Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 20
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gōzoku (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. Attempting to introduce term into English which is not common. This has nearly an exact corollary in English (or other European) history. That of liege lord. (Note that lack of references not an issue for this nomination except one that defines it as having entered the English language!). Student7 (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Rather than being "an attempt to introduce term into English", this is a term long used by scholars writing in English about Japanese, and sometimes Chinese, history, and here are a few examples:
- The ancient samurai
- Above the Clouds: Status Culture of the Modern Japanese Nobility
- Tenno seiji - Japan studies: Studies in Japanese history and civilization
- Heavenly warriors: the evolution of Japan's military, 500-1300
- A history of Japan, Volume 3
- Japan, sport and society: tradition and change in a globalizing world
- A history of law in Japan until 1868
- State and society in early medieval China
The topic is notable in English language scholarly usage, and the article should be kept and improved rather than being deleted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, it could be described for each article where absolutely required. Not sure it is needed at all. Japanese are "much closer" to their medieval period than Europeans and seem to feel that all terms regarding it are unique to Japan, when many, if not most, are not unique, but in all medieval society. A few have already entered English and these are fine to use. English (not unlike Japanese) is a "language sponge." English likes new words. But it is not up to Wikipedia to introduce them. They must be in the language already. Demonstrating that it is in scholarly books, does not, for this purpose, show that it is part of the English language. Student7 (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a historically and academically significant term, used in most books discussing the Kofun period onward, earlier than medieval history. More information can be translated from ja:豪族, which introduces some of the earliest Japanese clans.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe it is significant Robjp21019 (talk) 22:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The question is not "is the material under Gozuku significant?" The question is: "Is gozuku commonly used as a term in English, having been ported from the Japanese?" A secondary question is: "Will the policy regarding the use of commonly used terms in English" be enforced or not? Student7 (talk) 01:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to be a notable topic specifically in the Japanese context. Needs expanding, like all stubs. As to the title, if there is no established "English" term for this (specifically Japanese) subject, then we have no choice but to use the Japanese term (and it appears from the above list that multiple other academics have already done the same).--Kotniski (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Student7 asks "Is gozuku commonly used as a term in English", and in response, I would say that yes, this is the common term used in English for discussing this specific topic in Japanese history. Student7 also ask "Will the policy regarding the use of commonly used terms in English" be enforced or not?" My response is that I see nothing about the title or the article itself that violates the policy WP:TITLE, Can you please quote specific policy language that you believe is violated here? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 1. It is a clear violation of WP:ENGLISH. 2. It is not in general use in English. 3. There are multiple acceptable terms for it in English. 4. Wikipedia is not the place to insert terms not widely in general use in English. 5. I doubt that 1% of English speakers have even heard this term and that fewer can define what it means without prompting. "Snurtlefarb may be a common term for a cane used to beat kangaroos in Bohemia." That snurtlefarb is the common term somewhere else is not the problem. The problem is that it is not English, nor used generally in English. Student7 (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But there isn't any term "generally" used for this specific concept in English, so we have to make do with what we have available, and the original Japanese term is a perfectly good solution. Most people don't know what the term means; but of the (small minority of) people who are aware of the concept probably do know the term that denotes that concept (or if they don't, would be very glad to find it out).--Kotniski (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to an appripoate English language term. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Japanese and European feudalism may be analogous, but they're not identical. The term is country-specific, and not an exact synonym. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Linguistically speaking, the English language adds more foreign origin words into its own more than most. In fact, the English language has 12,000 words to describe things in the Arctic alone. Most of which were taken directly from the local Inuit language. If there is no perfect "one to one" translation for Gōzoku, then Gōzoku should stay. --Larp30 (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And that is a problem for Wikipedia. We are not supposed to help the process (make reality). We are supposed to document it. The problem with being an Anglophone is the affinity for foreign words. This attitude is pov for this case. Not in http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gozoku . That is a problem. A serious problem which can only be answered by deleting this until or when it enters English. Editors do not create English anymore than they "invent" new articles. We document what has happened already. Gozoku is not in the English dictionary. Only one or two editors have attempted to answer this question so far, which is the only question. Student7 (talk) 22:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is not a Dictionary of Basic English. --Hegvald (talk) 22:58, 27 November 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) 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Theatr Taliesin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
not notable theatric company Off2riorob (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I had to click on everything in the stub because nothing looked familiar. You didn't credit The Scotsman in a reference section. That can be fixed but again, unless this theatre is a part of something important, this article isn't. WylieCoyote (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:55, 25 November 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. v/r - TP 00:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of International Cameroon football players 2011–12 Season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed by IP with no reason given. This article is an absolute mess - no references, no purpose. Fails WP:LISTCRUFT IMO. GiantSnowman 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. The article is pure cruft. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreferenced list cruft. JoshyDinda (talk) 19:04, 27 November 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) 00:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Center for Vein Restoration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article contains no references to independent sources, and I have been unable to find any independent reliable sources with more than trivial passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My quick search also showed nothing more than a sentence here or there in reliable sources, although I haven't checked for articles in their hometown newspaper. Even if those exist, though, I think it (like most similar clinics) will still not meet the standards at WP:CORP. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 25 November 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. Notability established after vandalism reverted. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exile Parade (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 does not indicate notability of the subject and is very uninformative. -- MisterMorton (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article had been vandalised before it was nominated for deletion. I have manually reverted the article and the current version is now OK. Racklever (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Had already noted this previous version, although I happen to follow the band's bassist on Twitter (being a fan of playing the bass myself, I follow people with the same interests) and his username is the same as the person who appears to have deleted all of the information - not sure why. -- MisterMorton (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is shown by RS now that the vandalism has been reverted. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Still confused about why it seems that one of the band's own members has done this to the page... -- MisterMorton (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2011 (GMT)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 November 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 American Horror Story characters. v/r - TP 00:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vivien Harmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable television character - little to no notability outside American Horror Story. Completely unreferenced. Tried redirecting to the main series article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this character does not warrant a stand-alone article. It's too early in the series to say she's significant enough for a stand-alone article, especially since there doesn't appear to be any coverage or analysis of the character in secondary sources. If the other AHS characters had similar descriptions, I would recommend merging to List of American Horror Story characters.
In the absence of such a page, however, delete this article.—C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC) revised 00:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] Delete. There isn't anything about this character that would warrant an article to itself. If it was a page of AHS then maybe, but definitely not this character by herself. (Especially since it's been hinted that the second season will focus on an entirely different cast of characters.) At most this would warrant a redirect back to the series.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this and other non-notable characters into the list that C.Fred proposes above. The absence of such a list is not a compelling reason to overcome WP:ATD, since this material can clearly be sourced to primary sources, the show is clearly notable (if new), and we generally cover non-notable elements of a notable fictional franchise in list form. Regardless of all of this, this is a plausible search term, that demands, at the very minimum, that a redirect to the show exist, and there's no obvious reason to delete any of this content (vs. simply hiding it under a redirect) if the eventual outcome of this AfD is redirection. Jclemens (talk) 06:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (move?) to List of American Horror Story characters. Upon reflection, Jclemens brings up a good point, that this is material that we normally cover in articles on similar TV shows—it's material that's within the guidelines of the TV WikiProject, etc. to cover it. The best solution probably is to stub in the other characters and expand the list, rather than delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough coverage for a stand alone article. Another option can be to Incubate till we have a article like List of American Horror Story characters. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I created a page for the characters for AHS, but it needs an incredible amount of cleanup. I tried to remain as encyclopedic as possible, but writing character pages isn't my strong point. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Changing !vote to Redirect to List of American Horror Story characters. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 29 November 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. v/r - TP 01:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob Baird (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 indication of meeting notability guidelines. Only independent source is to a local radio show. noq (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:53, 25 November 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. Consensus seems split between keep and redirect. Since a merge/redirect discussion can happen on the article's talk page, I'm closing this as no consensus. v/r - TP 01:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Austenasia (7th nomination)
- Austenasia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable micronation. Majority of the references are to primary sources or user-submitted sites - little significant coverage from independent sources. Google search on "Austenasia" shows only one result. Standard search shows a lot of unreliable sources, wikis, and primary sources - again, no significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should have checked for the prior discussion - this should have been speedy deleted as a recreation. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Kugelmugel, is there *any* sources for that? And Republic of Saugeais? InTheRevolution2 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)— InTheRevolution2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I will not be commenting on weather this article should be kept or not, but I checked the original deleted article, and went over the original AfD, and the content is essentially the same, and therefor eligible for deletion under G4. I find it odd however that deletion of micronations has been such a mixed bag, and won't be deleting the article under G4. The AfD was two years ago, and consensus may have changed. If it has not, this AfD might be a precedent for other micronations (as the mentioned Kugelmugel). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [1][2][3] JORGENEV 21:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - #2&3 of your cites are local coverage, and one of them uses Wikipedia for a source - hardly significant coverage, IMHO. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of micronations, which already covers the topic. Edit history should be preserved. Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- REdirect to List of micronations, whose content already contains as much as one could conceivably want to merge. I do not understand the referecne to a civil war: is this a house divided? Or has the "state" declared war on the UK? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Several references in international publications, including a book. Well known in the Carshalton community, as the letters page of the local paper shows. The civil war comprised of one of the houses in Austenasia "rebelling" against the capital over the issue of who should be monarch, an issue solved after a referendum. Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Austenasia is clearly a notable micronation. As the sources cited verify, their Prime Minister has had a conference with a British MP, and so on. We have an article on Atlantium et al, so I really cannot comprehend why we should not have an article on Austenasia.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 19:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of micronations. The micronation by itself doesn't have enough reliable sources or information in general to justify its own article. -Lithorien (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of micronations. Its writeup there is all that needs to be said about this micronation. Not notable yet for a standalone article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of micronations. WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument in AfD's. I'd like to point out that WP:GNG requires significant coverage- which means that the first of Jorgenev's links doesn't qualify the article as notable. The second two provide some coverage, but merely in local newspapers. Just because their so-called PM met with a British MP also doesn't mean that it's notable. The only sources listed in the article are either unreliable or local.--Slon02 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Except for the Italian and South Korean newspaper articles, I presume you mean? Qwertyuiop1994 (talk) 10:59, 28 November 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_X_Factor_finalists_(UK_series_8)#The_Risk. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Risk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just another eliminated act on The X-Factor. No idea what makes them so different from any other eliminated act. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect somewhere sensible, i.e. the series. Obviously doesn't merit an article but a valid redirect.--Michig (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Naturally, I'd support a Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)#The Risk. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing notable except being rejects from X Factor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reli source (talk • contribs) 22:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. If they manage to continue to get coverage after this series finishes (unlikely but possible), that's when they can be considered independently notable. Until they, their only real claim to notability is association with The X Factor. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as it was before. No notability outside of The X Factor. –anemoneprojectors– 15:07, 21 November 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. Fulfills both WP:GNG and WP:CORP (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Borenius & Kemppinen (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 : Non Notable law firm. Fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP Mtking (edits) 19:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep?== Size and prominence in Finland makes ability to fulfill wp:notability likely. North8000 (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, size, branches, and noteworthiness yield notability in this particular case. — Cirt (talk) 19:59, 22 November 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 hoax by Martijn Hoekstra. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- .rl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Top-level domain of a fictional country. PaoloNapolitano 18:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as an obvious hoax (CSD#G3) SpitfireTally-ho! 18:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Hoax.--Ben Ben (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. The name of the creator of this article is Hwardphillips (talk · contribs), a pretty clear reference to Howard Phillips Lovecraft, author of the fiction in question. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a very blatant hoax. Last I heard, Canaanite fertility gods weren't involved with the internet. Joefridayquaker (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - shouldn't go through AfD, really Pundit|utter 19:13, 20 November 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. v/r - TP 01:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Florence (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 at both WP:ARTIST and WP:ENTERTAINER. Effectively an unreferenced WP:BLP as sole citation is not to a WP:RS. Current body of work is not well known or the subject of independent articles or reviews. Subject's Twitter biography links to this article suggesting WP:COI under WP:SELFPROMOTE. Exok (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Media activity within one country is always awkward, but Mr Florence's body of work is well-known within Scotland, and I think he has just enough across various achieved projects to be regarded as notable. There has been Scottish media discussion on why various comedies, including Florence's, have not been taken up elsewhere: see for example this article in The Glasgow Herald from May (requires registration). However that may be changing with his Burnistoun being shown by the wider BBC network. I've added some references (not the best and in need of improvement, but a start). There is also this sketch/news story with which people may be familiar. AllyD (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks real-world notable, and ability to find more sources to establish wp:notability is likely. North8000 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AFTER of User:AllyD that shows meeeting WP:ENT and WP:GNG. One does not need world-wide notability to show real-world notability, and such sourcable notability, even if primarily to Scotland, is perfectly fine for Wikipedia. While a poorly referenced BLP is always of concern, we do better to not judge improvable articles by their current state but rather to judge them based upon available sources and a serious consideration toward what can be accomplished through cleanup and regular editing, and then proactively address such concens ourselves rather then request a removal because someone else had not yet done it. Kudos to AllyD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Schmidt's statement - "we do better to not judge improvable articles by their current state but rather to judge them based upon available sources" - is one of the most sensible things I have ever read at an AFD. I remember some truly horrific AFD decisions back in the early days of Wikipedia, when articles were simply deleted because someone took a strong dislike to the User who created them, rather than to available academic sources which could establish notability. One of the worst examples I have ever come across was this travesty back in 2007 (if any Admin fancies furnishing me with a copy of the deleted text, I plan to properly establish notability, fully referenced; he was a far more notable figure than eg. Robert Florence!) --Mais oui! (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that. I do not in any way wish to marginalize real concerns toward BLP issues, but only stress that we should all strive for the better ways to address such, with proactively fixing the problem properly being at the top of the list of options that improve a growing Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Schmidt's statement - "we do better to not judge improvable articles by their current state but rather to judge them based upon available sources" - is one of the most sensible things I have ever read at an AFD. I remember some truly horrific AFD decisions back in the early days of Wikipedia, when articles were simply deleted because someone took a strong dislike to the User who created them, rather than to available academic sources which could establish notability. One of the worst examples I have ever come across was this travesty back in 2007 (if any Admin fancies furnishing me with a copy of the deleted text, I plan to properly establish notability, fully referenced; he was a far more notable figure than eg. Robert Florence!) --Mais oui! (talk) 05:37, 21 November 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) 00:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ultimatum (American 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 notability and seems like self advertising. Basileias (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on WP:MUSIC#5 - "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" This band has released albums on Rowe Productions and Massacre Records. Lugnuts (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not convinced the band meets criterion #5. It's the important indie labels, not just ones that have articles on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Rowe Productions doesn't look like an important label. There's litle mention in Google news, books, scholar and images. Bigbird6 (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC, agree with above editor regarding Rowe Productions. JoshyDinda (talk) 19:06, 27 November 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: hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Princess Charlotte of Snowdon (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 strongly suspect this is a hoax. Neither of the sources given mention Charlotte as a daughter of David Armstrong-Jones. Wikipedia's own article on Armstrong-Jones notes his two children are The Hon. Charles Patrick Inigo Armstrong-Jones and The Hon. Margarita Elizabeth Rose Alleyne Armstrong-Jones. Google searches turn up (so far) nothing to indicate Armstrong-Jones has a daughter called Charlotte. Prod was removed by an IP without comment so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 17:30, 20 November 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) 00:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott Waters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Profound lack of sources and there is no evidence of significance. More along the lines of advertising self. Basileias (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Ultimatum (band) if that article gets kept. There's no significant coverage about this singer. I did find this mention. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No mention in Google news, books, scholar, or images. Bigbird6 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 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 by User:Sphilbrick under G12 as unambiguous copyright infringement of the official website. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maltman's Green School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather promotional article with just one (primary) source. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a copyvio from http://www.maltmansgreen.com/5-history-of-the-school/ -- Whpq (talk) 15:14, 22 November 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. I'm sorry Faizanalivarya but the consensus here is that this department is not notable at this time. However, there wasn't sufficient discussion on the others to ring them up too so the decision on those is no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Department of Sociology, University of Karachi (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. —Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is not our practice to consider university departments notable unless they are actually world-famous, which is not the case here. I'm not sure what the exact qualifications would be, but I would consider being recognized as one of the top three or four in that subject world-wide would be necessary. I would be willing to expand it a little, but not by much. It's a matter of practicality--there would be about a half million articles, and, while Wikipedia is not paper and we could physically cope with it, it would not provide very much information beyond what the departments provide themselves and the articles would almost always be a paraphrase. With respect to the GNG, I think there are very rarely sources except for such departments. I have often argued in terms of interpreting the "substantial" and even "independent" parts of the rule flexibly, and I continue to do so; but I mean flexible in both directions. In the case of covering the university itself, I would be very liberal in what I would accept as sources; in the case of departments, I would be very restrictive. I do not see sufficient sourcing here, or likely to be available, that would even come within a very flexible standard. The Department is already listed in the main article, as it should be, and I do not see the point of a redirect--anyone looking for it here would naturally go to the university article. Anyone wanting more information would naturally go to the university web site. DGG ( talk ) 17:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability by this particular department beyond normal processes. AllyD (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are also articles for Department of Education, University of Karachi, Department of Persian, University of Karachi, Department of Bengali, University of Karachi and Department of International Relations, University of Karachi. Similar arguments are likely to be applicable to some or all of these articles. AllyD (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These should be deleted as well. They are all unnoteworthy departments of the same university which already has its own article. The only references for all of these articles are from the university's website. They're all essentially less informative summaries of certain sections of the university's website.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable and containing only basic info or Integrate with the other articles mentioned if there is somebody ready to volunteer to do the job. Pundit|utter 19:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Message for All Dear friends, I am author of all these articles which are stated above by our friend User:Manicjedi, Its good to identify any article, I appreciated however converting professional clash into personal its not good he reported my user as Sockpuppet as you can see my profile I have created good articles as well such as Halifax Community collage and few others as well and you may see my edit counts too and I honestly respect all the rules and principles of Wikipedia and we all are here to promote and make Wikipedia good place and useful for everyone around the world, but making it personal and reporting something which I have not done its not true, and its not appreciated as well, you all my friends here justify that, Is it correct as he gave the reason which was same IP so let me tell my brother sometimes I do editing from Internet Cafe, It might possible that some one edit it, anyways IN NUT SHELL the bottom of story is, I can allow articles to be deleted however I would like to create articles on Faculties of University, because the faculties of university and let me inform all that, University of Karachi is worlds most prestigious university even current president of United States of America Barack Hussein Obama, has done few courses from university while his visit to Pakistan in his young age, therefore I would request you all to be cooperative please because its not about one individual its all about our own beloved WIKIPEDIA.--Faizanalivarya (talk) 07:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's nothing personal friend, I would gladly support the creation of notable faculty of the University. This is not a comment about your other contributions or your editing abilities, or you personally. It is simply that these particular articles aren't on a class of topics generally allowed on Wikipedia, written by anyone, about any university, in any country. I reported your use of a sockpuppet because I believe process on Wikipedia should not be circumvented. An IP whose only contributions are to 4 articles completely authored by a single user removing valid AfD and refimprove templates is about as squarely within WP:DUCK as I've ever seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicjedi (talk • contribs)
- Delete - I can find no indication that this department within the university is independently notable. The only coverage of singificance I could find was this article alleging that the department ran a "fake" parallel department of criminology. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was going to suggest a redirect to University of Karachi but on second thought I don't think that would be useful. It should be obvious to anyone looking for information about these departments to look in the university article. It's most unlikely that they would being their search by looking under "Department of..." --MelanieN (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I would agree with deleting the other pages mentioned above for the same reasons. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 26 November 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 SNOWed as hoax. delete Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Six families of endor (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 unreferenced, possible hoax. A Google search on "Six families of endor" shows only 5 unique results (7 total), none from reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - either HOAX or ESSAY, hard to be sure which. Connection with biblical Witch of Endor appears tenuous. A strict google search for "six families of Endor" returns NO results. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Seems like a hoax too. Such stuff cannot be included here on Wikipedia. This is an attempt to decrease Wikipedia's integrity. Necromancy and dark magic-related topics cannot be included with no proper reference. It might not make sense to some. This should have been tagged {{db-hoax}}. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 16:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, it was, but another editor removed that tag. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There seem to be no references at all. If this is not a hoax (which it seems to be), then it is not notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Wikipedia is not for things made up one day Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedy, as hoax and thing made up one day. StandFirm (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yeah... no. Wikipedia is not the place for unverified and original research. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete as the subject seems to lack any degree of notability in reliable sources. It is possible that it is a belief of some non-notable or barely-notable group. If that group is notable enough for its own article, the material should be moved there, taking due weight into account. John Carter (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Garbage. Does not look like anything of notability.--Axel™ (talk) 05:27, 24 November 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 userfy to User:Ashliveslove/CorruptionDotGov. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Corruption Gov (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 about an unreleased film with no independent, published sources. It does not establish the notability of the subject. Likely too soon for an article. Prod was contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I've no objection to this being userfied, per MichaelQSchmidt's suggestion. Sparthorse (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was still being written when it was tagged for deletion. Please tell me under which deletion policy it's been nominated for deletion. ASHUIND 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly since the release date changed from 2012 to 2010. As noted in the nominating statement, the article has no reliable sources so is unverifiable by readers. The film is also not, apparently, notable as does not have multiple, independent, published sources that are substantially about the film. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. I'm also confused: the article says the film is called "Corruption Gov" but according to the poster on the article, its called "Conflict of Interest" - any idea which it is? Either the article or the poster is a hoax, or the film has multiple names? This illustrates the perils of an unsourced article - how is the reader to know what is going on? Sparthorse (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia acknowledges itself as a work in progress that does not itself demand immediate perfection, one can certianly understand User:Ashliveslove's concern that prodding HIS ARTICLE for deletion only EIGHT minutes after its creation did not give him A reasonable opportunity to develop his article over time and through regular editing... and now places his contribution under the ticking clock of AFD. As for verifiability, it was easy enough to find that the project began filming in Texas in 2008 under the title Conflict of Interest and I've added that to the article through regular editing. Twarn't all that difficult, and I am involved in doing more... to improve the improvable...and THAT serves the project. At the most, I would have thought a suggestion to the author that he userfy the article while it was under work would have been far more appropriate. And to avoid premature evaluation of his offerings, the author should strongly consider beginning any future articles in a user draftspace rather then main space. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, clearly since the release date changed from 2012 to 2010. As noted in the nominating statement, the article has no reliable sources so is unverifiable by readers. The film is also not, apparently, notable as does not have multiple, independent, published sources that are substantially about the film. Please see WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. I'm also confused: the article says the film is called "Corruption Gov" but according to the poster on the article, its called "Conflict of Interest" - any idea which it is? Either the article or the poster is a hoax, or the film has multiple names? This illustrates the perils of an unsourced article - how is the reader to know what is going on? Sparthorse (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article was still being written when it was tagged for deletion. Please tell me under which deletion policy it's been nominated for deletion. ASHUIND 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find any reliable sources for the film, which seems not not be notable. To clarify, it seems that the name of the film is Corruption.Gov, rather than Corruption Gov. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)See below comment. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. If this film had received a noticeable release, it might well have been notable, but it hasn't. According to both this article and the Internet Movie Database, this film was supposedly released on 1 December 2010, and the IMDb doesn't indicate the release as having been limited [4], implying that it was a wide release. But no box office results were reported for the film that weekend [5], most likely because the film was not released at all at that time. Since this film has not been noticeably distributed and does not have significant media coverage that I can find, I recommend deletion. The article can be re-created if the film does achieve notability in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AKA:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Original title:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Directors:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Main cast:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Main cast:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Userfy back to the author at User:Ashliveslove/CorruptionDotGov, for contined work OUT OF MAINSPACE, as the topic IS verifiable and may well be determinable as passing WP:NF when completed. I will be glad to oversee its growth and improvement away from the ticking clock and I have suggested on the author's talk page that he use userspace for creation of his drafts for new articles, and not mainspace. Let's see what can be done with a little time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to userfication,. Sparthorse (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not doubt the verifiability of the film, I'm just not convinced that it is notable. I have no problem with userfication of articles which would be notable enough for Wikipedia - I'm not yet convinced as regards to this article. I'm not sure that the sources provided establish notability. The closest we get is probably this one; one its own, I don't think notability is established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not entirely in disagreement, as I am NOT arguing the topic notable enough at this time for mainspace. We agree it is not, and if it had been, I would not even have suggested returning it to its author and would instead be arguing for keep. We allow premature articles to be worked on in a userspace, as that is what user sandboxes are for. We do not demand that in-work-drafts be mainspace ready, as that is determined by an entirely different set of criteria. Our taking it out of mainspace and allowing it to be worked on by its author until it is ready is a suitable and far less bitey alternative to outright deletion. Simply put, if he is unable to improve it, it will not be back. And unless we somehow know the future, it is hubris to decide that he will be not be able to improve the article when the finished film is released, specially as its pre-production and filming have proven to be decently sourcable and the article improvable. So in courtesy and good faith, we return it to him and politely say "keep working on it" and "help is available". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You put forward a good case - I would not be opposed to userfy the article, provided it is only move to the mainspace if and when its notability is apparent. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not entirely in disagreement, as I am NOT arguing the topic notable enough at this time for mainspace. We agree it is not, and if it had been, I would not even have suggested returning it to its author and would instead be arguing for keep. We allow premature articles to be worked on in a userspace, as that is what user sandboxes are for. We do not demand that in-work-drafts be mainspace ready, as that is determined by an entirely different set of criteria. Our taking it out of mainspace and allowing it to be worked on by its author until it is ready is a suitable and far less bitey alternative to outright deletion. Simply put, if he is unable to improve it, it will not be back. And unless we somehow know the future, it is hubris to decide that he will be not be able to improve the article when the finished film is released, specially as its pre-production and filming have proven to be decently sourcable and the article improvable. So in courtesy and good faith, we return it to him and politely say "keep working on it" and "help is available". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not doubt the verifiability of the film, I'm just not convinced that it is notable. I have no problem with userfication of articles which would be notable enough for Wikipedia - I'm not yet convinced as regards to this article. I'm not sure that the sources provided establish notability. The closest we get is probably this one; one its own, I don't think notability is established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:58, 21 November 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.
Following substantial changes; the result was keep. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Curtis Mitchell (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 — The subject of the article does not seem to meet our notability criteria for athletes — Fly by Night (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I basically rewrote the article. Mitchell meets WP:NTRACK criteria 8 and 9 and I don't think he has any particular problems meeting WP:GNG; his collegiate career was pretty successful. Sideways713 (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent work! I think the article is not at a satisfactory level. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A sub-20s 200m (confirmed by the IAAF) indicates that he is a world-class athlete, and he was only the 25th American athlete to run below 20s ([6]). --Michig (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neophyte Phenotype (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 album, I tried a redirect to Noah23 but that was reverted, as was a PROD. I can find no RS to support notability, this fails WP:NALBUMS Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://ugsmag.com/2001/08/noah23/
http://www.ukhh.com/oldreviews/nonuk/295.html
http://exclaim.ca/Reviews/HipHop/noah23-neophyte_phenotype
Two of these links are already in the article, you mustn't have looked very hard. In fact I don't think you looked at any of the pages you redirected, seeing as you described several albums as 'singles'. I have no problem with some of these pages being redirected, but since you clearly don't know anything about the subject, and therefore have no knowledge of the notability of these albums, wouldn't the reasonable thing to do be to add a notability tag rather than to go blindly redirecting the pages? Wetdogmeat (talk) 23:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Noah23 Zero indication of wp:notability, zero references. Actually, zero content except for a track listing. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I tried a merge, but that was reverted, so I brought it here. Merge would be the best solution for all of these articles, there are many more. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely not a delete, as the info here is of interest with respect to the notable artist. I've added Reception and References sections to the article, with a new ref or two. Even so, I think it's fair to say that the notability of this album is not overwhelming. The artist has produced a large body work, but many or most of the individual albums are only marginally notable. However, I think that WP readers are better served by keeping them as individual articles, rather than merging into a single discography section that is either unwieldy or sacrifices information. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hobbes Goodyear, WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 14 November 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, Sandstein 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There seem to be reliable sources which do establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:12, 20 November 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 one gets the hat trick. Delete per consensus, per CSD A7, and per CSD G12. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Black Knight Television (BKTV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
{{prod}}
when creator stated Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]"I removed the deletion because I am an instructor of the BKTV class and would like a wikipedia page for the community to learn more about the program."
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The school which sponsors this station doesn't even have an article of its own in Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. See Farmington High School -- the school under discussion is apparently in Missouri, but it's not listed on the disambiguation page nor is there an article at Farmington High School (Missouri). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, db-corp. Hairhorn (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. This article turns out to be about a different Black Knight Television Co. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion A7 because the article does not indicate that the subject holds any importance (while educational institutions are exempt from A7, a program such as this one is not). The article is also quite promotional in nature ("During the school year, students have opportunities to participate in all aspects of television production as they learn the basics of video camera usage, editing, interviewing, script writing, and on-air production techniques… It is broadcast on channel 985 of Charter Communications Farmington Cable TV System. Or, if you have a digital TV, you will find BKTV on Charter cable channel 108.11"). "I am an instructor of the BKTV class and would like a wikipedia page for the community to learn more about the program" is no real reason to contest a PROD, either. Chris (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - the page appears to have been copied and pasted almost in its entirety from here (the school's page on the program) with a few minor modifications made in a feeble attempt at a disguise. As it turns out, the page qualifies for speedy deletion under both criteria A7 and G12, further justifying a speedy deletion. Chris (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage by reliable sources. No evidence it passes WP:BCAST. Also fails WP:CORP. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 25 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Versailles wedding hall disaster (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 Wikipedia:Notability (events). Event has not had historical significance that meets WP:GNG, and although the accident was covered in multiple sources at the time, it has not had widespread impact nor has it been analyzed afterward. Event was a routine news story about an accident that was widely reported at the time but no further coverage gave additional enduring significance. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Worst civil disaster in a nation's history, leading among other things to criminal proceedings that were the subject of further press coverage years later, seems clearly notable. Here's an article from the May 23, 2011 Haaretz revisiting the disaster and the steps taken (and not taken) by authorities in its aftermath.[7]--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant event in Israeli history, not only for the tragic loss of life, but also for the corrupt engineering practices and the legislation which followed. --Shuki (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Israel's biggest civil disaster. Significant tragic historical event widely covered by reliable sources. Event resulted in high profile trials for the involved engineers and had major impact on the development of building codes in Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep. Per the above. Not even close.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable, with long lasting coverage. Rami R 08:09, 23 November 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) 01:09, 28 November 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}} . |
- Ashay Dharwadker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject clearly fails WP:PROF. All of the allegedly important contributions of this "academic" are in self-published vanity presses. A search of Google scholar reveals that none of this individuals papers have been published in the peer reviewed literature, and most of the citations are self-citations. In addition to this, the article claims not only that the subject has written a new proof of the four color theorem, but that this proof implies a new "grand unification theory" of particle physics. In other words, the subject is a crank, and apparently not a notable one. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious crackpot author, and not notable as such. Hans Adler 14:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article. The above two commentators have not provided any evidence for their baseless allegations. In fact, they are violating the [biographies of living persons] policy by making baseless allegations against the subject. In my opinion, this is a very well written article and the subject has made notable published contributions (search for the ISBN numbers). The subject clearly satisfies WP:PROF, see the external link Institute of Mathematics on the subject page. All the references on the subject page are valid, published by Amazon, see the publisher's website here. Semioticity (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Semioticity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- The Amazon link provided cites the publisher of his listed books as CreateSpace, whose Yahoo! blurb starts "Self-publish and sell...an Amazon group." Not the same thing. Dru of Id (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope. Doesn't pass the laugh test. The author has precisely 1 (one) publication in Mathematical Reviews, a 1995 paper on Moufang loops that appeared in Communications in Algebra. (Although the paper is only 10 pages long, the reviewer commented on the amount of detail in the description of the underlying basics, and the result itself appears only marginally interesting.) This paper has a citation count of precisely 1 (one) in Mathematical Reviews.
It is simply not plausible that such a person would be director of a legitimate "Institute of Mathematics" (oh, and he is the founder as well! how interesting! and the "institute"'s internet domain is named after the founder!), or that he produces the kind of break-through research results which this guy publishes with Createspace, a self-publisher. It's impossible to prove the kind of partial results to the P=NP problem claimed in the author's self-published slim books, or a legitimate great unified theory, while remaining in obscurity. Let alone both of them.
Further inspection reveals that is a relatively well known Usenet crank who plays dirty when challenged, apparently using the alias Robert (or Bob) Stewart, as in Talk:Four color theorem/Archive 2.
Now report me for violating the BLP policy if you must. Hans Adler 15:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if this was not self-published, "notability" means that somebody has taken note and there is no evidence of that here. --Crusio (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The only hits for GBooks are in membership rolls for the AMS. The works listed claim to give a solutions a half dozen famous unsolved problems, if even one were valid then it would create quite a stir in the mathematical community, yet there has been no such stir or even publication in a reputable journal.--RDBury (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The only evidence of notability are the (almost certainly false) claims of solutions (or new solutions) to unsolved problems. And those are only in his self-published books. ("Amazon Books", indeed; they seem to be CreateSpace.), If he didn't actually exist, he might be a notable hoax. But, apparently he does exist, making him a potentially notable hoaxer. Perhaps merge to a "Dharwadker" section on Usenet cranks? (No, he doesn't seem to be noted there outside of Usenet. Sorry. Please consider Archimedes Plutonium as much more notable, and not worth of a section, as we can't find anything in the real world about him.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article References are true. All facts in the article are verifiable. Satyatrivedi (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Satyatrivedi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sławomir Biały (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all references are to publications by the subject (and apparently self-published too). Hence there are no reliable, independent sources, fails WP:N. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is possible to be a notable crank but Dharwadker does not appear to have achieved that status, and neither is his work making a significant impact in conventional academia. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. A search brought up nothing that wasn't put out by the author himself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep this article. I improved the last section heading, added inline links to relevant third party resources with editorial reviews for each reference, added citation by Canadian Mathematical Society as external link. BTW, CreateSpace is the business name of the publishing arm of Amazon Inc. The books are available in all major bookstores worldwide and also subscribed to by all major university libraries. Satyatrivedi (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You already voted in this debate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrmph. Amazon sales pages with reader-submitted reviews are not "third party resources with editorial reviews". An entry in "Knot a braid of links" (which comes with the following disclaimer: "The KaBoL linkmaster thinks these sites are fascinating, whether reliable or not. The CMS does not validate their content.") is not a "citation by Canadian Mathematical Society", and CreateSpace is a typical self-publisher and does not even try to hide the fact ("CreateSpace: Self-Publishing and Free Distribution for Books, CDs, DVD", to quote the title tag of their homepage). We are not all fools here, you know. Hans Adler 12:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- +1. I was going to say something equivalent, but Hans said everything I wanted to, only better. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And in fact, none of the books even has a reader-submitted review yet. Which is a pity because someone might innocently make the mistake of buying one of them under the impression that they contain proper mathematics. Apparently by "editorial review" you are referring to the "book description" as Amazon calls it. Let's see what CreateSpace has to say on the matter: "How to Write an Effective Book Description [...] The problem is that many authors have a hard time writing a good book description. The main reason it can prove so difficult is because they don't want to leave anything out. As the creator of the material, there's a natural instinct to find a way to cram all or as much of that material into the description. But too many details can render your description confusing and ineffective. [...] You are not writing your book description as the author. You are writing it as the publisher. Making an impact on the reader is your principal concern. What will move the reader to want to know more about your book? What will motivate the reader to add your book to his or her cart? Write the book description with your head, not your heart. Remember, the book description is marketing material - not literature." [8]
- You are trying to sell us this as "third party resources with editorial reviews"? Have you no shame? Hans Adler 13:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrmph. Amazon sales pages with reader-submitted reviews are not "third party resources with editorial reviews". An entry in "Knot a braid of links" (which comes with the following disclaimer: "The KaBoL linkmaster thinks these sites are fascinating, whether reliable or not. The CMS does not validate their content.") is not a "citation by Canadian Mathematical Society", and CreateSpace is a typical self-publisher and does not even try to hide the fact ("CreateSpace: Self-Publishing and Free Distribution for Books, CDs, DVD", to quote the title tag of their homepage). We are not all fools here, you know. Hans Adler 12:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article The subject of the article is certainly notable. I doubt that Amazon would market the books so aggressively otherwise. Sour grapes!!!! Semioticity (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- You already voted in this debate. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WoS shows just that same (single) paper. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Self-published books do not count. -- 202.124.74.63 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Aside from the sourcing issues, there is no evidence or expectation of notability. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article. In my opinion, the subject is notable among the listed categories. The article is quite well-written and the references and links are verifiable. I object to the AfD. Greenfernglade (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Greenfernglade (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (New user account), And see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Канеюку. Hans Adler 14:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 25 November 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) 01:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Semiotics of the structure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is pure WP:OR. Very few of the references seem to be actually available anywhere. (It seems likely that they are self-published.) The rest of the references do not directly address the subject of the article. A Google scholar search for the exact phrase "Semiotics of the structure" turns up nothing relevant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The combination of references -- which on first sight appear to be either about mathematics or about semiotics, but not about "semiotics of the structure", what ever that is -- looks very suspicious. The entire article doesn't make any sense to me and reads like pseudoscience. Exactly in the same way as Transgressing the Boundaries or most 'legitimate' (and presumably some legitimate) semiotics work also read like pseudoscience to me.
The article, or at least parts of it, appear copied from this source. I can see no indication that anyone other than the author is interested in this stuff. Most likely it's not even wrong. Even if this were a notable topic (under a different name), the article would still be a case of WP:JUNK and of at most dubious copyright status. Hans Adler 14:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete: I tried to find some evidence of notability for this last summer but nothing came up. The article engages in a lot of definition by example, i.e. mentioning some mathematical fact and then claiming that "semiotics of the structure" will reveal some profound hidden meaning behind it. Then somehow the reader is supposed to infer the importance of the idea without knowing what it actually is. A clear indicator of pseudoscience is when something described as having great generality and importance but somehow no one has heard of it; I see no evidence that this ia an exception.--RDBury (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask philosophers/linguists for input. This is not really material that can be reviewed by mathematicians. Thus, mathscinet has no books by Anderson on semiotics at all. Meanwhile, the book "A semiotic perspective on the sciences: Steps toward a new paradigm. M Anderson, J Deely, M Krampen, J Ransdell… - 1984" seems to have a respectable response at google scholar. Tkuvho (talk) 16:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From the very beginning of the debate, this has been cross-listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Philosophy. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Harary's Graph Theory, also cited in the article, is clearly legitimate and just as clearly irrelevant to the article. I suspect it's the same with the legitimate philosophy or semiotics works. You may have missed that the article is just a version of this unpublished stuff, whose author is a co-author [9] of Ashay Dharwadker, on whom see his separate AfD. The two of them appear to have joined forces, making each other members of their respective self-founded 'research' institiutes in Indian and Estonia, respectively. I really don't think we need philosophers or semiotists here. (Let alone serious linguists, who are very similar to mathematicians in approach and have nothing to do with postmodernism.) Hans Adler 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: From the abstract of their joint, self-published work: "We present a new polynomial-time algorithm for determining whether two given graphs are isomorphic or not. We prove that the algorithm is necessary and sufficient for solving the Graph Isomorphism Problem in polynomial-time, thus showing that the Graph Isomorphism Problem is in P. The semiotic theory for the recognition of graph structure is used to define a canonical form of the sign matrix of a graph." Let the two return when their sensational mathematical results proved by means of semiotics have gone through peer review. Hans Adler 16:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The page, if it is to survive, clearly needs to be pruned of WP:OR and unpublished stuff. I agree with your analysis almost entirely, but have the following question. Where in wiki is M. Anderson's apparently legitimate work on semiotics covered? If it is not, perhaps this page can evolve in the direction of covering legitimate work on semiotics rather than the OR you mentioned. Tkuvho (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Turning a fringe article into an article about a legitimate topic is asking for trouble. It's an introduction to the fringer(s) to disrupt that article. Maybe it's worth trying instead of an AfD, but once we have an AfD we need a clear result that can't be used for gaming of the type: "The original article on the topic was at AfD and was kept. Some rogues hijacked it for a different topic, so it's legitimate to recreate it. Notability was already established at AfD." Hans Adler 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page, if it is to survive, clearly needs to be pruned of WP:OR and unpublished stuff. I agree with your analysis almost entirely, but have the following question. Where in wiki is M. Anderson's apparently legitimate work on semiotics covered? If it is not, perhaps this page can evolve in the direction of covering legitimate work on semiotics rather than the OR you mentioned. Tkuvho (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Harary's Graph Theory, also cited in the article, is clearly legitimate and just as clearly irrelevant to the article. I suspect it's the same with the legitimate philosophy or semiotics works. You may have missed that the article is just a version of this unpublished stuff, whose author is a co-author [9] of Ashay Dharwadker, on whom see his separate AfD. The two of them appear to have joined forces, making each other members of their respective self-founded 'research' institiutes in Indian and Estonia, respectively. I really don't think we need philosophers or semiotists here. (Let alone serious linguists, who are very similar to mathematicians in approach and have nothing to do with postmodernism.) Hans Adler 16:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Hans Adler's critique. Tkuvho (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - google returns exactly 15 results, nearly all irrelevant; 1 by Tevet, 1 a wiki. Article seems entirely WP:OR and very close to pure bafflegab, WP:NONSENSE. Since it has few or no reliable independent citations (Anderson, M., Merrell, F., 1991. On Semiotic Modeling. is real but doesn't support the article's theory), delete seems unavoidable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article appears to have been badly translated from Estonian, so I checked the Estonian search string ("Struktuurisemiootika") as well. Doesn't help: this still looks like a big steaming pile of WP:SYN to me.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I haven't completely analyzed the available sources, but Chiswick Chap seems to have the right of it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The phrase "semiotics of the structure" has no significant appearance in the academic literature and the article uses sources dishonestly to make this topic appear much more significant than it is. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as OR by WP:SYNTH. None of the checkable references support the statements in the article (for example, Harary does not say "The system theoretical concept of position coincides with the concept of orbit in graph theory"; similarly category theory, which I have some knowledge of, is not relevant to the article). The handful of GB and GS mentions of the term refer only to semiotics of the structure of a building. The article seems to rely heavily on papers by Tevet which (in spite of the citation) are not online and appear to be unrefereed technical reports not cited by anybody. Furthermore, either Tevet is the author of this article (WP:COI) or it copies verbatim from his website as noted by Hans Adler (WP:COPYVIO). Nothing here seems to be worth salvaging. -- 202.124.73.78 (talk) 09:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COPYVIO (I already voted Delete by the way) - yes, large parts of article are copied from Graphs so we could simply have done a Speedy Delete on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest we keep that argument out of the discussion as it doesn't make a difference. The outcome should be a clear "delete because it's not notable", with no chance to misunderstand it as "delete because it's a copyvio, no prejudice against recreation". Or, given that the person who posted it here is almost certainly identical with the author, he might feel encouraged to officially release the material under an appropriate licence, under the misconception that this can save the article. Hans Adler 11:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. It looks as if we already have enough Delete votes on that basis (including mine). Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest we keep that argument out of the discussion as it doesn't make a difference. The outcome should be a clear "delete because it's not notable", with no chance to misunderstand it as "delete because it's a copyvio, no prejudice against recreation". Or, given that the person who posted it here is almost certainly identical with the author, he might feel encouraged to officially release the material under an appropriate licence, under the misconception that this can save the article. Hans Adler 11:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COPYVIO (I already voted Delete by the way) - yes, large parts of article are copied from Graphs so we could simply have done a Speedy Delete on this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- suggestion: It would be helpful if a closing administrator could specifically mention that this AfD is not meant as a vote of no confidence in the work of M. Anderson and others in semiotics, which may merit its own page, being notable. But this particular version of such a page is not a step in the right direction. Tkuvho (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bad suggestion. Semiotics is a notable subject, and no reasonable person would question that. But why should this article get special treatment? It's like arguing that the closing admin to a deletion debate of mathematics of Boubaker polynomials (recalling the infamous history of Boubaker polynomials) should mention that there is no prejudice to adding content to mathematics and polynomials. It just invites more original research from doggedly persistent single-purpose editors. See Hans' remark above: what we need is a clear "delete" here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But Semiotics is already covered by an article, and there could be articles on other semiotics topics where these are justified by reliable, independent evidence. The issue here is that evidence from sources not connected to the one institute is currently lacking. This is the same treatment afforded to every Wikipedia article, there is nothing special here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a bad suggestion. Semiotics is a notable subject, and no reasonable person would question that. But why should this article get special treatment? It's like arguing that the closing admin to a deletion debate of mathematics of Boubaker polynomials (recalling the infamous history of Boubaker polynomials) should mention that there is no prejudice to adding content to mathematics and polynomials. It just invites more original research from doggedly persistent single-purpose editors. See Hans' remark above: what we need is a clear "delete" here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:59, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Reads like babble. No reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. For God's sake people, Wikipedia obviously needs more daring and innovative content like this — White Gay Man (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I'm all for daring and innovation, but Wikipedia demands reliable, independent sources, and we can't find them for this article. Speaking of independent, do you have a Conflict of Interest to declare here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Originally I thought this should be a delete under WP:NONSENSE, but now I see that I was incorrect and it should be deleted under WP:HOAX instead. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I see what you mean. It looks as if our Indian friend simply invented his Estonian colleague: "John-Tagore Tevet" doesn't sound exactly plausible, the guy is unknown in Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt, there is precisely one image on the net and it's a painting that doesn't really fit the name. The person who registered the domain graph.ee actually has a different first name but the same last name, and also maintains information about an Australian family with a noble sounding name on a genealogy website. Hans Adler 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and a real professor of Indian and South Asian literature at a genuine US university, who happens to share our Indian hero's last name, supposedly co-authored a physics paper with him ("Space, Time and Matter"). [10] It does appear that he simply makes up his coauthors. Hans Adler 19:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I don't deny that the person exists (though I don't promise it, either). But the article does not appear to correspond with anything in reality or in (legitimate) scholarly research. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I see what you mean. It looks as if our Indian friend simply invented his Estonian colleague: "John-Tagore Tevet" doesn't sound exactly plausible, the guy is unknown in Mathematical Reviews and Zentralblatt, there is precisely one image on the net and it's a painting that doesn't really fit the name. The person who registered the domain graph.ee actually has a different first name but the same last name, and also maintains information about an Australian family with a noble sounding name on a genealogy website. Hans Adler 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonsense masquerading as sense. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:35, 24 November 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. Verifiable school meeting WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nabagram Vidyapith (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 unreferenced article looks like a kind of advertisement, and fails to mention why the school is remarkable enough for inclusion. It looks to be written by a student of the school. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Fails the criteria. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - experience shows that with sufficient time and research high schools meet WP:GNG. Indian schools traditionally have a poor Internet presence and to avoid systemic bias time should be given for local sources to be found. This is a significant school with a long history. When, as here, the subject is likely to be notable then progressive development is the best option not deletion. Meanwhile I will clean up the page. TerriersFan (talk) 01:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think two parts of the problem here with Indian schools are, for one, the more florid style of writing, which to Western eyes looks like advertising, and for the other a seemingly great difficulty in understanding that 'no copyright text' really means no copyright text. That, at least, wasn't a problem here. Peridon (talk) 14:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - All High Schools are notable - Wikipedia policyJethwarp (talk) 06:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "All High Schools are notable", but some get deleted as spam or attacks... This one seems to be getting a rewrite cutting out the rather florid language of the original version. Peridon (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are all high school considered notable? Night of the Big Wind talk 10:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same reason as we keep all numbered highways, named bridges, inhabited settlements, fauna and flora, super-regional malls and a number of other instances - some subjects are considered, by their nature, to be important enough for inclusion and experience shows that, with enough research, sources can be found. By adopting some pragmatic rules of thumb we can save scarce resources for dealing with the stuff that really harms the Project. TerriersFan (talk) 14:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are all high school considered notable? Night of the Big Wind talk 10:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Search me. Probably a decree by the Great God Con-Sen-Sus. I can't see why junior schools aren't in the same position, myself, but haven't got worked up enough about it to start a campaign. Peridon (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Junior schools do share the privilege of being exempt from A7. Peridon (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Verifiable secondary school. --MelanieN (talk) 22:31, 26 November 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. We don't delete articles for being stubs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shiv Ram Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little content. Needs Expansion. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 12:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Good Article but needs to improve stubs. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if the article is good it does not meet any of the General Notability Guidelines. It does not cite any references, does not indicate significance, and is a really short article providing hardly any content to a reader. It does not state why an article should be included about it in an encyclopedia. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 17:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have no opinion as to the disposition of this article, must must point out the glaring inconsistency in this nomination. How will deletion assist the expansion claimed to be needed? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : I have added ref and info. Other editors can help adding further reliable info. All localities, Highways, etc fall under NOTABLE guideline[11]. The google news search mentions Shiv Ram Park [12].Further, the Delhi Govt website [13] lists Shiv Ram Park so notability is not an issue here Jethwarp (talk) 16:17, 22 November 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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wilson Hall (Oregon State University) (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 college dormitory, nothing more. There's no evidence that it is so notable that it requires its own encyclopaedia article. Fails WP:GNG andy (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weekkeep. Yeah, just a dormitory I suppose but it is an important feature on campus and its construction and rehabilitation were big events. Also, as a student group it appears to be a significant in the community. There are quite a few RS in article, and given its pre-internet nature it is reasonable to assume their are much more of the same offline. JORGENEV 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Change to regular keep after seeing Category:University and college dormitories in the United States. Such an article is not at all unusual; supported by precedent, so the 'its just a dorm' is unpersuasive. It seems like every single Georgia Tech dorm has an article (see Category:Georgia Institute of Technology residence halls). JORGENEV 12:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nominator stated, dormitories are not notable generally. There is no need to create an article over such a thing as a dormitory. Moreover, the table under "Resident life" is a survey with people's personal opinion — Wikipedia is not to be used to state opinions. Lastly the article fails to explain that dormitory in great detail or why the article was even created. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 17:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just because other buildings exist doesn't make all buildings notable. Nothing has been provided to indicate it is anything but a run of the mill dormitory. tedder (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources don't matter? JORGENEV 08:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources are only part of the picture. Reliable as to what? Many of the dormitories that have their own articles are notable for something in particular such as being historic buildings (Pioneer Hall (Oregon)), having an unusual design (Sage Hall) or simply being enormous (Bancroft Hall). Frankly, a lot of the other dormitory articles ought to be culled too. andy (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources don't matter? JORGENEV 08:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per tedder and andy. A couple of sources identifying the dorm as interesting/significant of itself would be required to establish notability. -Pete (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Oregon State University. There's nothing to indicate this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill dormitory. While we are at it we should also delete Category:Oregon State University residence halls, of which this is article is the only entry! --MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 26 November 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. Article is now encyclopedic after the rewrite. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Longest palindromic substring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Question one: Is the licence "Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0) " suitable for Wikipedia? Because the article is a one-on-one-copy from here. Question 2: is the subject clear and notable enough? It is a bit of a fuzzy subject and I can't make heads or tails out of it. About 8000 Google and zero GNews hits (for what it is worth) and 1 Google Scholar hit. Is this a keep or delete??? Night of the Big Wind talk 12:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Is this a keep or delete???" Well, if you can't provide a deletion rationale based on a policy, then it can't be a delete. So Keep and close based on the fact the nominator doesn't make any arguements for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- aha, a technocrat who only want rules and policies and hates discussions. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rumbled. Lugnuts (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- aha, a technocrat who only want rules and policies and hates discussions. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In spite of there being no justification for that inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lean toward Delete or transwiki to WikiVersity or WikiBooks.It's an article about an algorithm to solve a problem; the problem has some notability (although not justified in the article, itself), but the algorithm does not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I didn't notice the nominator. In spite of the fact I don't agree with him about hardly anything, it still should be "delete". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep, per rewrite. It's now primarily about the problem and noting the existence of a linear-time solution. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sources appear to be about the problem (which is thereby notable) not this particular solution. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteit is a direct copy from http://wcipeg.com/wiki/index.php?title=Longest_palindromic_substring , the current attribution is no way near enough and suggests only part of the source has been copied instead of the entire thing. We don't want to get in the habit of plagiarising entire articles from elsewhere, especially when it so unencyclopedic. If the subject is deemed notable then this entire article can be deleted and replaced by a stub.Polyamorph (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep after re-write. However, the article still incorporates word for word text from the original source and so an attribution is possibly still necessary for that.Polyamorph (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If I'm reading WP:COMPLIC correctly, then the license of the original article on Wcipeg.com is acceptable for reuse on Wikipedia. And I find four apparently relevant hits on Google Scholar (see [14]). Problems with the article should be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While the topic is notable, the content of the article is an essay that reads like a badly written section of an undergraduate textbook. In case someone feels inspired to rewrite the article, consider including a reference to Jeuring's solution expressed in the functional programming paradigm ([15], [16]). --Lambiam 19:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is the topic of multiple research articles and entire sections in two textbooks. I stubbed down the article to something that I hope is an improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and thanks to David Eppstein. The 20 November version that was brought to AfD looks like a draft journal paper or essay (and I say "looks like", 'cause what do I know about math?), but the current version is a perfectly acceptable encyclopedia entry. The essay and sourcing problems are taken care of, though I guess I'll have to leave judgements about notability to people who know the field. Cnilep (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – encyclopedic as rewritten. --Lambiam 06:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep —Ruud 20:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the rewrite. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest speedy closeure as keep I could make heads or tails from the original article. After the rewrite I more or less understand it (but the subject is far out of my comfort zone). The questions about the license are solved, so the answer on my question "keep or delete" had turned into a clear "keep"! Night of the Big Wind talk 10:39, 25 November 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 speedily deleted as re-creation of a previously deleted page, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flair finance. The re-created version was 'referenced' to blogs and self-published sources, and did not address the original grounds for deletion. This and related pages have been protected against re-creation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Flair Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of deleted article with addition of 3 references - one of which is a download site, one is a blog on a free hosting site and the third identifies itself as promotion. No indication of notability in independent reliable sources. noq (talk) 11:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC) Original afd at Wikipedia:articles for deletion/Flair finance. noq (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete As re-creation of an article deleted here. Nothing appears to have changed. The only mentions that I can find are on download sites. There appear to be no reliable third party sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:13, 20 November 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennifer Lim (theatre actress) (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:NACTOR Night of the Big Wind talk 11:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Firstly, I agree with the nominator that the actor fails WP:NACTOR. She hasn't had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". She has, however, starred in a broadway production in what appears to be a notable and challenging role. In the spirit of WP:IGNORE, I suggest that this is a pretty notable actress and deserves to be in wikipedia. Just my 2c, and thanks. Colonel Tom 12:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC) comment - 'Keep' is also supported by WP:GNG, per S Marshall. Colonel Tom 21:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the basis of the coverage already cited in the article, this actress appears to pass the general notability guideline. The nominator points out that she fails a SNG, which is true. Other SNGs that she fails include WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PORNBIO. None of that matters when she passes the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This isn't one of those cases where a barely notable topic scrapes by and we accept it grudgingly. She is a breakthrough star in a highly visible Broadway play Chinglish and her performance has attracted enormous attention in reliable sources. We can safely disregard a strict reading of a notability guideline in this case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've expanded and referenced the article significantly, adding critical commentary on her Broadway performance as well as on a 2009 performance in London in a different play. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Here is a list of filmography credits, including minor parts on seven major TV series. Unscintillating (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per easily meeting WP:GNG. Though perhaps weak on the SNG WP:ENT, the SNGs do not overrule the GNG, nor vice-versa. We have assertions of notability that are nicely sourced due to the proactive work by User:Cullen328 and others in improving the artcle so it better serves the project. Kudos and thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per sources. Meets GNG.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:29, 21 November 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. Poorly sourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mircea Ciugudean (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 can't seem to find sufficient coverage on the person to reflect his notability, and to support some of the stronger claims to notability in his mostly unreferenced bio. Tagged for notability since April. Epeefleche (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I made a sourcing search some months back and I didn't see more than a passing reference (in the article) and this letter to the editor of EE magazine. On looking now, I don't see that any additional references have surfaced since my last attempt to add sources, and as a result we have no evidence of this subject meeting notability under WP:GNG. There are some references to scholarly work [17], but my sense is that the papers don't rise to WP:SCHOLAR based on a cursory review of the topics and citation counts of the listed papers, however, it is certainly possible that language/cultural barriers have left some material out there that isn't immediately available via Google, etc. --joe deckertalk to me 23:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your efforts, and your thoughtful comments.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The only online source I found about him is in a local newspaper. There is also another person named Mircea Ciugudean (1939-2006), who wrote Christian songs. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:33, 24 November 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) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Burning Sensation in Throat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Title is extremely generic, and Wikipedia is not a medical guide, or a how to guide. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete inadequate sources are a problem on any Wikipedia article. This is a particular problem on a medical article that gives a drug-based treatment. Without verifiable sources, it would be easy to mislead readers and the consequences in this case could be serious. Verifiability does not guarantee correctness, but it seems especially important here. The issues Bwilkins mentions in the nomination are, of course, also concerns. Sparthorse (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all the reasons that Sparthorse listed. I'd like to add that Wikipedia is not Web MD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete for above reasons. This type of page doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —Entropy (T/C) 11:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- redirect to Odynophagia. The topic is valid enough, even if content is dubious. In any case title should be lower cased. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only problem with redirecting it is that there doesn't seem to be a huge reason for it. I don't know that many people would really be typing in "burning sensation in throat" on Wikipedia. I did a quick search and we don't have any redirects for things such as "tingling in arm", "pain in chest", or any other description of symptoms. There's really no reason for a redirect, in my opinion. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- On the other hand, we do have an article at Chest pain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NOTHOWTO/ Agree with all the Delete opinions above - WP is not a place for medical guides, and in any case it fails WP:V. Obvious delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hopeless WP:HOWTO. JFW | T@lk 19:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons described above. AFAICT, this is a (self explanatory?) symptom of other conditions. The treatments described are actually the treatments of the condition causing the sensation. Article is irredeemably confused and incomplete. I could suggest its sister article might be sore toe.Pit-yacker (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to sore throat. What's here now isn't useful for us, but it's not a completely implausible search term, and redirects are cheap. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds a better place. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:NOTHOWTO and agree with all other deletes above. No need for a redirect for the reason Tokyogirl79 gives above. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 19:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a how-to or medical guide, as mentioned above. Whether a redirect from this title (or from Burning sensation in throat) should exists is a separate issue; the content here does not need preserved or merged. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only is Wikipedia not a medical guide, the advice here is so flawed and incomprehensible, it is dangerous - suggest early closure as WP:SNOWBALL Arjayay (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:HOWTO. JoshyDinda (talk) 19:11, 27 November 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) 01:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cade scott (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 couldn't find any reliable sources for the "Life of the Above Average Teenager" books, which probably means that there is little coverage on this. Reads like it's WP:MADEUP anyway. →Στc. 09:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the book is non-notable, characters in the book must surely not be. JORGENEV 10:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't even find any evidence that the purported book franchise exists. Fails verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:36, 22 November 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) 01:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Daphne Rosen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability for Pornographic actors and models, she never won an award (only was in a movie that won), only nominated once for an award, has not unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, etc Saladacaesar (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agreed. WP:PORNBIO is not met. Colonel Tom 11:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom, especially due to the heightened sensitivity required for a BLP.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a famous performer. Askadaleia (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia:Notability (people) states being "famous" is secondary to being notable. Also there are no sources to verify she is famous. JoshyDinda (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, prominent role in AVN Award-winning film, coverage in multiple secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too many sources are IMDB and other unreliable sources. e.g. [18] MathewTownsend (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability for Porno. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough significant coverage in reliabe sources to establish notability. Fails both GNG and PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a famous performer with significant presence in the adult industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingboy (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia:Notability (people) states being "famous" is secondary to being notable. Also there are no sources to verify she is famous. JoshyDinda (talk) 00:59, 28 November 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). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Lightfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Low permanent notability, serious lack of resources Artsygeek (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of additional references available. The current article is based on 3, but I have found an additional 3 obits out there. He will certainly have notability as long as MySociety is alive. Fmph (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Certainly notable in UK and Europe and becoming notable in US. Motive for deletion doubtable. Stephenbooth uk (talk) 16:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems well sourced enough to establish notability. Rob Myers (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - could add a source to this in the Guardian (link), this in the Huffington Post and to a note by Tom Watson MP Crosseyedbear (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Crosseyedbear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I am self-evidently biased (I'm a director of mySociety), but Chris was notable enough to have had a wordy obituary in The Times; I'd suggest that in itself makes him notable enough to have an article here. To quote WP:ANYBIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." — OwenBlacker (Talk) 13:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with the previous comments. Reasons for deletion don't hold up. It is perhaps a small field, but Chris was certainly notable within it. Harry Metcalfe (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agreed with the comments --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree with preceding comments. Anyone notable enough to warrant a significant obituary in a major national newspaper meets the requirements of WP:ANYBIO. MarkSG (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - look at the list of achievements. "What did the Romans do for us? Well, apart from roads, what did the Romans do for us?" Also, civic hackers are two a penny these days, but when he and Tom Steinberg started MySociety it was a fundamentally new idea and the improvement things like TWFY, WriteToThem/FaxYourMP, FixMyStreet, WDTK represent over the official versions was all the more impressive compared to the web applications of 2004 than it is now. — 62.31.43.165 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 16:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agreed with all the comments above — 87.112.207.64 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Despite the fact that there are several obituary-type articles written about the subject, some of which have been mentioned above (and some of which have not: [19]), there nonetheless appears to be no prior coverage of the individual. I'll grant that the obituaries contain some coverage and biographical information, but this is at odds with the fact that none of the individual's accomplishments were ever covered by independent sources beforehand. It seems as though many of these current obits draw from a blog post by Tom Steinberg, a colleague of his. I am also a little concerned about the number of single-purpose accounts contributing here, and want to address some of the arguments above:
- He will certainly have notability as long as MySociety is alive.
- This doesn't hold up when you consider that notability is not inherited.
- Anyone notable enough to warrant a significant obituary in a major national newspaper meets the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.
- I disagree with this premise. This page of recently deceased from BBC Radio 4 has many individuals who do not have Wikipedia pages. You might argue that's because they have not been made yet, but another possibility is that they do not have enough coverage outside of obituary-type material to merit a page, much like the current subject.
- Look at the list of achievements.
- I did, and virtually none of them are sourced.
- Agree with above
- AfD is here to facilitate discussion, not votes. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable deletion is not clean-up. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've an interest in UK eDemocracy topics and while I've never met him, I've been aware of Chris's contributions in this area. Added link to a BBC news article referencing his work Lordelph (talk) 22:13, 21 November 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) 01:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Open CIL JIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Project has been abandoned for 3.5 years, is non functional, and consists primarily of stub functions Corscaria (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not treated by third-party reliable sources. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of meeting inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom - unreferenced, no indication of notability, defunct project. Dialectric (talk) 14:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable independent coverage. --Kvng (talk) 18:08, 27 November 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 as not appropriate for a stand-alone article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Table of lunar month correspondences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Woefully incomplete and totally out of date. While those two reasons by themselves are not sufficient for deletion, they are when combined with the fact that this article at best would be the start to an almanac-type Wikibook on lunar calendar correspondences, assuming anyone was interested in writing one, which judging by the lack of effort on this article, no one is. Carolina wren (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all articles that claim to be tables of data. JORGENEV 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this information alone certainly doesn't seem to deserve its own article. Perhaps if a citation can be found, though, it might be useful in an existing article? —Entropy (T/C) 11:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to consider that, with a source, this would be a useful inclusion in the rather short lunar month article. The problem is of course that the author didn't use one source; he used one per calendar and stitched them together. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 22 November 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 multi-speed Europe. v/r - TP 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A two-speed European Union (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 couldn't find the right CSD tag for this article, but it certainly does not belong on Wikipedia. M Magister Scientatalk (20 November 2011) 05:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It turns out that this term has actually been used in at least ten RS [20]. As that doesn't mean that the coverage is significant, a bit of further research is required. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into multi-speed Europe which is much the same topic. Warden (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything of use to A two-speed European Union per User:Colonel Warden. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:53, 20 November 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) 01:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nelson Montana (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, non-notable author for huffington post. No coverage in reliable sources. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—Also recently deleted. What's different now?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What's different now is that it was presumably recreated in a different form, so now we have to discuss the deletion again. There's no more coverage in RS than the last time. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. The claims on this page are pretty farfetched. First off, I did a search of Guiding Light characters and there is no "Detective Stockton". It's not listed on the IMDb page, nor is there an entry for Montana. If he was on the show, it was for a walk on, no-name character. So no notability on that front, nor on the music front since he hasn't been signed to a major label and hasn't charted. As far as the articles go, the only thing that looks to be legit is the Huff Post claim. I did a search on his name and all of the hits comes from stuff that he has written about himself. On a side note, this has to be the first AfD I've voted on where one of the references is a link to a downloading site. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Additional. I say salt because it's pretty obvious that he'll just come back and try to add it again. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per Tokyogirl79. The article is not reliably sourced and there's obviously nothing that can be done to change that. Recreation by Montana or his peers should be also be avoided. De728631 (talk) 16:01, 26 November 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) 01:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jewish regiment (Russian Civil War) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is not verifiable, and it seems that a hoax is a feasible explanation. The same article has been deleted in the Ru-wiki after the adf discussion, in which it had been shown that no reliable sources contain information on this "regiment", while, on the other hand, the existent sources show that the size of the Jewish formation in Ataman Semyonov's "army" (all of it no more than 1,000 men) was no bigger than a company. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Russian Wikipedia deletion discussion says it all. I've had no more luck in locating RS on this side of the pond. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The claim that the article is based on Chita Oblast archive and local newspapers indicates at best OR even if true. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prokurator11, is there any verified information here we can upmerge to any other more general articles? Buckshot06 (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This question was also raised during the adf debate in ru-wiki. Some scattered bits of information could indeed be found to support the claim about the participation of several Jews in Semyonov's formation. However, even according to those somewhat obscure and barely verifiable sources, the "Jewish unit" was as big as a company and its "highest ranking officer" was a non-commissioned officer. This could (arguably) be "the nucleus of truth" inside the story behind the article, while the rest of the info in the article seems to be a hoax. Deleting the unverifiable information about the unit's history and deeds will leave the article as simply stating that several persons of Jewish origin participated in "Semyonov's army", and this information by itself, lacking proper sources to back it, could hardly be recognized as an issue of sufficient notability to be stated in a separate article or even in an article on the wider issue. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 08:36, 25 November 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 The result of the discussion was to Redirect the article. Given the limited side discussion of Blue Ribbon schools, A verifiable, sourced assertion that the school is a Blue Ribbon school should be considered enough to make WP:G4 not apply to this article. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kennedy Middle School (Cupertino, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Middle school (grades 6-8) does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It would help if there was some news coverage of this school, but there isn't. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced and non-notable, but then redirect to the school district Cupertino Union School District per standard outcomes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete because I find that there's no reason for it and this article is a pretty good article. Also, I am currently using this article to do my research and it should not be deleted unless there is any important reason for its deletion.Wikih101 (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing said by Wikih101 is a reason to keep the article, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines.Edison (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cupertino Union School District per standard outcomes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep According to the article, this is a National Blue Ribbon School. Such schools are usually kept regardless of their grade level. The article does not offer verification of its status as a Blue Ribbon School, but if it can be verified the article should be kept. The article lacks references but those can be added; AfD is not cleanup. --MelanieN (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment About 4% of the eligible schools receive the "Blue Ribbon," so it is not very selective. And Notability is not synonymous with "excellence." Wikipedia is not a consumer guide to Excellent Schools. If a school received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources such that it satisfied WP:ORG, because of being a lousy, failing school full of crimes, drug problems and pedophile staff, it would be far more notable than this one. Edison (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just repeating what I have seen as the common outcome at AfD discussions. The consensus (often over my objections) has seemed to be that Blue Ribbon schools get articles here. It's not documented as policy, and it's not my opinion, but I have observed it as a usual result here, based on the claim that this is "the highest honor an American school can achieve". If this school gets redirected in spite of being a Blue Ribbon School, I will adjust my criteria accordingly --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to school district article While the blue ribbon argument for keep may be true, i could find no references that show this was a blue ribbon school. Unless the website for the program is not accurate, this is NOT a blue ribbon school and should be redirected per standing policy for elementary/middle schools.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just point out that while redirection is a standard accepted solution following a long established precedent for non notable schools, it's not a Wikipedia policy (see: WP:WPSCH/AG#N). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with a redirect by all means. There's little if any claim of notability and a lot of puffery. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Public schools are always notable because of their role in educating the local community. Furthermore, public schools are notable because they are supported by tax payers money. All public tax supported agencies are notable. From the White House all the way to the local public school. --Larp30 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm... could you please quote the Wikipedia policy? I've been a coordinator of WP:WPSCH for two years, and I think I know my way around WP:N, but I've never come across it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of these extreme notability claims by Larp30 are to be found in WP:N or WP:ORG. There are many reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of the White House, thus satisfying WP:N, but not so for the average neighborhood elementary school. Edison (talk) 06:02, 29 November 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. G3 (hoax) The Bushranger One ping only 18:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Air Pacific International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't pull up reliable sources on this airline. May be confused with Air Pacific, perhaps? (Note: only claim of notability is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL). — Jess· Δ♥ 04:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article seems likely to be pure fantasy about an airline with no evidence provided that it is actually intended to exist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing but hot air. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a G3 Hoax MilborneOne (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the user also created Teuku Muhammad Hasan International Airport equally iffy.MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 20 November 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. v/r - TP 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Flying Pen Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor print on demand publisher. Only possible claim to significance, let alone notability, is the notable authors. However, that claim is not substantial: they published only: 1 story by Bailey in an anthology; 1 anthology ed. by Brozak; 1 anthology of Danforth, and 1 of Thorne's books--alll very small portions of these author's output. Every other ref. is that they're listed in Directories, and distributed, just like any publisher notable or non-notable, by Amazon , B&N, etc.
I suppose I could have deleted as G11 promotional, but I think a decision here would help. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really discussed to a significant extent in any RS, so all available sources are self-published, blogs, and such. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I started the article and do intend to add to it. I believe it's notable as is. If anyone can let me know on my talk page what I can do to help, I would appreciate it. ADDITION: Just to clarify, I am not an employee of nor do I have any work that has been or is scheduled to be published by the publisher. Alden Loveshade (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Alessandra Napolitano points out, the sources in the article are not independent, published, reliable sources that are substantially about Flying Pen Press. The only one that comes close is Publetariat.com, but this does not meet Wikipedia's standard WP:RS. Sparthorse (talk) 20:19, 22 November 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 - the changes have addressed the deletion concerns, as all subsequent commenters/comments agree. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AnnaMaria Cardinalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self promotional article. A good number of the references do not mention article subject. The only item that may be notable is the award; however, there is no indication of its importance. She is quoted in a couple of articles, but I do not see significant articles about her. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Hello Reddogsix,
- I hope this is the correct place to respond to your objections and enter into the discussion.
- I am confused at your statements that the references do not relate to Cardinalli or demonstrate importance. Cardinalli's work has been covered in major pieces of national and international media by pullitzer-prize winning journalists in highly respected outlets.
- Is your objection that the articles speak more about the relevance of her work than her name?
- I also don't understand the importance you seem to place on the award. It is among the least notable of the national accomplishments mentioned.
- Perhaps your objections are that the articles feature Cardinalli's work accomplishments, rather than details about her personally. It is precisely these academic, military, and professional contributions that are of relevance to the biography, not the number of times the article repeats her name or quotes her words directly. Each article, however, does make refernece to the fact that the work is hers, or uses recognizable quotations from her article, even when they simply call her something as anonomous as a researcher.
- The Wikipedia guidelines for notability are as follows:
- - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand alone list article.
- - All biographies of living individuals must comply with the policy on biographies of living individuals, being supported by sufficient reliable independent sources to ensure neutrality.
- The article on AnnaMaria cardinalli meets each of these criteria. "Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" include the referenced articles in the San Francisco Chronicle, the Washington Examiner, the London Times, and Fox News. A numner of other smaller but well-referenced articles support these points.
- The article fully comples with Wikipedias policy on biographies of living individuals, particularly in tht it is supported by sufficient reliable independent sources (described above) as to ensure neutrality. The issue of neutrality is particularly important when you mention the article is "self-promotional." (I suppose you mean Cardinalli-promotional.) While Cardinalli has undeniably interesting accomplishments that are factually listed, I am careful to constantly include the issues of contention and contraversy that has surrounded her work. This results in a very careful balance.)
- I am happy to comply with revisions you see necessary, but I ask sincerely that you keep this article in Wikipedia. It offers a story of incredibly relevant impact, and I am sure it is one of the most well-substantiated biographies you generally encounted.
- Sincerely,
- "Curious" George Greenrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegreenrow (talk • contribs) 04:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC) — Georgegreenrow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep: I've cleaned the article up substantially. She seems to have coverage in some reliable sources, including The Washington Examiner and San Francisco Chronicle reports on her work, St Mary's "Women of Influence", which describes her as the youngest woman to graduate from their school, as well as the Mother Teresa Award, and appearing with Kanye West in a fairly popular album. I believe each of those should either qualify as significant independent coverage to satisfy the GNG, or to presume notability. — Jess· Δ♥ 06:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep thanks to Mann_jess' excellent work. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jess, thank you so much for the fantastic edits! I am new to this, and I tend to get "wordy" when I get into my research. You've made it so much more readable, and I appreciate you recognizing the public notability of the subject as per Wikipedia guidelines. Alessandra, thank you for your support of keeping this article in! You have all made me feel very welcomed to the community, and I appereciate it sincerely.
- I do not know, but does Jess' new work on the article and Alessandra's concensus now remove the deletion death-sentence? How does the article actually come off the chopping block?Many thanks again for the help!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgegreenrow (talk • contribs)
- Comment - Hi George, glad to have been able to help out :) Typically, the way the AfD process works, the discussion will stay open for 7 days, and then an admin will come by and close it. However, based on the sources we have now, the article seems to be safe from deletion, so I'd just wait it out and focus on other areas for the time being. More sources are always helpful if you know of any, but the article seems to be in good shape for the time being. I'm surprised this article wasn't created before; that was a great catch, George! Good work! — Jess· Δ♥ 18:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks so much Jess!!! I am actually excited--especially to have found a subject worth covering! I follow a lot of blogs, and I heard about this several times, so I thought I had a shot. I'll go and work on other things now, but I really appreciate your kind works and your guidance on my first article! - George Georgegreenrow (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I have added some more citations, with names, quotations and all: there are plenty of major publications in both the USA and Britain including The Daily Telegraph and The San Francisco Chronicle. I'm astonished this came to AfD as the sources are rock solid, and Cardinalli is more than WP:Notable - notorious would be a better word. She's also an extraordinary character - a classical guitarist of great skill, a university prof, a private investigator, a security company director, a federal employee ... not to mention author of a scholarly, careful, and explosive report for NATO. You won't find a better subject for an encyclopedia article, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hello Chiswick - Thanks so much!!! Your edits are ideal, and I truly appreciate the help from you and the community in making this "right!" I love what you said about Cardinalli above... I couldn't seem to capture it in words the way you did. I wish you could put THAT in the article!
- I actually had much more of this "feel" in my very first posting of this article, but it ended up being far too wordy and was deleted. Do you think you or I should work a bit more of it back in? I think her public perception is quite relevant. I for one am a bit fascinated, and I think other readers may be as well.
- Also I am hoping to link to the Wikipedia article on Bacha Bazi that mentions Cardinalli's involvement with the DoD. Can anyone help with this?Georgegreenrow (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done that. Also added imagebox of 'AnnaMaria' playing Spanish guitar on CD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I am hoping to link to the Wikipedia article on Bacha Bazi that mentions Cardinalli's involvement with the DoD. Can anyone help with this?Georgegreenrow (talk) 22:33, 20 November 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Terence winch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Duplicates an existing topic (Terence Winch). Went to speedy it, but that seemed to require that it have been recently created. Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Duplicate article, plus the AfD nominated one appears to be written by one of his publishers (since blocked)--Marjaliisa (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary duplicate. I'm going to guess this one is going to get snowed in pretty quickly...Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- That would make sense. As I said, it would I think have been a speedy, but for the indicated technicality.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- As duplicate which contains no additional sourced content. Dru of Id (talk) 11:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 20 November 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. v/r - TP 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Spyros Delta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm having trouble finding RS refs to support a claim to notability here -- zero gnews hits, and zero gbooks hits. Perhaps other will have more luck. Tagged for notability and as an orphan for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The individual seems to have some music credits in film. Looking for searches using the name in Greek, I seemed to find his name in the context of him being credited with playing guitar, but nothing further. In English, a lot of forums and personal websites come up, but there appears to be nothing constituing significant coverage in independent sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. At first I was exploring WP:COMPOSER #1 and WP:BAND #3, but as said above, searching the movie title didn't say much about him. M Magister Scientatalk (20 November 2011)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 20 November 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 Doesn't meet the WP:GNG. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The National Locksmith Certification Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of reliable, independent, published sources means this article can't be verified by users and it isn't clear that this meets our general guidelines on notability. The one source is obviously self-published and there is more than a hint of advertising about this entry. Prod was contested by original author, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then remove the link and thus advertising? Is it advertising to link CompTIA's website on their certifications? TylerJThomas87 (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The core problem is the lack of sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. This means that the article cannot be verified by readers (please see WP:V for why that is important and what it means). It also means that the article does not qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia because it does not demonstrate how the subject is notable (please see WP:N for what that is important and what it means). If you can find proper sources to demonstrate that this subject is notable, it will more than likely be kept. Good luck, Sparthorse (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would have to agree that the topic doesn't pass the general notability guideline or any other inclusion criteria for that matter. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does this suffice? http://www.ozimel.com/wordpress/2011/03/favourite-media-text/ Would you like a copy of their first edition from 1929? They've been in the industry for nearly a century now. What exactly are you looking for? TylerJThomas87 (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. First, the article is self-published. See WP:RS. Second, the article is about The National Locksmith, not about the certification program. It doesn't verify anything, other than that The National Locksmith exists. CharlieEchoTango (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. Included an actual, independent citation. Apologies for the confusion. TylerJThomas87 (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without going to the library I can’t tell the depth of coverage in the one independent source provided, but even if it gives significant coverage, multiple sources are generally expected. The “Find sources” links above find no independent sources online. —teb728 t c 04:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing my best to find others. The two other independent sources I have found aren't publicly accessible. I could link but all that shows up is a Login page. TylerJThomas87 (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; fails GNG for want of multiple, secondary sources available. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 29 November 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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Name Taken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced band fails WP:MUSIC. Looks like they only released a few EPs on minor labels and compilations. I can't find any media coverage. Pburka (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
- This band may not have been an enormous band, but they had a significant cult-following for their short period. They were a fan favorite on label (Fiddler Records) that featured gold-selling artists Dashboard Confessional and New Found Glory, as well as indie mainstays The Bled, The Higher and Recover
- The lyrics on their first album coined the namesake of the band Panic at the Disco, who have several gold and platinum awards from several countries.
I have found reference to this fact, and have noted it in the article. While I may not have much experience at Wikipedia, I am committed to making sure relevant information is included about artists like Name Taken: Underrated, under-heard, but ultimately influential.
WP:AVOIDCOI Sweetmik (talk) 01:20, 15 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The band has received sufficient coverage to establish notability and to enable us to have a meaningful, sourced article: Allmusic bio, Allmusic review, Arizona Daily Star, Arizona Daily Star, CMJ New Music Report.--Michig (talk) 10:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Web searches yield plenty of hits indicating notability, as noted by Michig, and there are others, besides; I've incorporated several into the article. There are also many hits for blogs, fanzines, and side mentions in pieces on other artists, which, while not worthy of inclusion individually, do as a group further indicate a band that made a notable impact in its world. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:27, 20 November 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. v/r - TP 01:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Sky Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google search shows no significant mentions, only nonnotable websites. the one notable author is a marginally notable musician, whose single book does not qualify for an article, let alone establish this publisher as notable. their sales model, and goals, while admirable, are pretty much a giveaway as a sincerely motivated "vanity" press (not derogatory in this context). Obviously, no prejudice against recreation if they gain notability outside their current circle. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 13 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability. -Pete (talk) 05:06, 24 November 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. accoeding to the consensus & the sourcing DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CityPlace at Buckhead (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 an article about a canceled condominium project in Atlanta. The only two three references are to the Atlanta Business Chronicle, a local business journal. The project was never particularly notable and now that is has been canceled it is unlikely that it will become more notable. Canceled building projects may be notable in rare exceptions, but this is not one of them. (Contested PROD.) Will Beback talk 09:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the below arguments by DreamFocus and the sources found by Northamerica1000.
Delete. Building project coverage is limited to local news only, and a business journal at that. This is insufficient significant coverage of the topic. I mean, do we generally keep articles based on building projects that never came to fruition if they don't follow WP:GNG?I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 09:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep – Meeting WP:GNG per:
- Ramos, Rachel T. "The city that was never built." The Atlanta Journal Constitution.
- "CityPlace goes back to lender." Atlanta Business Chronicle
- "Buckhead's largest undeveloped tract up for sale." Atlanta Business Chronicle.
- Schoolcraft, Lisa R. (March 10, 2006). "3,800 new condos planned for Buckhead." Atlanta Business Chronicle.
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the Journal Constitution article's only mention of the project is a seven-word caption. Will Beback talk 23:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 21:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some of the Google news archive search results are hidden behind paywall. But the bizjournal coverage seems to be notable. Dream Focus 12:25, 17 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, should have been kept already, but here's another vote :) The sources provided above are more than adequate. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:43, 20 November 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) Slon02 (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Beurshal Haaglanden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Except one of the two used sources, I can not find any reliable third party sources. Give a bit of a promotional feeling. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are more sources to be found under the market's old name of Darling Market. for example [21], [22]. -- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Added these references. The Darling Market was nationally known in the Netherlands as is shown by a national Amsterdam based magazine writing about it. It is still one of the biggest convention/exhibition centers in the The Hague region especially after the demolition of the Statenhal in 2006. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 20:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite amazing that is article should be notable on the English Wikipedia, while it is not important enough to merit an article on the Dutch Wikipedia, its home country... Night of the Big Wind talk 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that it is not important enough to merit an article on the Dutch Wikipedia? Has the article been deleted there? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think it is strange that there was never an article about the place on nl-wp. Just strange. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not strange at all. There are many millions of notable topics that nobody has yet got round to writing articles about in the various Wikipedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Dutch Wikipedia there are stricter rules about what is notable and what is not notable. Subject that do not show something special or proof their notability otherwise, are removed there. The English WP has lower rules for notability, but to my opinion notability on the "home-wp" of a subject should be taken into account, especially when the threshold is higher then here. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dutch WP rules don't apply here. Anyways I created a few articles about American subjects translated from nlwiki and dewiki which hadn't previously existed on enwiki e.g. One West Waikiki, Log Jammer (from nlwiki) and Willys 77 (from dewiki). People have to be interested in subjects somehow to create them, there are quite possibly a lot of subjects which don't have an article even on enwiki. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Duth Wikipedia is not the "home-wp" Beurshal Haaglanden. Applying rules from other language wikipedias will make trying to sort things out impossible. -- Whpq (talk) 00:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the Dutch Wikipedia there are stricter rules about what is notable and what is not notable. Subject that do not show something special or proof their notability otherwise, are removed there. The English WP has lower rules for notability, but to my opinion notability on the "home-wp" of a subject should be taken into account, especially when the threshold is higher then here. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not strange at all. There are many millions of notable topics that nobody has yet got round to writing articles about in the various Wikipedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just think it is strange that there was never an article about the place on nl-wp. Just strange. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that it is not important enough to merit an article on the Dutch Wikipedia? Has the article been deleted there? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is quite amazing that is article should be notable on the English Wikipedia, while it is not important enough to merit an article on the Dutch Wikipedia, its home country... Night of the Big Wind talk 21:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the hall is only 15 years old, it does seem to have generated Reliable Source coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 22:55, 26 November 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) —Tom Morris (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Piet Hesse (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:NACTOR. Based on an not usable reference (Linkedin) Night of the Big Wind talk 14:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His co-starring in the 1896 comedy film Gestoorde hengelaar by M.H. Laddé, the very first Dutch fictional film, is a decent assertion verifiable in reliable sources, and meets WP:ENT#3 for his unique and verifiable contribution to birth of the film industry... specially in an era where the primitive nature of films made many think that film itself was only a curiosity or passing fancy. We do not judge films or actors from the very birth of the history of film in the same manner as we do something done last year by some big studio. No, as an encyclopedia we do our best to preserve information about cinematic history for posterity. Related to the similar AFD for his contemporary and partner Lion Solser, Notability is not temporary and we do not expect ongoing modern-day coverage for someone whose career began and ended was over 100 years ago. We can accept that if the EYE Film Institute Netherlands has determined him worth including, we can too. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 17 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Schmidt, satisfies WP:ENT #3, historically distinct contributions. Here is a biography. Unscintillating (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to close His counterpart's article was kept. Both are equally notable. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:16, 23 November 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 Winthrop University. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Johnsonian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a student newspaper that does not assert the notability of the subject. Contested prod. Sparthorse (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not an article, it's an assertive statement with no evidence. -Markeer 02:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Winthrop University. --MelanieN (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Winthrop University. Definitely not notable enough for a separate article.--Slon02 (talk) 03:17, 28 November 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 --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bogus MC's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article about a minor band that has at best borderline notability. Does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of bands. The proposed deletion was challenged, without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 16:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only coverage in RS is a very brief mention in a USA Today piece. Myspace and such won't pass muster. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notability is clearly demonstrated in the article itself - the 'history' section, for example. Bogus!Colonel Tom 12:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable and fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, as the only solid source in the article (USA Today) provides only a passing mention of it, failing the "significant coverage" requirement.--Slon02 (talk) 03:10, 28 November 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. Wifione Message 10:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lola Yuldasheva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only notability claim is a Tarona Award for Best Female Singer in 2005. The link provided in the article appears to be original research regarding that claim, and I am unable to locate any reliable source content to support such a claim or a WP:GNG claim either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few on-line sources about Uzbek artists. Uzbekistan has a very low Internet penetration rate due to both government restrictions and high prices. By asking to delete articles in Wikipedia about Uzbekistan and Uzbek artists you are not helping at all. It seems to be true that Wikipedia is a collection of articles by conservative twenty-somethings who are trying to rewrite history. I have included as many sources as I could to the article. They are not unreliable as you claim. Unlike flamboyant American websites the few existing Uzbek websites are not very-well designed. You should immediately remove this article from the list of articles to be deleted. Nataev (talk) 19.23, 18 November 2011 (UTC+01:00) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 18 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not speak or read Uzbek, nor does Google offer a translation facility, so this is an occasion on which I have to assume good faith. WP:MUSICBIO needs to be interpreted contextually, and there is enough evidence from a Google search that she is a sufficently popular singer in Uzbekistan to pass the notabiity threshold. In addition, she clearly did have a leading part in a popular film which is another claim to notability. As Nataev points out, an equivalent artist in the US would undoubtedly pass. It can always be brought back if the claims are later shown to be false. Doubtless there are Uzbek magazines and newspapers that could be used as sources, but the truth is that it would be impossible for us to check them anyway, so good faith must be assumed in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. --AJHingston (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AJ has it backwards. We don't default to keep, particularly on BLP articles because we can't find sources to disprove. Nor do we give a pass because it's hard to find sources. If there's an iceberg of sources then at least demonstrate there's something from what's available.
I also like the creator's comment: "It seems to be true that Wikipedia is a collection of articles by conservative twenty-somethings who are trying to rewrite history." It's followed by "immediately remove this article from the list of articles to be deleted." That just advertises you're unfamiliar with our policies and how AfD works. Just read the top of the WP:AFD page and it explains that in most cases the page will be listed here for 7 days.
I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept or not. It needs sources however there are a few. Shadowjams (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thank you very much for taking the time to discuss this article. Shadowjams, I did not know how AfD works indeed. Now I do. I have included as many sources to the article as I could. The problem is that it is very hard to find sources about Uzbek entertainers in Uzbek, yet alone in English. I am a native speaker of Uzbek and can verify that the sources I have included in fact say what I claim they do. If I were in Uzbekistan, I would cite printed newspapers and magazines. I have also written this article in Russian and O'zbek. Russian Wikipedia users have not asked it to be deleted since there are a few sources about Lola Yuldasheva in Russian. I will try to add more reliable sources to the article. Nataev (talk) 12.33, 21 November 2011 (UTC+01:00)
- Comment - I hope you are able to locate reliable sources, Nataev. Unfortunately the current sources on the article do not appear to be reliable ones. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is a plethora of artists about obscure porn stars in Wikipedia. You can't possibly claim that an influential artist is not worth to be on Wikipedia just because you have not heard about her. You might be an administrator (a radically conservative one at that), but you cannot delete an article from Wikipedia just because you don't like it. Nataev —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep I am a native speaker of Uzbek and the sources that have been cited are reliable. Lola is indeed a very famous singer and actress in Uzbekistan. I totally agree with Nataev. Articles about Uzbek performars are few and far between. Akmalzhon (talk) 12.33, 21 November 2011 (UTC+01:00)
—Preceding undated comment added 11:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC). — Akmalzhon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - While testimonials are nice to have, unfortunately we still need reliable sources. Otherwise the article is just original research unfortunately. If reliable sources exist, please add them. If not, then she unfortunately is not sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Instead of starting an AfD on an article you find issues with, why not improve it? It's obviously notable, and the appropriateness of a source should be weighed in relation to the subject as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability. I will concede, however, that perhaps this article is more appropriate on a different-language Wikipedia. nprice (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Of course I tried to find reliable sources prior to nominating. Unfortunately it does not appear that there are reliable independent sources to establish notability - hence the AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You couldn't find reliable sources in English. There're plenty of reliable sources in Russian and Uzbek. You cannot decide on your own if an article meets notability requirements or not. Nataev —Preceding undated comment added 17:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Please provide them. What has been provided so far have been personal testimonials based upon WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If there are so many reliable sources, provide them and we can read them to get a rough idea of what they say using google translate. What has been provided so far has been primarily social media and passing mentions. Those do not constitute reliable sourcing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google Translate does not translate Uzbek. This very fact shows that there are very few sources about Uzbekistan and its people. There are many periodicals, magazines, and books about Uzbek artists in hard copy, but there are not many on-line sources. I am not in Uzbekistan to cite printed media. People who are in Uzbekistan are not going to provide more sources because they don't have much access to the Internet in the first place. There's a reason why Russian and Uzbek Wikipedia users have not asked to include the article in the list of AfD. Nataev (talk)
- Comment - Is there a national music chart in Uzbekistan? If there is, it would be necessary only to show that Lola had one song in that. If there is not, it helps to demonstrate why different criteria need to be used. I think that there is an assumption that she should go in Wikipedia only if she can meet the criteria applicable for North American musicians and that cannot be correct. She needs to be shown to be notable in Uzbekistan, and personally I get plenty of evidence of that in Google searches - I do wonder whether people are using the right techniques. Lola+film name or song name comes up with different results from a search on her full name, and they correspond with the material in the article. It might also be worth addressing the complaints that the sources are 'original research' or 'not reliable'. Again, I think that there is a misunderstanding about the way these things work. Unless the official media run websites that contain interviews and biographies of musicians like Lola, awards, film charts and so on then it can only be provided in other ways. After all, not very many North American musicans would get into Wikipeida if we had to rely on offical media. Are there Russian language websites that help to confirm the information in the article and demonstrate that she is notable amongst Uzbek performers? --AJHingston (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have cited Darakchi, an Uzbek weekly newspaper that has been published since 1999 and has a circulation of about 200, 000. (http://darakchi.uz/?page_id=2). The most reliable source would be the official website of the recording studio Tarona, but the website is being upgraded at the moment: http://www.tarona.uz/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nataev (talk • contribs) 14:13, 26 November 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. Wifione Message 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- S.O.S. Investigated (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 organization lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As yet I have no opinion about this article, but I must ask the nominator to start writing rationales in plain English that outline the particular reasons why particular articles should be deleted, rather than pasting the same incomprehensible gobbledygook into every deletion nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps this might help, GHits=Google hits and GNEWS=Google News. reddogsix (talk) 22:41, 14 November 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, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't appear to be particularly notable. The 'wide net that S.O.S. casts over the Midwest' appears to be restricted to the state of Wisconsin. --Marjaliisa (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability for GNG. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No outside coverage from Reliable Sources found, except one report on local TV (it was Halloween, they needed a topical story). The article seems to be mainly devoted to bragging about all the places they have supposedly investigated. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 26 November 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.