munich Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg who was the leader of the plot against Hitler Franz-Ludwig Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg german politician.
- There is no reason to consider that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, Romania is less worthy than Germany and that the Filotti family which has approximately the same length of ancestry as the Stauffenbeg family should not have an article. There is no reason why Berthold Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg who was member of a group who organized an uprising against the german nazi government, should have his own article and Ligia Filotti who was member of a group which organized an uprising against the romanian communist government should not deserve an article.
- Therefore, I consider that Mr. Dahn's objections have a double standard, which is not acceptable in Wikipedia. It is also unfair to accuse a person who has studied certain subject - in this case a certain family - to write several articles on various related topics. For instance, as a water expert I have written many articles about rivers in Romania. Is there any reason for limiting the number of articles on this topic which I can write. So why limit the number of articles which I can write about a the members of a certain family. Afil (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than subjective epithets such as "most important", misleading comparisons with other articles (on royal families, or on articles I haven't suggested should be deleted), what we have above are arguments which do not really suggest good faith. For instance, in addition to "sourcing" articles with forum comments, Afil opens the issue of IMDB bios - not only is this not an indicator of notability on its own (see past debates about the use of IMDB), but the Mircea Filotti IMDB bio referred to above is contributed by an Andrei Filotti. I trust others editors will note what is being attempted here. Dahn (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, to clarify this for uninformed users: the articles I mentioned are not non-notable subject-wise because they relate to Romania, as Afil would have you believe; they are so because they relate to people of little significance in their respective national context: artists whose work is not covered in Romanian academia; military men who never rose above the rank of colonel, and were not otherwise known for acts of heroism, theoretical contributions etc.; politicians who either never had a national role or never rose above a sub-ministerial position (no, not "ministers", as Afil claims); actors with cameos; and so on. The articles, if at all sourced, were generally compiled using contrived sources, primary sources, generally unreliable sources (publishers with no standing or credibility) and (I'm guessing) unpublished personal accounts. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric: wikipedia by now has many properly sourced articles on secondary characters in Romanian politics or letters, who are contextually relevant but may be rather unknown internationally (my own contributions include, for instance, a D. Iacobescu or a Ion Sân-Giorgiu). So this is not an issue of wikipedia's cultural bias, it is an issue of Filotti family promotion. Dahn (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while I respect Mrs. Filotti and commend her role in the 1956 events, I must look at this objectively and ask: where are the sources — reliable sources that are independent of the subject — linking her to a leadership role there? WP:V and WP:N require us to consider this. We can't simply have articles on people we think are important; we need verifiable sources confirming their notability. And as far as I can see, those are lacking. - Biruitorul Talk 04:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biruitorul you are unfair and incorrect. She is mentioned in the Who's Who which was published in Cambridge. Cambridge University considered her notable and worth mentioning. You consider her not notable. Don't you think this is rather presumptious? In any case this reference proves that she was notable as art critic and historian. And this is not a reference published by some unknown tabloid in Romania.
If some other statements do not have sufficient support, the solution is to include a "citation needed" not a deletion. I would have expected a different reaction from your part. I agree that there are extremely few published information on the anticommunist movements in Romania in 1956, but to require a deletion of an article in stead of a citation is equivalent to denying the existence of an anticommunist resistance movement in Romania and an attempt to minimize the students who have risked everything in their attempt for an uprising. I must say that I am extremely surprised by this attitude on the matter. But you are free to have any opinion on the matter even to deny the sacrifices of a forgotten generation of Romanians. Afil (talk) 06:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, where are the sources? The article was published two years ago, and no reliable sources have emerged yet. WP:BURDEN says that "any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". I might also add that this article falls under WP:BLP: "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Like I said, I'm sure Mrs. Filotti acted heroically in 1956, and I also believe we need a well-developed article on the events in Romania that year (not just Bucharest, but also Timişoara, Iaşi and Cluj). But this does not imply we should have an article on someone whose notability remains unproven through independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Please try and see the difference. - Biruitorul Talk 15:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, published in Cambridge does not mean published by Cambridge University. What that obscure book seems to be is one of those vanity "who's who" volumes, through which people give their bios some exposure - self-published, one would say. As for "denying the existence of an anticommunist resistance movement" for contesting that Filotti is notable - puh-lease; Biruitorul has written several articles which specifically cover events related to that movement, as have I (the specific events I linked to, for instance, in the article Perpessicius; this should also debunk Afil's claim that very few has been published on the 1956 movement in Romania - in reality, next to nothing has been published on Mrs. Filotti's involvement in said movement, which is a quite different matter). Incidentally, might I add that the other wikipedia article linking Filotti to the student movement, Bucharest student movement of 1956, with some of the same sourcing, coherence and POV issues, was originally the work of Afil? As for "outside sources": to be fair, Filotti's involvement in the student movement appears to have once gotten a passing mention in one academic magazine (see "Find sources: [...] books" link above); other than that, the only credit provided by Afil is to a forum post - not only is that not decent sourcing, but, given the IMBD precedent, what's to say that's not a post by, say, a Mr. Andrei Filotti? Dahn (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update on the "Cambridge" source: as far as I can tell, we are talking about the 1972 International Who's Who in Art and Antiques, which is indeed published in Cambridge, by Melrose Press, that is to say the International Biographical Centre - we call that a scam and a spin. This is the quality of sourcing in this article ("some unknown Romanian tabloid" is preferable), and it is quite the same in many Filotti articles. Dahn (talk) 08:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And Afil obviously needs to familiarize himself with wikipedia policies, primarily WP:N: the request for sources is made so as to establish the notability of the subject, based on outside, quality sources, not just to source unreferenced info that Afil has pushed into the article (distinctly: WP:OR). Since virtually no mention of Ligia Filotti is made in outside sources, it follows that Afil based it almost entirely on unpublished material, which begs the question of WP:COI. Dahn (talk) 08:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I am always bemused by Keep proponents at AfD who unleash a torrent of verbiage but fail to take the fundamental step which guarantees a Keep result: provide multiple, reliable, third-party sources which discuss the subject in significant detail. Shorn of all the chaff, it all comes down to the GNG in the end. I see no evidence that this article meets it. Ravenswing 17:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that when reliable sources are quoted, such as the Cambridge Who's Who, then there are objections which have been issued in Australia (which have no relevance to Romania) or to a spin. which refer to an American Institute not the British Institute who published the reference. There are other references which indicate Ligia Filotti's publications as an art historian and as a professor. These also are ignored by Mr. Dahn. Afil (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear: we are talking about the publisher - the publisher is a con artist, the "reference books" are crap, the material is highly dubious. There is nothing in there that would fall on the good side of WP:RS. And, incidentally, that is a source used for one thing in the article - the rest is WP:OR. Dahn (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should glance at Who's Who scam for a notion as to what that reference is worth. Come to that, I was myself in Who's Who Among American High School Students in 1977; that scarcely means I'm notable. Ms. Filotti's publications neither qualify her under WP:AUTHOR nor under WP:PROF. What we are looking for are mainstream newspapers or academics citing her and her work. If you cannot supply them, that would indicate she is not notable. Ravenswing 19:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing BE——Critical__Talk 21:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero impact on GS and GB from links above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by WP:BIO, either in article refs or from web searches. Sounds like an interesting life, but not a suitable subject for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets --Qwfp (talk) 08:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article full of WP:OR – may be nothing more than a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brother (UK band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. ttonyb (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seriously? They were cover stars in the NME on the 8th of January with three pages devoted to them, plus coverage in The Guardian, stereoboard, NME interview, The Quietus.--Michig (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the references given by Michig, per WP:BITE and per subject meeting the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. They have received a huge amount of press, TV coverage on Channel 4 and significant coverage from BBC Radio 1 including during the daytime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimox (talk • contribs) 14:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is this page as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_(Britpop_band) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digimox (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sims 2 cheats ps2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural AfD since PROD tag got removed. Nomination on grounds of WP:CHEATS. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete inappropriate content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article creators should be prohibited from outright removal of prod tags IMO. But since we're here, the usual "not a cheat site", not a game guide", etc... reasons to delete apply. Tarc (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, since Wikipedia doesn't host cheat guides. I'm assuming the only reason this hasn't been speedily deleted is lack of a suitable criteria. --Ezhuks (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Obviously inappropriate. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual. This should be on Wikia. -LtNOWIS (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As above, we do not host cheats. Skullbird11 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This content doesn't belong in an encyclopedia per WP:GAMEGUIDE. ~ Matthewrbowker Say hi! 03:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – GameFAQs is that way. –MuZemike 21:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete - obviously not going to survive the AfD as it does not pass any criteria. Let it snow and be done with it. --Teancum (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 an article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Not notable promotional autobiography. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Anil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:COI and failing WP:N Rchard2scout (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Willing to userfy upon request. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- D_Innovates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
failing WP:N, also no actual content Rchard2scout (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ad spam--Sodabottle (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete essentially no content. I guess it could be that the main contributor isn't too well versed with WP but man this is bad. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 20:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like WP:SPAM. Rabbabodrool (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - AGF, not spam, but extremely poorly written and cannot be allowed to remain in article space. Move to user space without leaving a redirect, and notify user.Kudpung (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per criterion A7. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bemsheemer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
poorly written unsourced article fails nn-delete and salt Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - currently working on a mixtape! Epic fail on the notability and sourcing requirements. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I'd call "not yet notable". I'm sure he'll be plenty notable in two or three years, and then he can have an article. But not just yet. Agree: delete. DS (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This was a close one for me. The original nomination did not really puts forth a strong case for deletion, and the COI allegations made me a bit uneasy. However, two stronger !votes citing WP:WEB (the cognizant guideline) appeared, and the lone keep !vote appears to have been modified to a merge. The merge position did not receive any support in this investigation, but since the rationale for deletion is lack of notability (not verifiability) there really is no reason that the material couldn't be merged at an appropriate target, and there is no prejudice to a history undeletion to facilitate that if needed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AskDrWiki.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website with no or very little citations and external links. Delete as per Wikipedia policy WP:N Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 08:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Burhan Ahmed/Template:Remove AskDrWiki.com | User:Burhan Ahmed/Template:Keep AskDrWiki.com |
---|---|
3 Votes
|
1 Votes
|
Comment: Also the website is not being updated since a long time. Please see this link which shows no activity in the past 30 days! Indeed its a dead website Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 08:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 09:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 09:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not a notable website as defined at WP:WEB. A few references are given at the article but some do not support the article's claims. [7] does not mention Ask Dr. Wiki at all that I could find, despite the article's claim that it does, and [8] is behind a paywall. The American Medical News, a weekly newsletter from the AMA, does cover this subject but I'm not sure if AMN is a Reliable Source. In any case, the website appears to have been active only from November 2006 to July 2007, see askdrwiki.com history. This Wikipedia article was created during that time, apparently by one of the founders, and has received only procedural edits since its creation. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. A noble but short-lived idea that apparently never quite got off the ground. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has been mentioned in reliable sources.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think Doc James is having a WP:COI with other editors here! He has restored the WikiDoc article which was deleted by consensus! Now he is actively participating in two other discussions 1 2 and voting to keep articles which have no notability on Wikipedia ! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Advice to Doc James: I understand that you are a doctor and so I am but it doesnot mean that we have to keep fighting for projects which are not notable on WIkipedia. I agree that they may be notable in the medical field but they doesnot meet the Wikipedia guidlines! Burhan Ahmed | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Would support merging all the medical wikis into a single page called Online medical wiki encyclopedias including Ask Dr Wiki, Ganfyd, Medcyclopaedia, Medpedia, Radiopaedia, WikiDoc and WikiSurgery. Per COI User:Burhan Ahmed runs/works on Medicalopaedia [9] and User:Midgley runs/works on Ganfyd. All of these pages have about equal notability.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neutral on the creation of such an article, but I definitely don't think AskDrWiki should be included if such a page is made. It got one article in a possibly reliable source, but as Andrew so cogently said, it never really got off the ground and existed for less than a year. --MelanieN (talk) 06:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Transformers (TV series)#Cast and characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kremzeek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Also nominated
- Movor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Misfire (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Leozack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Megazarak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Extremely minor fictional characters without any independent notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:38, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY CLOSE - I see nothing these character have in common. We have a characters from 3 different tv series and a comic book character. Their they shouldn't be deleted as a group. Mathewignash (talk) 10:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If they've got nothing in common, why are they all in Category:Decepticons? If you really want me to un-redirect the AfDs so they're five separate ones again, that's fine. However, they do have something in common - they're all non-notable characters with no reliable sources. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - AfD unbundled. This AfD is now for Kremzeek only. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although not very notable, some would need redirecting. Since I would redirect them all DIFFERENTLY, it would in insane to keep them all bundled. Thanks. Mathewignash (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to The_Transformers_(TV_series)#Cast_and_characters. Mathewignash (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of the sources have page numbers, and there are very few. I am not sure that notability has been established.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mergeor Delete minor characterDwanyewest (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor character, notability not established by reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 21:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Victory characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leozack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely minor fictional character without any independent notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the page List of Transformers: Victory characters, like the rest of the cast of that show was done. Mathewignash (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Seems to be poorley sources, not sure of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 07:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mergeor Delete minor characterDwanyewest (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to List of Transformers: Victory characters per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Malkinann (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and move to Embrace (incubator). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Embrace (organization) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is just one big advertisement. The company doesn't seem to be very notable and the text sounds like it's straight from the company website. AndrewvdBK (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not breaching Wikipedia's policies and does not require deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.144.20 (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — 98.210.144.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find anything reliable on Google, and the references in the article are about people and products affiliated with the organization rather than the organization itself. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 18:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is a redirect from Embrace (incubator) where it should currently be. Redirected in September 2009 with the reason that it "seems to be about an organization, not an incubator".1 I can't argue about that, the article has evidently been written by someone within Embrace given the self descriptions used. However, while the content is very poor, the subject matter is not. It passes notability in that there are dozens of news articles, if not hundreds, regarding the incubator, its history and the organization.1 2 3 While the article does not communicate what was originally intended, it should not be deleted on the grounds mentioned. The people involved in the organization are themselves notable, the President of Stanford University is on the advisory board for example. GE Healthcare have signed up as partners with Embrace to distribute the incubators 4 5 along with international recognition for the organization, it's product and mission. 6 7 8 9 Originating from a university class two years ago they are now a few months away from distributing the incubator which will be helping to save the lives of the most needy infants. It is not only notable, it is noble. Jørdan 11:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Embrace (incubator), or better yet, to Neonatal incubator, which need not redirect to the Equipment section of Neonatal intensive-care unit, but rather be a Main Article of that section. Agree with Jordan that the rest is just a rewrite issue. I have taken the liberty of rewriting; someone may want to add back the names of the founders, or other changes, as I wrote it with the 'Neonatal incubator' article in mind. Anarchangel (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 06:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, maybe move- the product looks notable, and the article provides interesting information. It needs a rewrite or a restructure, not deleting.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unclear scope. There is no "generally accepted" criteria that determine which schools are included on the list. It is permissible to create a list based on a reliable source, but it must be made clear that its scope is delimited by that source (such as mentioning the source in the title) and it must be shown that such distinction is significant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of New England prep schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Previous AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New_England_prep_school
There are no valid inclusion criteria for this list, which is essentially a content fork from List of boarding schools. As formulated, this is not a list of all college preparatory schools or college preparatory boarding schools in New England, but rather is a list of a group of schools that a Wikipedian has deemed (without citing sources) to have a certain "allure" due to their "breadth of academic, athletic and extra-curricular opportunities" and "large endowments which rival many universities." Wikipedia does not exist to allow the students and alumni of certain schools to create vanity pages to advertise that their school has a particular elite status. The information on founding dates and enrollment could be incorporated into List of boarding schools, but otherwise the article should be deleted. Orlady (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose there is a large literature on the importance of these New England prep schools, and the list is very useful indeed. These schools are especially important as feeders to Ivy League colleges, and as an entry point for elites. See Ronald Story, "Harvard Students, The Boston Elite, And The New England Preparatory System, 1800-1870," History of Education Quarterly, Fall 1975, Vol. 15 Issue 3, pp 281-298; James McLachlan, American boarding schools: A historical study (1970); Arthur Powell, Lessons from Privilege: The American Prep School Tradition (Harvard University press, 1998), all of which focus on schools in this list. Rjensen (talk) 20:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that the venerable prep schools of New England have had a major role in American society, but that doesn't change the fact that the main determinant of the contents of this list seems to be the personal opinion of contributors who decided which college preparatory boarding schools in New England are elite enough to belong on the list. Without clear inclusion criteria and sourcing, this list does not belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore, "usefulness" alone is not a sufficient reason to include unsourced content. (See WP:Arguments to avoid.) Over a year ago, in the previous AfD, I wrote:
- Delete unless a strong source is found: The article as it currently exists has a lot of truth in it, but is essentially original research and it is strongly infused with POV. The topic is not "New England prep schools" in general, but rather the subset of elite and exclusive New England prep schools. There are many more preparatory schools in New England that aren't on this list, presumably because they enroll only girls (e.g., Miss Porter's School), aren't considered quite so elite as the ones on the list (e.g., Berkshire School), or are strictly day schools (although the article doesn't indicate it, the schools mentioned are all primarily boarding schools). If this definition/categorization can be supported by reliable sources (not including The Preppy Handbook or similar cruft), then keep it, but don't keep it unless there is a third-party source for classifying schools in the manner of the article.
- Nobody has stepped forward since that time to document the basis for this list. --Orlady (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Orlady admits the list is useful and important and seems to have suggestions to add to it. Wikipedia has thousands of articles in which the topics covered are selected by the editors--indeed, millions of such articles. Every major history article, for example, contains a SELECTION of facts chosen by the editors. This selection process is integral to Wikipedia and is not considered "original research." the sources that document the article are listed and are standard RS. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The schools that I named are listed on the comprehensive List of boarding schools, but were not (as of October 2009) listed in this New England prep school list, which is stated to require some sort of elite status for inclusion. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe Rjensen edited his comment or maybe I didn't read it carefully the first time. Words are being put in my mouth -- I don't see where I "admitted" that this list is "useful and important." I have admitted that that the topic is real, but I have not said that this list is either useful or important -- not that either of these is a sufficient reason for including content in Wikipedia. I have said that the list is a content fork from List of boarding schools, that it lacks clear criteria for inclusion, and that no one has ever identified a sourced basis for determining what meets those unidentified inclusion criteria. Furthermore, I submit that the selection of information for inclusion in Wikipedia articles is supposed to be based first and foremost on what has been published on the topic by others (i.e., reliable sources), not the personal opinions of the contributors. --Orlady (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The schools that I named are listed on the comprehensive List of boarding schools, but were not (as of October 2009) listed in this New England prep school list, which is stated to require some sort of elite status for inclusion. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Orlady admits the list is useful and important and seems to have suggestions to add to it. Wikipedia has thousands of articles in which the topics covered are selected by the editors--indeed, millions of such articles. Every major history article, for example, contains a SELECTION of facts chosen by the editors. This selection process is integral to Wikipedia and is not considered "original research." the sources that document the article are listed and are standard RS. Rjensen (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am well aware that the venerable prep schools of New England have had a major role in American society, but that doesn't change the fact that the main determinant of the contents of this list seems to be the personal opinion of contributors who decided which college preparatory boarding schools in New England are elite enough to belong on the list. Without clear inclusion criteria and sourcing, this list does not belong in Wikipedia. Furthermore, "usefulness" alone is not a sufficient reason to include unsourced content. (See WP:Arguments to avoid.) Over a year ago, in the previous AfD, I wrote:
- Oppose concurring in the reasoning and conclusion of Rjensen. Safiel (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Rjensen's passionate defense notwithstanding, the defining paragraph is heavily POV and completely unsourced, as it was in the prior AfD over a year ago. Not a single entry on this list has - or, it seems, ever has had - any inline citations sourcing it as an official "New England prep school," presuming such sourcing existed, which of course it doesn't. That an entity known as the "New England prep school" exists in the public imagination can be sourced. That certain schools are perceived to be among their number can likely be sourced as well ... but I challenge anyone to come up with a sourced, generally accepted definition necessary to sustain a list that cannot apply to most (if not all) New England boarding schools, however much the antiquity, price tag, prestige and allegiance to the Social Register of any given institution might fall short. This absolutely fails WP:NOR - upon what source does Rjensen rely upon to determine which schools belong on this list, after all? Ravenswing 22:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous rankings out there. Which schools make the most prestigious list is a matter of debate, but several reliable sources have offered objective estimates based on admission rates to Ivy League colleges, endowments, and reputations. See "America's Top 50 College Preparatory High Schools" from "Prep Review" Forbes Magazine in 2010 listed its top 20. Forbes used a statistical combination of the school's student/faculty ratio, percentage of faculty with advanced degrees, size of its endowment, and the percentage of recent graduates who matriculated into 10 top colleges.See Forbes 2010 List. It's like listing politicians --Wikipedia can include 2 million people who ever held office or -- much better-- we can give the most important ones in the judgment of editors and experts. The POV comes from schools that don't make the cut and don't want Wikipedia readers to know that. (and no, I never attended one) Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but then you're shifting the goalposts. This article is not named "List of leading private high schools located in New England according to Forbes". It's "List of New England prep schools". That presupposes (a) there is a generally accepted, reliably sourced definition of prep school, (b) that ALL schools meeting that definition get listed, and (c) that there is something about New England prep schools that's significant enough - and can be sourced as such - to be a valid content fork from the already extant List of boarding schools. Your premise of "making the cut" is utterly, completely subjective and cannot be used in an article ... unlike lists of politicians, say, for which WP:POLITICIAN gives some clear-cut criteria. Ravenswing 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some precedent for creating Wikipedia articles about "best" lists that have been developed and published by reliable sources. Examples include Forbes list of billionaires, Law school rankings in the United States, List of United States graduate business school rankings, and HEEACT – Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. Although those articles include lists, the primary topic of these articles and College and university rankings is the lists themselves (which lists presumably have been deemed to be notable topics), and not the entities named on the lists. Forbes creates a lot of lists, but not all of their lists are notable (indeed, I question some of the list articles I ran across just now -- I wonder why Forbes Magazine's List of America's Best Colleges has an article, and while I think that Forbes Global 2000 is notable, the article does not establish notability by showing third-party attention to the list). Notwithstanding the fact that the current article is not about the Forbes list, I don't perceive the Forbes list of top prep schools as one of their notable lists. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, exactly; I've been involved in one of those articles myself, concerning a Top 100 NHL players of all time list published by The Hockey News. Its survival hinged on exactly that point - that the list itself was considered a big deal in the hockey world, extensively quoted and written about in many newspapers and books. Ravenswing 15:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some precedent for creating Wikipedia articles about "best" lists that have been developed and published by reliable sources. Examples include Forbes list of billionaires, Law school rankings in the United States, List of United States graduate business school rankings, and HEEACT – Performance Ranking of Scientific Papers for World Universities. Although those articles include lists, the primary topic of these articles and College and university rankings is the lists themselves (which lists presumably have been deemed to be notable topics), and not the entities named on the lists. Forbes creates a lot of lists, but not all of their lists are notable (indeed, I question some of the list articles I ran across just now -- I wonder why Forbes Magazine's List of America's Best Colleges has an article, and while I think that Forbes Global 2000 is notable, the article does not establish notability by showing third-party attention to the list). Notwithstanding the fact that the current article is not about the Forbes list, I don't perceive the Forbes list of top prep schools as one of their notable lists. --Orlady (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The RS are agreed that there are prestigious NE prep schools that--for 200 years and today--have been linked to the Ivies and to American elites. Ravenswing now suggests that the article should re renamed with "prestigious" added, and that makes sense. It does NOT make sense to deny the existence or importance of these schools. Rjensen (talk) 04:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Err ... I'm almost tempted to refactor part of the above comment; obviously, I made no such suggestion. Beyond that, it is not within Wikipedia's remit to "deny" or validate the existence or importance of these or any other schools. It is Wikipedia's remit to base articles on its policies and guidelines, a subject Rjensen has completely ducked in favor of a WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument. Ravenswing 10:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but then you're shifting the goalposts. This article is not named "List of leading private high schools located in New England according to Forbes". It's "List of New England prep schools". That presupposes (a) there is a generally accepted, reliably sourced definition of prep school, (b) that ALL schools meeting that definition get listed, and (c) that there is something about New England prep schools that's significant enough - and can be sourced as such - to be a valid content fork from the already extant List of boarding schools. Your premise of "making the cut" is utterly, completely subjective and cannot be used in an article ... unlike lists of politicians, say, for which WP:POLITICIAN gives some clear-cut criteria. Ravenswing 03:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are numerous rankings out there. Which schools make the most prestigious list is a matter of debate, but several reliable sources have offered objective estimates based on admission rates to Ivy League colleges, endowments, and reputations. See "America's Top 50 College Preparatory High Schools" from "Prep Review" Forbes Magazine in 2010 listed its top 20. Forbes used a statistical combination of the school's student/faculty ratio, percentage of faculty with advanced degrees, size of its endowment, and the percentage of recent graduates who matriculated into 10 top colleges.See Forbes 2010 List. It's like listing politicians --Wikipedia can include 2 million people who ever held office or -- much better-- we can give the most important ones in the judgment of editors and experts. The POV comes from schools that don't make the cut and don't want Wikipedia readers to know that. (and no, I never attended one) Rjensen (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 06:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I must agree with the nominator regarding the inclusion criteria. I also find the recent edits seemingly trying to justify this actually make it worse - e.g. "Which schools make the most prestigious list is a matter of debate". A matter of debate for who? What list are we talking about - the wikipedia one or ones that other publications have done etc. In addition the sources that have done a list of the best prep schools do not limit it to New England so there are prep schools from other areas. If there is something about New England prep schools in particular then an actual article (rather than a list) could be written about that, provided of course that it is documented in RS. The other alternative is to list all prep schools from New England rather than being based on editors opinions on which ones are important. Quantpole (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Isaac Trumbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nothing establishes claimed notability or even really why he is a person of interest from this era Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As stated in the article, he was considered to be a significant figure in Utah's unusually contentious and drawn-out statehood efforts. The sources currently cited in the article are skimpy, but Google Books turns up hundreds of hits[10] that cite his importance, and Google Scholar turns up a 1973 article in the Utah Historical Quarterly that goes into considerable detail about him.[11] Admittedly he's no Brigham Young notability-wise, but still seems like a legitimate subject of interest in the context of Utah history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can fold that into the article, I would be happy to withdraw. As is, it looks just like a name pulled from a who's-who with a cool pic.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, unfortunately, now that you brought it up and I looked at it more closely, the picture that was in the article was evidently the wrong Isaac, shorthand inventor Isaac Pitman. There is a photo of beardless Isaac Trumbo at the Utah state history website[12], and it's perhaps public domain because of its age, so maybe we can add that one instead, if Wikipedia guidelines permit. I did add the reference to the article about him.-Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nom, admin please close.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn Mhiji 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In Your Dreams (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:NALBUM. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER as well. Mhiji 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Added lots of information, is now notable per all categories. PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is legit, confirmed by record company [13] PinkFunhouse13 (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Full professor at a University of California, Berkeley (a top-rated research university), wrote a text that is held in major libraries, widely cited, good enough sources, etc., is sufficient to meet notability both generally and specifically. Listed at AfD for 11 days. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- John Lindow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Academic who does not meet WP:PROF according to what sources I can find Yngvadottir (talk) 01:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This person has hardly revolutionized the field and does not meet Wikipedia standards of notability. Pucamann (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Looking on our encyclopedia we seem to be using him an awful lot as a source on a whole range of Scandanavian mythology articles and the like (see Special:WhatLinksHere/John_Lindow. This seems largely thanks to the extremely productive efforts of one of our major and highly productive editors User:Bloodofox in this area. He is also the author of this page on Prof Lindow.
- Lindow's Handbook of Norse mythology according to Worldcat seems very widely held (if I have done this correctly) and appears to me a standard work. His books and their holdings, coupled with our use, appear enough to be indicative of notability. Perhaps we need more publications of his and their reviews on his page and this may help. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but Norse Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Rituals, and Beliefs is a new edition of A Handbook of Norse Mythology, the one you added. See his departmental page, where his other publications are listed. I agree he is cited a lot here; I think that may be a bit of recentism, or American localism. Rudolf Simek's Dictionary of Northern Mythology (translated) is an equally good resource, and Gabriel Turville-Petre's Myth and Religion of the North is also good and probably still more widely cited across the Atlantic, though it's a bit old now. But in any case the standards for academics do not include "widely cited on Wikipedia". I'm hoping someone can come up with evidence that his other books - listed on that departmental page - have been very influential. Or that his dissertation was (as in the case of Claus Krag). I just can't find any such evidence, and although the department just got its first named chair, he isn't the inaugural holder, so he doesn't meet that criterion either. I also found no evidence that he is well known as a spokesman by people outside the field - the Google hits on him just don't meet that high threshhold. I can think of a couple of better known academics in the field on whom I can't find enough and therefore have held off on writing articles. Hence the nomination. That particular book may be useful in referencing articles, but that isn't enough for him to have his own article.Yngvadottir (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prestigious lectures: Do you think the "Western States Folklore Society"'s "important event in the Society’s Meetings is the invitational Archer Taylor Lecture Series, given by a folklorist of note." And I think our Prof Lindow gave this is in 2007 - might meet wp:prof 1 (via "invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series;") ?
- Or perhaps even better this The 1997 Triebel Lecture organised by The Australian Academy of the Humanities: The Triebel Lecture: ?
- Also "Elected Corresponding Member, Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy (Uppsala, Sweden), 1977" (Msrasnw (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep. GS h index of 9 for a little cited field suffices WP:Prof#C1. Appears to be an acknowledged authority in the field. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak keep per the Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy and WP:PROF#C3. But sourcing is slim. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Indeed it is, and I'm afraid the reviews of his books merely establish that they exist, unless Jacqueline Simpson said something useful about him in one. I see you found his cv, thanks! I was hoping that would turn up. But I still don't see his dissertation topic identified. The Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy election is at the lowest level, so I, not one of the levels that are limited in number, so I don't agree that it meets that criterion. The one thing that looks as if it might is the Triebel Lecture, but that's on folklore and he has apparently never been invited to give the Dorothea Coke Memorial Lecture by the Viking Society for Northern Research. So perhaps he can squeak by as a folklorist, which appears to have been his initial field? That is a larger field, but maybe someone has said something usable about his folklore dictionary? By the way, while I appreciate Xxanthippe's point, I am not sure of the utility of citation indices in the field of Norse; so much of the work is non-English-speaking, and there is a further bias towards US publications in Google Scholar, for one. His Norse work is overwhelmingly survey works, which is a problem with citation indices anyway, but academia and therefore our inclusion criteria give more points for original work. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since it is pretty clearly established that he meets WP:PROF, I think some explanation of my relist might be warranted. The specialized notability guidelines exist for a reason. As WP:ATH puts it: "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources." Meeting WP:PROF suggests that there are likely reliable sources that we can use in writing his article. Because searches have indicated the opposite, I think it is worth exploring if those sources actually exist. NW (Talk) 03:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not agree with the comment above. All of the cites in Google Scholar are from reliable sources. With an h index of 9 there are at least 81 of them (9 squared) and a detailed count gives a lot more. The claim of a lack of sources is without foundation. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong keep. I've found reviews of his books by Guy Tassin, Jacqueline Simpson, Rochelle Wright, William Hansen, Frank Hugus, Michael Barnes, Joseph Harris, Paul Schach, Stephen A. Mitchell, Anatoly Liberman, Henry Ansgar Kelly and W. Edson Richmond in reliable, peer reviewed journals; many appear to be the standard works for this field, which covers Criteria 1 for WP:ACADEMIC. This, along with coverage in the Albuquerque Journal, his membership of the Royal Gustavus Adolphus Academy (which surely passes Criteria 3) should demonstrate notability. He has published standard works, and it is ludicrous and counterintuitive to have a situation where I could write an article on say, Murder Vengeance among the Gods: Baldr in Scandinavian Mythology with a dozen sources, have that accepted as notable (obviously), do the same thing with every other book he's published, and then see consensus form that the author of said works is not notable. Guidelines are "generally accepted standards that editors should attempt to follow", though "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". If C1 and C3 are not enough, this should certainly constitute an exception. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, his works are not the standards in the field - they are the latest American entries in the field and Hilda Ellis Davidson's and Rudolf Simek's - and to some extent Gabriel Turville Petre's - are all still commonly cited. Unlike those 3 scholars, he does not appear to have any other distinctions in the field of Norse mythology or the wider field of Old Norse studies. If the reviews say he is the foremost scholar in the field today or something else useful, that can be put in the article. Those with better library access than me, please look and see. (I would name Ursula Dronke and Margaret Clunies Ross as both having better claim to distinction in the field - and of course there are also scholars publishing primarily in languages other than English, in particular Gro Steinsland.) He may be distinguished enough in folklore - again, if anyone can lay hands on references to support such a claim in addition to the fact he was chosen to give that lecture in Australia, that would work for me. But I can't see any such things, and it is after all not surprising that his works get reviewed by others of the few people still working in Scandinavian folklore, mythology, and medieval lit. Especially since they have been mostly aimed at the general reader. (But so were Ellis Davidson's works, Simek's Dictionary, and Turville-Petre's Myth and Religion of the North.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the above editor has some specialist axe to grind. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- No, I just know the field (unless that's what you mean by specialist!). Someone has now very kindly created articles on the 3 scholars I named above, and I've begun improving them, but we can have articles on all major scholars in any field - WP:NOTPAPER. As I mentioned, in my view we might be able to justify keeping the article on Lindow if either someone with better library access than me can find useful material in those reviews and/or the citations you have tabulated; or a further piece of data on his folklore scholarship can be found indicating his prominence in that field. I just do not see the evidence that he is in the first rank in Norse mythology; as I say, I suspect the fact he is based in the US has led to his being cited here disproportionately often (and likely biases Google results too), and I don't see evidence that that corresponds with his influence in the field. I still disagree that he meets WP:PROF in fact. But his dissertation has now been found, the article is better than it was - and I had searched for stuff about him - and I'd be delighted if it winds up meriting being kept. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Yngvadottir, I'm glad you liked the three little articles and thanks for tidying them up and your work on Icelandic things. But I am not sure that Lindow's thesis - that you wanted and I added - made much of a splash. I had hoped to change your mind to a keep but anyway. The US bias is inevitable when many editors are based there and the sourcing and many international things are so US centered. I think the best way to go is to try to save so many of the non-US notables that struggle in the Afd's rather than by deleting any marginal US ones. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- No, I just know the field (unless that's what you mean by specialist!). Someone has now very kindly created articles on the 3 scholars I named above, and I've begun improving them, but we can have articles on all major scholars in any field - WP:NOTPAPER. As I mentioned, in my view we might be able to justify keeping the article on Lindow if either someone with better library access than me can find useful material in those reviews and/or the citations you have tabulated; or a further piece of data on his folklore scholarship can be found indicating his prominence in that field. I just do not see the evidence that he is in the first rank in Norse mythology; as I say, I suspect the fact he is based in the US has led to his being cited here disproportionately often (and likely biases Google results too), and I don't see evidence that that corresponds with his influence in the field. I still disagree that he meets WP:PROF in fact. But his dissertation has now been found, the article is better than it was - and I had searched for stuff about him - and I'd be delighted if it winds up meriting being kept. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that the above editor has some specialist axe to grind. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 04:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennis May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be an autobiography without independent sources since all sources seem to be either from him or the organization he heads. Claims of being national champion are unsupported. Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MANOTE. An autobiographical vanity page that Dennis created almost exactly three years ago and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 08:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I consider the subject to be notable in real life, and believe the claims to be truthful, but I also recognise that it could be difficult to find reliable sources (particularly electronic ones) to support this article. I could probably locate some printed sources if I had the time and inclination to go through my library, but at this point I think that deletion is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Janggeom (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We've had this discussion before about the difficulty in sourcing martial arts articles. If, at some later date, you can provide reliable sources then I hope you'll recreate the article. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed we have. Hopefully, someone in New Zealand will get to this first, otherwise it could be a long time, as there are other things I am aiming to get done first. Janggeom (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I got a decent number of ghits for him, but I didn't see sources that I believe pass WP:RS. I found no independent verification of his national titles. Astudent0 (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-promoting and non-notable. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 03:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not pass WP:Verifiability. Kugao (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sean De Burca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. Google News has four hits, and I wonder if that album, announced in 2008, was ever released outside of MySpace. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - of the four sources cited above, the first is clearly not about the subject as he wasn't alive in 1955, the 2nd and 3rd merely are local reviews, and the last is about a sports match. Just to be thorough, I checked Google and found a lot of false hits. There appears to be two such not-yet-notable musicians with the same name - one from Galway, Ireland (see [14]), and one from the United Kingdom (see [15] and [16])! The other Sean de Burca is a teenager who is surely an up and coming musician, and has played recently in Tunbridge Wells, which indicates he's starting to play gigs around the British Isles. However, neither is notable as a musician, as from what I can tell, as neither have actually toured. I wish them both good luck, and who knows, the younger guy may be notable in another year or two, at which point I'd be glad to re-create the article. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your thoroughness, Bearian. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. ww2censor (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Modern Sports Karate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable style of karate that lacks independent sources and fails to meet WP:MANOTE. The only possibly independent source in the article merely says this system is good because it frees Europe from Japanese style karate (whatever that actually means). No proof is given for the claims that this style's movements are "optimized" or superior to other styles of karate. Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To me, the article does not indicate why the subject should be considered notable. It is interesting to note that the organisation is supposed to be active in New Zealand—while I am not denying that this might be true, I certainly have not heard of it, and I think I would have if it were notable. Janggeom (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not finding anything that shows me this martial art is notable and it lacks independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources = no notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tomaž Tekavec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No claim of notability, no reference that he even exists or is important Planetscared (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced BLP with no real claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violates WP:BIO and WP:GNG. No reliable and third-party references that I could find. Some self-published work, but that fails WP:RS. DubiousIrony yell 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure). JJ98 (Talk) 18:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chowder Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be CRYSTAL. No sources or evidence to establish the notability. JJ98 (Talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unreferenced, fails WP:NFF. There is some speculation about this movie in fan forums but nothing at reliable sources. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oh look, yet another unsourced mess of an article from someone who created the original unsourced mess of an article that was Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show and has an absurdly long list of copyvio issues. No sources, CNCruft, and films based on animated cartoons would rarely come out in theaters in November, much less this one. Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 04:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —JJ98 (Talk) 04:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete supposed future movie not on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON#Films. Maybe when it gets some coverage... but not yet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 no evidence that it even exists. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Brislington. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carmel Christian Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy declined. Article does not include an assertion of notability, and I didn't find sources clearly demonstrating notability with my own search. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think "Carmel Christian Centre is one of the largest churches in size of its Congregation in Bristol" might be the weak argument for notability that saved it from speedy, but it is only sufficient if we intend to write an article on every church of similar size in the world. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, Carmel Christian Centre did get quite a bit of coverage in two reliable sources. One of them is this one, and the other is the famous Channel 4 programme that did a documentary about their "interesting" take on Christianity. Since we base articles on what reliable sources write about them, this ought to get a significant mention if the article stays. But I'll wait and see how badly anyone wants to keep this article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think that the Telegraph article establishes the notability of the organisation. It mentions the school run by the centre in passing, but most of the article is about the rise in fundamentalist Christianity in Britain. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to Brislington (where it is) as a new "churches" section. The church sounds as it if is locally significant. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redemption Song: The Ballad Of Joe Strummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Book with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Major book from a major press on a major subject, with plenty of RS out there demonstrating notability. Classify as stub. Qworty (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could provide said reliable sources, that would be good. If not, there's absolutely no verifiable content. Ironholds (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs expansion but is obviously notable given a Google search: NPR, New York Times, The American Conservative, Mother Jones, Seattle Weekly, PopMatters, Paste, Times Daily, Los Angeles Times, York Daily Record, SPIN. Undoubtedly a poor article that should have had more in it when created, but there's also little doubt that this is a suitable subject for an article.--Michig (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in line with Michig's sources. Ironholds (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - maybe not as notable as Our Band Could Be Your Life (which thankfully has "no elvis, beatles, or the rolling stones"[17]), but certainly notable enough to keep. Editorially, I'd also like it to be integrated somehow into appropriate places in the Clash/Strummer articles. I don't know if there are other notable bios that should merit mention there as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Abdulkhabeer Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established. Specifically does not appar to have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Wkharrisjr (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not verify a key point : he is not on the list of either regular [18] or adjunct[19] or visiting [20] faculty at Nova Southeastern Law School. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero hits in Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete I'll paste my prod rationale: nothing in the article makes a strong case for notability. professor at a not-so-great university, nothing published in google scholar. basically nothing in google news. can't find any good sources in normal google. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.DrPhosphorus (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless some really good refs appear suddenly. Doesn't seem to be anything much of note anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 02:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marlton Circle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Circle is not notable enough to have an article on its own. Information is already covered in the List of traffic circles in New Jersey, New Jersey Route 70, and New Jersey Route 73 articles. Dough4872 01:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge into list. On its own, this subject does not meet WP:GNG, but the overall list does. Imzadi 1979 → 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of traffic circles in New Jersey --Admrboltz (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some quick searching for sources turns up the fact that the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Courier Post, and the Burlington County Times have been giving blow-by-blow coverage of the project to replace Marton Circle for almost ten years, now, and that there are sources for a far more detailed history of the subject, covering the rise in projected costs, the various originally scheduled completion dates, and the various protests and objections raised along the way, than is given here or anywhere else in Wikipedia. And that's without even mentioning Olga's Diner, which brings even more about the subject to the table. ☺ This seems like a short stub with ample scope for expansion given the years-worth of coverage. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A simple search in Google News / Archive for "Marlton Circle", as Uncle G described above, turned up several dozen articles in newspapers which have been covering the saga of the Marlton Circle in excruciating detail for decades, in coverage that is about the circle, its traffic nightmares, the political battles over possible solutions and the ongoing multi-year construction project to redesign and eliminate the circle amid the swirling opposition of local businesses who are still pushing for an at-grade alternative to the flyover included in the NJDoT's plans. I've expanded the article a bit and added several sources, and the article makes a more than credible claim of notability backed by ample reliable and verifiable sources that are distinctly about the circle itself. Alansohn (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that this information is not worth covering, I am just saying that the information can be covered elsewhere. All the information about the circle reconstruction can be mentioned in the History section of the Route 70 and Route 73 articles. In addition, List of traffic circles in New Jersey can list pertinent information about the circle. Alternatively, Marlton Circle can be covered as a section of the Marlton, New Jersey article, this is similar to how White Horse Circle is covered in White Horse, New Jersey. Dough4872 16:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize that this could be added to other articles. Unlike White Horse Circle, which had no sources at all provided before (or after) it was turned into a redirect, Marlton Circle has several sources already included in the article, which are all part of very extensive coverage of and about the circle itself that can be found by the dozens at Google News / Archive. While a merge combined with a redirect would preserve the content, I believe that the level of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the Marlton Circle itself makes a strong case for independent notability of the standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you believe Marlton Circle is notable enough for a standalone article, then try to help improving the article from a stub by adding a description and history section. Otherwise, we do not need a permastub on the topic and it should be merged then. Dough4872 17:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recognize that this could be added to other articles. Unlike White Horse Circle, which had no sources at all provided before (or after) it was turned into a redirect, Marlton Circle has several sources already included in the article, which are all part of very extensive coverage of and about the circle itself that can be found by the dozens at Google News / Archive. While a merge combined with a redirect would preserve the content, I believe that the level of coverage in reliable and verifiable sources about the Marlton Circle itself makes a strong case for independent notability of the standalone article. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that this information is not worth covering, I am just saying that the information can be covered elsewhere. All the information about the circle reconstruction can be mentioned in the History section of the Route 70 and Route 73 articles. In addition, List of traffic circles in New Jersey can list pertinent information about the circle. Alternatively, Marlton Circle can be covered as a section of the Marlton, New Jersey article, this is similar to how White Horse Circle is covered in White Horse, New Jersey. Dough4872 16:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Work done by Alansohn has shown that there are sufficient sources to support the article according to the WP:GNG. I would also note that even if the circle is scheduled to be eliminated, WP:NTEMP would provide for keeping the article as a stand alone, and not merge/redirect to something less. Since sources exist, the stub can be expanded through regular editing by any editor. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep enough reliably sourced info for stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep as per reasoning above. Tinton5 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With the significant secondary coverage, it does seem to pass WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SmallBASIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is non-notable -- SmallBASIC hasn't received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Basically, the only people talking about this are the people who created it and people using the SmallBASIC forums. The only references are to the SourceForge repository. The only external links are to the SourceForge repository. That's just not enough -- anyone can say anything they want about their own project, to be notable requires that other people or other independent sources talk about you or reference you in some way. Banaticus (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Guy Macon 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For those who are looking for references to SmallBasic, try searching along with the words "Palm" and "PalmOS." SmallBasic has always been a lot more popular on PalmOS than it has been on desktop OSs. Also be aware that Google may try to be helpful by searching for "Small Basic" instead of "SmallBasic". Putting quotation marks around "SmallBasic" helps. Guy Macon 22:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added a reception section, and a bit from Tech Republic. They wouldn't even mention it unless it was notable. You can't expect any long reviews for software that basic. Dream Focus 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: a 108-word mini-review is hardly "significant coverage". Little indication that this package has received coverage of any depth, perhaps due to the fact that it is clearly meant as only an introductory programming tool, lacking much in the way of I/O facilities or commands. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As for coverage, there is a mini-review of it here, [ http://gnosis.cx/publish/programming/palm_languages.html ], 91 posts about it in the comp.sys.palmtops.pilot and alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot USENET groups, ([ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.palmtops.pilot/search?group=comp.sys.palmtops.pilot&q=smallbasic&qt_g=Search+this+group ], [ http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.palmtops.pilot/search?group=comp.sys.palmtops.pilot&q=smallbasic&qt_g=Search+this+group ]), and the SHToy linux shell for PalmOS is written in SmallBasic. Guy Macon 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong speak 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nowhere near enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. If we can't expect any significant reviews for software this basic, then we shouldn't expect an article on Wikipedia for software this basic either. SnottyWong speak 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your notability argument, but i don't understand your "software this basic" argument. Altair BASIC, Commodore BASIC, Integer BASIC and GW-BASIC are all far more basic than SmallBASIC is. Why doesn't the "we shouldn't expect an article on Wikipedia for software this basic" argument apply to them? Guy Macon 18:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those forms of BASIC date from a time when computers themselves were a lot more primitive and tended to use more unsophisticated programming languages.They are of historical interest. Additionally, computers were far less ubiquitous, so there tended to be fewer programming languages (and variants of them) available -- so each one tended to be more notable. SmallBasic was written long after computers outgrew Basic, and during a period where there are hundreds of programming languages (and variants of them), so has garnered very little notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment about the software being basic was intended to be a response to Dream Focus' comments above. SnottyWong gab 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those forms of BASIC date from a time when computers themselves were a lot more primitive and tended to use more unsophisticated programming languages.They are of historical interest. Additionally, computers were far less ubiquitous, so there tended to be fewer programming languages (and variants of them) available -- so each one tended to be more notable. SmallBasic was written long after computers outgrew Basic, and during a period where there are hundreds of programming languages (and variants of them), so has garnered very little notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a lot more notable than a lot of other stuff on Wikipedia. 92.28.241.29 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The reception section has been expanded and a few references have been added since most of the above delete/keep comments were made. If you wish to convey that you still hold the same position, I believe that you can do so by deleting the user name and putting in a new ~~~~. Guy Macon 02:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrote the intended application section. Please check my work and edit as needed. Guy Macon 13:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a former BASIC programmer myself, I can see the merit of this software, and I can see that the rescue effort has improved the article. I have updated the template to say it is class=Start.--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Brown (translator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person represented in biography requested on this page. Also, does not contain any reliable sources, thus failing WP:GNG. Logan Talk Contributions 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, violates WP:GNG and WP:BIO. My only concern is that I am not involved in the literary field, and with 'Andrew Brown' being such a common name it was difficult to search for sources or citations. If anyone can point to sources which satisfy WP:RS I will reconsider. DubiousIrony yell 00:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One fact article. It says he is a French to English translator and gives a list of books he has translated. Ironically the only way he is going to get secondary coverage to establish notability is by making a mistake in his work and causing a controversy. Good translators don't get noticed. Sorry about that. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a translator of great historical and cultural importance: Constance Garnett. But note that her imperfections form the main "meat" of the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Borderline notable, would be worth keeping if A) sourced and cleaned up better and B) User/subject didn't request it be deleted. Isn't there a policy or guideline about this? I know there's a category about this. --MrRadioGuy P T C E 22:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on MrRadioGuy's post. The issue of subject requesting self-deletion is a thorny one but from what I remember, previous AfD discussions have set the precedent that the subject of an article has little say in whether their article stays or goes. If there is libelous, NPOV material then the article may be cut down to a stub but aside from that, self-deletion requests usually carry little weight in AfD discussions. There's an interesting article in the Signpost on this. We've had similar requests in the past, notably Angela Beesley's self-nomination and Seth Finkelstein seconding his nomination for deletion. Both articles passed AfD at the time. Hope that helps. DubiousIrony yell 01:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's hard to imagine someone who is merely a translator being notable per WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are many translators who have had a tremendous influence on their cultures. Martin Luther comes to mind as one of the most important. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't matter. This guy obviously isn't Martin Luther--who, in any case, wasn't known primarily as a translator, LOL. Qworty (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agustín Boje-Ordóñez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NTENNIS. has not played to a suitable level. LibStar (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- José Checa-Calvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:Notability (sports) for tennis players (has never played an ATP Tour tournament main draw match, has not won any ATP Challenger titles, and was not a world top three ranked junior or junior grand slam event titlest Mayumashu (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2011 (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) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete has not played ATP Tour therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Recreate when/if the athlete becomes notable in the future. Kugao (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Riley Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notale actor and singer. None of his roles has been as a major character, mostly halfway down the list of characters roles. And there is no article about the band he's in. There are no reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 04:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ANYBIO. Won a CAMIE Award in 2005 for his role as Johnny in Radio
Rob Laird in the television series Drive. Quite prolific as an actor. Among his many film and TV roles, I note 5 episodes of Freaks and Geeks as Todd Schellinger, 3 episodes of Gideon's Crossing as Derek Fitzhugh, 9 episodes of Raising Dad as Jared Ashby, 6 episodes of 24 as Kyle Singer, 2 episodes of Summerland as Tanner, 5 episodes of Joan of Arcadia as Andy Baker, 6 episodes of Drive as Rob Laird (the CAMIE Award). In notable television series, not every actor can be first-billed at IMDB... specially for those series that have been on for a while (first come = first served) but his meeting WP:ENT[21] and his meeting WP:GNG[22] show the article is emminently improvable... and what can be fixed need not be deleted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Actually the award was for Radio (film), but as part of the ensemble, not as an individual. That means "Man Number 3" would equally be a winner on any film that might win an award. Corvus cornixtalk 23:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect assertion. The CAMIE Award was not presented to the film nor to "Man Number 3". It was presented to the production company, executive producer Todd Garner, director Michael Tollin, screenwriter Mike Rich, and actors Cuba Gooding Jr., Ed Harris, Riley Smith, Alfre Woodard, Brent Sexton, S. Epatha Merkerson and Sarah Drew. Out of the 61 cast members of the film, 54 were not so recognized nor singled out for recognition. Just icing on the cake of already meeting WP:ENT through multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the award was for Radio (film), but as part of the ensemble, not as an individual. That means "Man Number 3" would equally be a winner on any film that might win an award. Corvus cornixtalk 23:21, 9 January 2011 (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) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Starred in two series and New York Minute; it doesn't matter what else he may have been "Extra 83" in, a starring actor in a major film and television series is always notable. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Starred"? Corvus cornixtalk 22:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He starred in Drive. Doesn't matter if it was bungled, it aired episodes in the United States, thus it is a starring role. Nate • (chatter) 08:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Definitely passes WP:ENT. I mean, how many more roles do you need him to play ? --Ezhuks (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note what began as a one source BLP,[23] has now gone through improvements and sourcing,[24] to make it more suitable for Wikipedia. I stand by my keep per the individual meeting WP:ENT, WP:GNG, and pushing at WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:ENT though roles and coverage in RS. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of characters in Sesame Street. Possibly convert into a disambiguation page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Betty Lou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this character is significant enough in the Sesame Street world for its own article. She's already covered in List of characters in Sesame Street D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of characters in Sesame Street. Jørdan 13:45, 7 January 2011 (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) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of characters in Sesame Street, for the NN reason brought up by nom. DubiousIrony yell 00:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and convert to a given name dab page? There are a fair number of Betty Lou's out there, including Betty Lou Who. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marc Engelhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject lacks notability. The article currently lacks references. Even Google can find no useful information that can be regarded as an authoritative source. Dolphin (t) 06:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dolphin (t) 07:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Dolphin (t) 11:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neither English nor German Google provide any Ghits for this Marc Engelhardt. Spanish Wiki article is unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSN, and WP:BAND. --Kudpung (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - google.com found sources (not wp mirrors) for "Marc Engelhardt" bassoon, and google.de found results for "Marc Engelhardt" fagott. I've added three references. - Pointillist (talk) 22:26, 7 January 2011 (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) 00:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References have now been found and added. WP:MUSICBIO doesn't fit classical musicians very well, but this guy has held a permanent position as principal, performs frequently as a guest principal and soloist, and has taught widely. Particularly for a less prominent instrument, this is a distinguished career. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael W. Allen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Created in 2006, yet looks like an advertisement still. There are no second or third party sources available for the person or his company. This is promotional only. — PROD text by Markdask (talk · contribs) converted to AfD by — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like a combo ad/resumé/press release. I searched for the subject in the Biography and Genealogy Master Index (BGMI) and found 6 entries, all exclusively in the Marquis Who's Who in America for 1994-1997, 2000, and 2001. A problem is that the date of birth is listed as 1948 and the article states DOB for Allen to be 1946. So either there are NO BGMI entries, or there's an error in the article or the source. Even if this IS the 1948 Allen, and this source is considered one of the more authoritative of the Who's Who products, this is the ONLY source BGMI is citing. The lack of an entry since 2001 is a good indication that the subject stopped purchasing the volume and was dropped by the publisher (I speak from personal experience). Lacking other authoritative third party cites as to notability leads me to conclude this WP:BLP should be deleted. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I envy your command of the subject Quartermaster. MarkDask 19:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm fully aware that this article, in its current form, is pants. However, the topic is clearly N, and IMHO the article can be saved. I'm working on spherical tokamaks right now, I'll do this one next if given the chance. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Maury has the right experience to make this encyclopedic. MarkDask 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change from Delete to Neutral. I don't have strong feelings on this and if this can be rescued, I see no hurry to delete. The subject is in sore need of third party authoritative cites. Spherical tokamaks, eh? Bravo! --Quartermaster (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy as Maury Markowitz is willing to work on the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2011 (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) 00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if he was the chief architect of Arthurware, he's notable DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Movor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely minor fictional character without any independent notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Would make most sende to redirect/merge to List_of_Transformers:_Robots_in_Disguise_characters#Commandos_.28Combatrons.29. Mathewignash (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mergeor Delete minor characterDwanyewest (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established by any reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)#Series Six. fomne redirect for the merge so anything sourced can be moved over Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC) He has appeared on several TV show since this and now presents TV in his own right. Surely valid for his own topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petersneldon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuart Baggs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person only famous for appearing in the 2010 The Apprentice show. An outline on Baggs already appears in the official Wikipedia list of candidates. This is written in a slanted form, and not NPOV. Myosotis Scorpioides 15:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does not meet WP:BIO. Merge any useful additional content to List_of_The_Apprentice_candidates_(UK)#Series_Six. Mhiji 15:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect: to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)#Series Six. He is not notable enough for standalone article. Mattg82 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect: to List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)#Series Six. He is not notable enough for his own article. He attracted a bit more attention than the other candidates at the time, but that died off pretty quickly once the series ended.--KorruskiTalk 16:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Kleine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing particularly noteworthy about this baseball player. Being all-conference doesn't entail encyclopedic notability, and all of the sources are DePauw athletics website/media guides (or his Facebook profile..give me a break). I suspect the creator was Matt Kleine himself. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing notable about this person. Spanneraol (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this individual fails notability by a mile. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major League scouts are notable. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Kinston eagle.Delete Per Spanneraol and Giants2008. Alex (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Teams employ tons of scouts... we've never considered scouts by themselves to be notable before... also his status as a "scout" is not confirmed by any sources and he is also listed as an "intern" with the Astros... how on earth can we consider this guy to be notable? Spanneraol (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Checked WP:NSPORTS before coming here, and it has no guidance on whether scouts for MLB teams are notable. Without a clear statement there that scouts are notable, I don't feel comfortable making that assumption. The sourcing in the article isn't strong enough; of the nine references, eight are to primary sources, and the ninth, which cites that he is a scout, is to Facebook. A Google News search turned up one story in the Indianapolis Star that looked useful, but I don't think that's enough. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I also agree that Major League Scouts should be considered notable, and the references in the article appear to demonstrate that he passes WP:GNG. Kugao (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source that he is an "associate scout" is a facebook page, the team website doesn't mention him so his status as a scout is highly questionable. And all the other sources are from his college website. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Farrah Sarafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a living person with negligible references; one footnote is to a 2006 article in Finnish that mentions the subject in only two paragraphs, and the other footnote is a broken link to an unreliable source. None of her awards are referenced, which makes notability = 0. I googled and found no indication of notability. This bio was the subject of a complaint at BLPN, which is how I got involved. I proposed it for deletion, and it was undeleted here by an admin who suggested using AfD instead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a quick search found one source to support part of the article and suggested that a more extensive search could support the rest. There is not much in the article and cetainly nothing controversial. Weakopedia (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non-notable. Notability neither asserted nor demonstrated. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO. Qworty (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's a complete load of rubbish, and throwing out some wiki-acronyms is no substitute for substance in debate. Weakopedia (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Qworty said that before Robman added a bunch of sources, and even after Robman did so he said his "keep" was "weak". So I don't see any need to blast Qworty.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that's a complete load of rubbish, and throwing out some wiki-acronyms is no substitute for substance in debate. Weakopedia (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I just searched and found a bunch of references, which I have added to the article. It's debatable whether she's notable enough for Wikipedia, but she's more than "not notable". Robman94 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Strawbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Album didn't chart, wasn't certified, includes no previously unreleased material, hasn't been reviewed by anyone. Utterly fails all notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not a notable album, with only one review by Allmusic to speak of. Mattg82 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Have to agree; and I'm a Strawbs fan (and wrote part of the article). Have seen many more less deserving cases for inclusion though. Witchwooder (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - It has received a basic review from AllMusic (which I will add) and in my opinion that confers a basic amount of notability for inclusion in this encyclopedic project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inclusion in allmusic, even a review there, does not indicate notability as the purpose of that site is to be exhaustive. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection: The Best of Jody Watley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources besides a short Allmusic review. Album didn't chart, wasn't certified, didn't include any new material. Utterly fails all notability criteria for albums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - It has received a basic review from AllMusic and in my opinion that confers a basic amount of notability for inclusion in this encyclopedic project. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inclusion in allmusic, even a review there, does not indicate notability as the purpose of that site is to be exhaustive. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not an original work, which would be notable . I think the standards of notability for a mere repackaging would be higher than a mention at allmusic or any other website, as would be for any other class of material. The review in allmusic just amounts to a track listing--perhaps because there is nothing to review--the list of songs tells everything necessary or possible to be said. If NOTDIRECTORY has a meaning, it applies to such catalog information. Allmusic is a RS for factual information, not notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The only editor supporting keep has agreed there are no adequate sources to fulfill the notability criteria DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dolores Bernadette Grier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable. All the RS I can find on her are passing mentions - no Google News, no JSTOR, a couple of mentions in Google Books but generally as president of an organization rather than as a notable figure in her own right. (Note that I also tried "Dolores Grier," without the middle name.) The article itself has apparently been lacking in reliable sources since its creation - I'm amazed it's stuck around this long. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BK, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:BIO. Just a non-notable private person who happens to be against abortion. That's not enough to justify an article. Qworty (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The article itself makes no case for her notability - it just quotes her from a couple of non-notable sources. But there may be more to her than appears in the article. She gets a certain amount of coverage at Google News for being an activist and an official (Vice Chancellor) with the New York Archdiocese. I'm not sure this amounts to significant coverage, but she is not a nobody. See, for example, [25], [26]. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read the second one, but the first one doesn't constitute significant coverage. She has a position, yes, but I doubt that every sub-head of every department in every archdiocese is automatically notable. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said they were. The discussion here is about the notability (or not) of one individual, not of a class of people. I'm inclined to agree with you that her coverage doesn't add up to notability, but I gave some links here since others may disagree. Meanwhile, there's no point in refuting arguments nobody has raised. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I misunderstood your comment - I thought you were saying that she was inherently notable in her official capacity, rather than that news has covered her in that capacity. Which it has, as I saw when I looked her up before nominating, but not to a degree that satisfies any notability requirement. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody said they were. The discussion here is about the notability (or not) of one individual, not of a class of people. I'm inclined to agree with you that her coverage doesn't add up to notability, but I gave some links here since others may disagree. Meanwhile, there's no point in refuting arguments nobody has raised. --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I initially closed this discussion as "delete" but have reopened it on request from someone who wishes to make a "keep" argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Qworty. Primary claim of notability is having supposedly written a book, but it's difficult to verify whether this book even exists, much less is notable. It doesn't seem to even be on Amazon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:BIO, "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards... 2.The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" - Grier is a notable activist on the subject of race and reproductive rights. Her comments and opinions on the subject are quoted at length - http://books.google.com/books?id=TcIDAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA16&dq=%22dolores%20grier%22&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=%22dolores%20grier%22&f=false - and - http://books.google.com/books?id=8lPH4qIscpsC&lpg=PA108&dq=%22dolores%20grier%22&pg=PA108#v=onepage&q=%22dolores%20grier%22&f=false - and in several other books found through a Google Book search. As I'm at work, I can't solely focus on fixing this article, but I believe there is more on her out there, she is notable and it is fixable. ManicSpider (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know we've already been past this on your talk page, but for the benefit of anyone else reading: no, trivial mentions do not satisfy WP:BIO, not even quotes; no, "widely recognized contribution" means that someone has recognized her contribution, which no reliable sources appear to have done; and no, if she was notable, she would have received coverage that satisfied the notability criteria. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concession It appears that the consensus is clear. At present I can not find any more sources that would fulfill the necessary criteria. I had thought that I could make fix the article, but given the sources I can find I'll agree it doesn't argue for significant coverage. My apologies for any inconvenience. - ManicSpider (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Manicspider. Dwain (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment. Closing admin should note that ManicSpider has retracted his "keep" vote (or if I'm misrepresenting your views, MS, I apologize and I'll remove this comment). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having difficulty putting it that way, because I believe she is notable. However, I cannot find significant coverage in independent sources, the independent part posing the strongest hurdle. I put a note on the admin's page informing them of my inability to find said sources, so they should be along shortly. (Oh, and technically "her 'keep' vote" ^_^) - ManicSpider (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh god I'm sorry. Usually I use gender-neutral pronouns but for some reason I thought you were male - I must have thought I'd interacted with you in the past, but I guess that was another user with a username that was similar in some way. Anyway, I've struck my comment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having difficulty putting it that way, because I believe she is notable. However, I cannot find significant coverage in independent sources, the independent part posing the strongest hurdle. I put a note on the admin's page informing them of my inability to find said sources, so they should be along shortly. (Oh, and technically "her 'keep' vote" ^_^) - ManicSpider (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.