Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7
< 6 February | 8 February > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DJ Wrongtom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability? The article is currently sourced to Wordpress and his own website. A Google search throws up about the same. A few passing mentions in news sources, but I can't find anything that looks like significant coverage. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the nom's comments -
delete and redirect to what he seems most notable for , his connections as the DJ to Hard-Fi.I struck this part in agreement with JFHJr below. Youreallycan 23:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Delete – I also agree with the nominator; I find the subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. A redirect might be inappropriate: the subject isn't even mentioned at the target. JFHJr (㊟) 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has no independent claim to fame and no coverage in RS. Interestingly enough he does write for The Spectator[1] about music, but sadly he is not Wikkid enough to be on WP. CaptainScreebo Parley! 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Starhunterfan (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; lack of notability. - Jorgath (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid as "(G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bibliography of Jewish Christians (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 am the original creator of this article, and created it as I did similar "Bibliography of" articles. However, I have not yet found any specific independent reliable sources which specifically indicate the topic is notable, and believe with the recent questionings of the term "Jewish Christian" in the academic press, we might be better off wit separate, more specific bibliographies dealing directly with some of the individual groups involved. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 23:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the effort, Snotbot, but I do question perhaps your choice of names. John Carter (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. John Carter (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - now moot, as the article has been deleted. -- 202.124.72.190 (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Madonna's 2012 World Tour (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, only dates are known. No official name, or anything else. — Status {talkcontribs 23:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - based on the 114 million viewers who saw her live at the Superbowl XLVI halftime show last Sunday, that such a large tour is almost never cancelled, and that some important details are already in a verifiable source, Billboard. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that relevant to this article? She has tour dates announced, cool. They can easily be in the album article. There's no official name etc. for the tour yet. "Madonna's 2012 World Tour" is just a made up name the creator of the article decided on. — Status {talkcontribs 23:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearian, you are basically using a crystal ball method here. This tour might be cancelled for all we know. Its the notability of the tour we are discussing, not the artist. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Added a second cite, from MSN. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Legolas: the tickets have gone on sale online, the posters for the concert at Yankee Stadium are aleady printed, and events are moving forward. Yes, the article is still a mess, but it's verified, and involves the most watched entertainer ever, so yes, it's notable. Bearian (talk) 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is that relevant to this article? She has tour dates announced, cool. They can easily be in the album article. There's no official name etc. for the tour yet. "Madonna's 2012 World Tour" is just a made up name the creator of the article decided on. — Status {talkcontribs 23:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Can be recreated once tour gets underway and if it's determined that there's enough independent notability to warrant a spinoff article. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - definitely notable, all previous 8 world tours have an article, why would the current one be different? Snappy (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take an actual look at the article, will ya? — Status {talkcontribs 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I already did that before I !voted here, thank you, and please tone it down. It is reasonably good, and will get better as more details are released about the tour. Snappy (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Why? Two main reasons. First, the tour dates, by Wikipedia standards can't be on the main album or artist article. It's irrational, and the tour itself is a body of work. Second reason, also by the policies, verifiable sources exist related to the article, even Madonna herself talking about the upcoming tour. And also, as usually happens with every article on the English Wikipedia, more information will be put on the article whenever it is known. This is not an speculatoy article about a supposed tour that Madonna maybe will do, its about a confirmed world tour.--Hahc21 (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed tour that only has dates. Nothing else. They can easily be squeezed into the MDNA article until a NAME and more details of the tour are announced. — Status {talkcontribs 03:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hahc21, I think you are forgetting the basis of WP:GNG. The article simply doesn't have anything else at the moment except a bunch of dates. No tour name, poster, background info, nothing. WP:WAX is really not a better argument but compare it to Lady Gaga's announced The Born This Way Ball Tour and see the difference. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmed tour that only has dates. Nothing else. They can easily be squeezed into the MDNA article until a NAME and more details of the tour are announced. — Status {talkcontribs 03:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge with MDNA for now. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Could do with a few more references but no point deleting when it will be re-created, maybe for the meantime best to redirect to the page Legolas2186 suggested (who's probably more au fait concerning Madonna than me) Zarcadia (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - I know that soon enough it will be article when there is details on the show, tickets sales, etc, but for now its just a press release and of itself of no notability. There are many events planned for the future that dont have articles yet, so that is not a reason to keep it. Needs more detail otherwise delete.JKW111 (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge. Based on Legolas' reasoning. We don't even have the verified name. We don't even have information other than dates... Put it back in the album article for now, and when we are 100% sure of basic information (like a name), add it back. | helpdןǝɥ | 01:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to MDNA or Madonna (entertainer). – I'm not quite confident that we should merge the tour dates because they seem a bit trivial without much additional info about the tour. We can restore the list once more info about the tour's background is found. Information will develop within the next few months, so a solid deletion is not necessary. Redirection will do. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This tour is definetly relevant, and seeing as Lady Gaga's Born This Way Ball Tour and Jessie J's World tour contains exactly the same information, surely if this is deleted they should be too.Jagoperson (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - deleting it and recreating it when there is no real doubt is a waste of time. Pretending there is a reason to delete is offensive and Wikipedia should get rid of those types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.124.166.102 (talk) 04:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A concert tour by one of the most famous person on the planet. Are you seriously telling me that there is no coverage in the press at all to meet WP:GNG? Lugnuts (talk) 08:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How long does this discussion stay open? It's been ages now, and of all the people arguing to keep, none have offered any new information to the article to demonstrate its notability - it's still just a list of dates copied straight from ticketing sites. Wikipedia is not an advertisement or news service. If there's nothing actually being written about the concert, other than there is one, then the outcome can only be delete. JKW111 (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – needs to be expanded but there is not point in deleting as there is new information emerging on a daily basis. 2012 Communicate|Nicely 21:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Such as? Additional dates do not make it more notable... If there is more info (see eg Born This Way Ball) then add it! JKW111 (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the tour has a name - Madonna World Tour is the official name. Alecsdaniel (talk) 22:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article is indeed severely lacking, but I think given a little time a lot of sources and background info could be found. --Shadow (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2012 (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 Speedily deleted as blatant advertisement. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clerk hotel (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
hard to find notable sources on this product. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree but we should give the page creator a chance as there does seem to me reasonable grounds for eligibility. Certainly not a job for a speedy. Reichsfurst (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I CSD'd this (and I do think it's a valid CSD case, but it's a moot point now anyway) and the article creator removed the CSD tag (against policy). I won't bother to put the CSD tag back, but if a random admin happens to pass this page, and wants to preempt the AfD by doing a speedy, they'll get no trouts from me. As for the reasoning: it's spam (even if it's not very good spam) at this point. Unless there's 3rd party coverage, it's non-notable. I looked and I couldn't find anything either. Non-notable software product. Fails WP:N/WP:GNG. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 11:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bilquis Sheikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
declined speedy on the grounds that a book was published about her. Book is an autobiography which was cowritten by the subject, that is not an RS. gnews finds 0 hits on her. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her life and work were noted by many Christian publications, it is in my opinion a very interesting story. The content of our article is fixable/verifiable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawn based on the additional references and expansion done by cindamuse.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or merge. The eventual outcome for this article should be determined by editing consensus (a consensus which doesn't seem to have developed in this discussion); it seems unlikely that deletion tools should be used however. Might I suggest that the discussion continue on the talk page, perhaps in the form of an RFC? henrik•talk 10:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chronology of diplomatic recognitions and relations of South Sudan (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 page is a recreation of content removed (with the agreement of the majority of editors) from Foreign relations of South Sudan. See Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan for the full discussion of why this content is seen to be misleading and unencyclopedic.
In summary, South Sudan's independence is uncontroversial and so its international recognition is not notable (it cannot be compared to International recognition of Kosovo for example), especially because every country in the world recognised it when it was unanimously admitted to the United Nations.
Some countries have published welcoming statements or more formal recognition documents, but these are not necessary for diplomatic recognition to take place. This article just lists those countries that have published some sort of statement on the Internet (directly or via a news report), that we have been able to find. There are lots of missing countries, which makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is, with all countries recognising it. The list of recognition dates here is therefore misleading and unnecessary.
The details of diplomatic recognition dates are notable, but are a duplication of the data given in Foreign relations of South Sudan, and so also unnecessary in this article.
Bazonka (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The content was removed without consensus from Foreign relations of South Sudan in Nov2011[2] (present there since the August merge from here) and was now put here as compromise. The content is notable, encyclopedic and sourced. Utilized sources are from MFAs around the world or news reports about official diplomatic acts of various governments. We have such lists for other cases elsewhere (such as here) and such lists of diplomatic recognitions (and relations) are kept on official MFA websites [3], [4], [5], etc.
- Nobody claims that South Sudan independence is controversial - on the contrary, this is clearly stated in the article: "South Sudan was admitted in the UN on 14 July 2011 without a vote[6] or objections risen by its members.[7][8]", "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."
- We - Bazonka and the other editors involved in this dispute - are editors contributing to many of the articles related to the List of states with limited recognition (such as Kosovo mentioned by Bazonka) - and that's why there is such inclination to "count recognitions" and to assume that "unless a source for recognition by X is found it's assumed that X supports the opposing-claimant position, e.g. Serbia against Kosovo, etc.". The case here is different. South Sudan is not like Kosovo, it's like Montenegro, where we also keep list of diplomatic recognitions.
- Diplomatic recognition is a specific act. It's different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections, "warm welcome in the international community", etc.) such as "lack of objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of X". South Sudan has 100% "obvious recognitions" (as far as we know - no sources show any objections) and less-than-100% diplomatic recognitions - just like most (all?) states around the world, who also don't have 100% diplomatic recognitions. See the sources provided above.
- The list here is just like similar lists MFAs around the world publish for their states or like similar lists elsewhere in Wikipedia. The notion that "diplomatic recognition is irrelevant" contradicts the fact that this act of foreign policy is conducted by governments around the world, published on MFA websites and reported by news agencies. All of them find it relevant, but few people around don't, because they personally aren't interested in it since South Sudan doesn't have a "recognition problem" and they are only interested in cases like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. "states with limited recognition".
- "There are lots of missing countries" - Bazonka, if you have a source for some missing country, let's add it. This isn't a reason to delete all that aren't missing. Same for the claim against the quality of some sources - if a particular source is found to be not useful, by Bazonka or others, let's remove it. This isn't a reason to delete all others.
- "makes it seem as though South Sudan is not as recognised as it actually is" - in the eyes of editors accustomed to Kosovo maybe, but the same list on the Montenegro article doesn't do that for the general reader (and editors there). My personal opinion is that on the contrary - having so many explicit diplomatic recognitions in so short period of time (compare with the MFA sources I gave above - other countries required much more time to get to such numbers) shows how big acceptance and importance South Sudan was given by the international community. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The important bits are already produced at Foreign relations of South Sudan, so this is a duplication. The rest is a bunch of random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" the independence of South Sudan. It's useless information of no encyclopaedic value. It's also a textbook-case FORK. Nightw 22:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are "random dates "welcoming"/"recognising"/"acknowledging" .." instead of dates of "diplomatic recognition" those specific items should be removed. But diplomatic recognition is of course notable and encyclopedic - see links to MFA lists I gave above. Wikipedia also has other such lists - see my comments above. It's not a fork, but an unfinished split at most. And if you stop claiming false consensus I won't object to restore/merge it back. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per, well, previous consensus really. It's a misleading article. CMD (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The linked discussion is from August 2011 about merge of two articles. The result was [6] kept until November 2011 when Night w deleted the notable sourced information falsely claiming consensus, when there wasn't such. Few edits afterwards I restored the content with the discussion on the talk page continuing to the present day. The current new page was created as compromise (see here) so that the other article doesn't become too long. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I objected to its speedy deletion because there is likely to be someone who objects to its deletion, and it did not qualify under WP:CSD. That being said, these list-style articles, where another on the same topic already exists, is highly likely to become a POV fork. In my experience, unless lots of people watch spin-off articles, they tend to decay into random tables, often pushing one party's point of view. If a few editors can agree to "adopt" this article, I would not object to its being kept. Otherwise, I am leaning towards deletion of it for that reason. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the consensus decision to merge was "hijacked" by few editors pushing to delete notable sourced information instead of merging it. They have done this months after the merge was fully completed, but are persistent in deleting without consensus. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan.218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. If that isn't successful, merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or restore relevant column of [7]. Japinderum (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: See also the previous discussion about a similar page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International recognition of South Sudan. Current AfD noted to editors who haven't yet expressed opinion above. Japinderum (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Japinderum (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or keep. In the case of newly independent countries (compare Foreign relations of Montenegro), the order and timestamp of recognition is relevant even in non-Kosovo cases. I see no reason to delete this content. —Nightstallion 12:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/ Merge It is a useful encyclopaedic list of information. It could however be merged into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". After reading through this AfD, I have not seen any compelling reasons to delete this content. IJA (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian, the reason is that all countries have recognised South Sudan already. This is therefore not a "list of countries that have recognised"; it is a "list of countries that have released statements about South Sudan that have been published on the internet that we've been able to find". It's meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's a list of explicit official diplomatic recognition foreign policy acts. This is different from the "obvious recognition by all" (deduced from UN admission without objections or welcome statements) that you refer to. About the "that we've been able to find" part - included in the article are all presently known sources - if you have more - let's add those, but there is no reason to delete what we already have. Japinderum (talk) 12:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian, the reason is that all countries have recognised South Sudan already. This is therefore not a "list of countries that have recognised"; it is a "list of countries that have released statements about South Sudan that have been published on the internet that we've been able to find". It's meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/ Merge This is very encyclopedic and useful list. Keep per IJA and Nightstallion. Sure, it doesnt matter should be have separate article or not, i even prefer merge into Foreign relations of South Sudan, but this list should definitively be kept. Every new nation or state should have this list on wiki, if you ask me.. :) --WhiteWriter speaks 12:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I say keep as this was an important international event. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 13:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale To further expand on Bazonka's opening above, there's nothing at all notable about countries recognising South Sudan. Notable was Sudan's assertion that it would be the first country to recognise South Sudan. Notable also was the speed at which South Sudan entered the international community, joining the UN within days of independence.
- Japinderum has been trying to create a distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country. While one statement may be relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries (although in many cases I doubt it's important at all), a list made from a mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet is not encyclopaedic or useful. South Sudan isn't in a situation where it need to go around seeking recognition, like Kosovo. Neither is it in a situation where although it is in the international community it is still legally unrecognised by some, like Israel. Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan. By creating a list of recognitions, we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan, and with this implying those on the list haven't. This is made even worse by the map, which shows countries which have granted "recognition and diplomatic relations", those who have merely granted "recognition", and of course the others, in grey.
- Since 14 July, and very arguably since 9 July, South Sudan has been a fully recognised state. The Chronology of diplomatic relations is found on the main foreign relations page. The Chronology of recognitions is misleading and unnotable, and based on disparate internet sources. All the notable moments of recognition will go perfectly well on the main Foreign Relations page too. This article implies that countries not on the list, and grey on the map, do not recognise South Sudan, and implies all the baggage that goes with that. This article is a great disservice to readers not up to the level of political nuance Japinerdum seems to be trying to employ. CMD (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the act of diplomatic recognition is "relevant to the development of bilateral relations between countries". That's why governments do it, MFAs keep such lists and news agencies report it.
- CMD continues to avoid the issue - I don't speak about "distinction between recognition of a country and a note given about recognition of a country". I speak about distinction between the explicit official foreign relations act of diplomatic recognition and the "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objections), "welcome notes" and similar notions he refers to.
- "mishmash of whatever can be found on the internet" - again, it's fine if you object usage of a particular "bad" source, but requesting deletion of all sources (most of which aren't contributing to a "mishmash") isn't.
- "Every country recognises and accepts South Sudan." (e.g. "obvious recognition") - the same for Montenegro or Croatia, but this doesn't diminish the importance of the acts of diplomatic recognition, and because of this importance for foreign relations their MFAs (and others) keep lists of the official recognitions (see above).
- "we are telling the reader that the countries on the list are the ones that have recognised South Sudan" - no, we're telling that the countries on the list have taken the explicit official act of diplomatic recognition
- "with this implying those [not] on the list haven't." - no we're not implying anything. Just as we're not implying such thing on the Montenegro list and the MFAs I linked above aren't implying such thing on their websites. On the contrary - it's clearly stated that "South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."
- "diplomatic recognition" and "obvious recognition"/"lack of objections" are different. Lack of diplomatic recognition may be assumed to be (mistakenly or not) for lack of obvious recognition/presence of objections only for problematic cases/states with limited recognition like Kosovo, Palestine, etc. and it seems some editors, who are accustomed to working on those problematic articles try to apply that logic here.
- Actually, removing the diplomatic recognitions (~115) from the list makes South Sudan appear "bare" and "less accepted, than it really is", because it leaves listed only the cases that already reached the next step, diplomatic relations (~40), which is much lower. Japinderum (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The recognitions we found were basically statements on websites, hardly amazing acts of foreign relations. Again, you're trying to use an extremely nuanced point here, but one I feel readers will fail to grasp and one which I don't think your sources substantiate.
- As for the implications, their being recognised is exactly what we're implying, and I'm not just assuming this. In the past, many users have come from the Montenegro and Croatia pages trying to have them added onto the List of states with limited recognition.
- You've provided no sources which show the difference between what you call "obvious recognition" and "diplomatic recognition". I would argue that Israel has obvious recognition from the states around it (it's quite hard to ignore), but it clearly doesn't have diplomatic recognition from all of them.
- Removing diplomatic recognitions doesn't make it less bare. It makes it as bare as perhaps France, or Canada, which I'm sure you agree are fully accepted. Or Bhutan, if you want an example of a state with few diplomatic missions. Bhutan's diplomacy is indeed bare, but we're not going around saying how it is only recognised by this many countries.
- In the end, if you have a map showing countries that have recognised South Sudan, it's only common sense that those not coloured haven't recognised it. And that is wrong. CMD (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The acceptable sources are government/MFA statements about diplomatic recognition and news reports about those. If some sources are of the kind "welcome note" this is a different thing and shouldn't be utilized. I think that's clear.
- As you can see Montenegro or Croatia aren't added to the List of states with limited recognition. Somebody may "request" such a thing, but it doesn't go trough. Same for South Sudan. If you think that somebody could still mistaken obvious and diplomatic recognition or think that South Sudan has a recognition problem like Kosovo - let's add an additional clarification - it's that simple. Same for the map - it's is about diplomatic recognitions and relations, not about obvious recognitions.
- What about Israel? It's quite clear - we have sources for countries that made explicit statements about NOT recognizing it as state at all, so they give it neither "obvious" nor diplomatic recognition.
- Also, any source about the act of diplomatic recognition, especially after previous UN admission without objections shows the difference between "your" obvious recognition and "mine" diplomatic recognition. The MFA links I gave above are full of recognition dates after the UN admission date.
- Not showing the diplomatic recognitions (and their dates) deprives the reader from getting the chronology picture. South Sudan gathered so many diplomatic recognitions in such a short period of time. This is seen in the chronology and wouldn't be seen otherwise. Compare this number/period to Montenegro's for example. Japinderum (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources at all make your point about differences in recognition, not without some synth or OR. You haven't defined what you call "obvious recognition" yourself, let alone back it up with any source. The MFA links above give no context as to what they mean. They do however provide a nice source for those countries, so it may be important to them. None have yet been provided with South Sudan, and its quite easy to see that the Yugoslav MFAs are in the minority in regards to keeping a list. CMD (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources clearly show UN members, who list the recognitions on their MFA websites and some of those recognition dates are years after the UN admission. You can see also the US source that wasn't provided by me. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 out of how many? Also, the US source is about their recognitions, not about when they are recognised. The modern ones I checked, including South Sudan, didn't note the countries recognised the USA. CMD (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are examples of lists kept on website. You can find many more examples of MFAs announcing diplomatic recognition of individual states, including in the current article. The US source is an example of the notability a government puts in diplomatic recognition - contrary to "it's irrelevant, when it's obvious". Also, the US source includes dates not only for when the USA recognized another country, but also for the cases where the USA was recognized by another country (check Spain, France, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll note I said "the modern ones". Spain and France are older than the USA, back in the day before international politics became structured and formalised. The US government may keep stuff for red tape purposes, but this conversation still lacks any source which notes the importance of diplomatic recognition in Montenegro like situations. I'm sure there are some, as your argument has valid points, but the way this page is presented is still inherently misleading. CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few states are older than the USA (it's the first colony to become independent), that's why most of the recognitions are of USA recognizing X instead of X recognizing USA. Exactly for Montenegro-like situations we have a source - the Montenegro MFA itself![8] And for South Sudan too - for receiving diplomatic recognitions after its UN admission. As said already - I don't object adding some further clarification notes. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, which makes it a very bad example for modern states. When this is merged or kept, we can work on clarification notes. CMD (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very few states are older than the USA (it's the first colony to become independent), that's why most of the recognitions are of USA recognizing X instead of X recognizing USA. Exactly for Montenegro-like situations we have a source - the Montenegro MFA itself![8] And for South Sudan too - for receiving diplomatic recognitions after its UN admission. As said already - I don't object adding some further clarification notes. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll note I said "the modern ones". Spain and France are older than the USA, back in the day before international politics became structured and formalised. The US government may keep stuff for red tape purposes, but this conversation still lacks any source which notes the importance of diplomatic recognition in Montenegro like situations. I'm sure there are some, as your argument has valid points, but the way this page is presented is still inherently misleading. CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are examples of lists kept on website. You can find many more examples of MFAs announcing diplomatic recognition of individual states, including in the current article. The US source is an example of the notability a government puts in diplomatic recognition - contrary to "it's irrelevant, when it's obvious". Also, the US source includes dates not only for when the USA recognized another country, but also for the cases where the USA was recognized by another country (check Spain, France, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 out of how many? Also, the US source is about their recognitions, not about when they are recognised. The modern ones I checked, including South Sudan, didn't note the countries recognised the USA. CMD (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources clearly show UN members, who list the recognitions on their MFA websites and some of those recognition dates are years after the UN admission. You can see also the US source that wasn't provided by me. Japinderum (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources at all make your point about differences in recognition, not without some synth or OR. You haven't defined what you call "obvious recognition" yourself, let alone back it up with any source. The MFA links above give no context as to what they mean. They do however provide a nice source for those countries, so it may be important to them. None have yet been provided with South Sudan, and its quite easy to see that the Yugoslav MFAs are in the minority in regards to keeping a list. CMD (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge Ron 1987 (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge Redundant fork of Foreign relations of South Sudan, but has some encyclopedic information worth keeping. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep A record of dipolomatic recogniton for any state is notable, the US state department web page keeps a record of its own diplomatic recognitions for example.XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Link? CMD (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It can be found here, it is complete for all current states though some extinct states are lacking on the page. [[9]]
- Interesting. Link? CMD (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge --Avala (talk) 17:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. Relevant information with encyclopedic value that should remain, but not in a stand-alone article per rationale of nom.--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect. It's a rehash of the information in the Foreign Relations article, but a rehash that's been greatly appended and updated, so merging it back ("de-forking?") would also address any issues of incompleteness one might have with that article as well. ChristopherGregory (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable Th order is important (as som were at first reluctant). Furthermore all states havent done so yet. Or a transcluded template can go on the redirectd page.Lihaas (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Seems like a decent compromise solution to me. I don't think this information is terribly useful, but it might be a good reference for someone else. I'm just happy to have it off the Foreign relations of South Sudan page, where it was creating a mess. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The main argument for keeping, as I see it, is the list of recognition dates. However, Wikipedia is not a place to store raw data. Encyclopedic content (all of the article's seven cohesive sentences concerning universal recognition and admission to the UN) is already present in Foreign relations of South Sudan#Chronology of relations. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK (point 3) applies to everything else straight on. Whatever happens, just don't stuff this huge thing into "Foreign relations of South Sudan". --illythr (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, albeit weakly per XavierGreen and Kudzu1. James F. (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dufo (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per XavierGreen. This is a standard entry for any encyclopedia, much like Relations pages. Outback the koala (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point that all countries have recognised South Sudan following it's unanimous admittance to the UN. All we're reporting is those who have published pleasantries on the internet. This is absolutely meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Again - if some source is about "pleasantries" it should be removed. The encyclopedic content here is the list of "diplomatic recognitions" - a foreign policy act different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objection, pleasantries and welcome notes, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All that is needed for diplomatic recognition is some form of diplomatic activity in which the two states or polities recognize each other as soveriegn peers. A treaty, diplomatic note, or simply the accreditation of a diplomatic agent is all that is needed to establish diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree it could be anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity. Outback the koala (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does voting to accept it as a UN member count, considering that shows clear recognition the other is a equal, valid, and sovereign entity? CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on the situtation, yes. However in this case, as stated in the second paragraph of the article; there was no vote. Maybe we could clarify this in the opening paragraph to explain that these are explicit recognition? Wouldn't that cover it? I just don't see a need to delete this article. Outback the koala (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no vote because they joined through acclamation, which is equivalent to an unanimous vote. The UN only votes if it needs to (which surprises me, with the bureaucracy of the UN and everything). CMD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CMD, I (and sources I can provide if you insist) don't agree with your view of the UN as "sovereignty gatekeeper". It's just an intergovernmental organization, a politically important one, but without any such powers given to it by its members.
- The UN admission without objections shows us the "obvious recognition". As shown in the sources - UN admission is not correlated with the issuance of diplomatic recognitions by individual states - such are issued both before and after the UN admission. And this is not only for South Sudan, this is the common practice as you can see from the sources for other states too. Governments around the world find these acts notable, but a few editors here argue that they aren't. Japinderum (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There was no vote because they joined through acclamation, which is equivalent to an unanimous vote. The UN only votes if it needs to (which surprises me, with the bureaucracy of the UN and everything). CMD (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Depending on the situtation, yes. However in this case, as stated in the second paragraph of the article; there was no vote. Maybe we could clarify this in the opening paragraph to explain that these are explicit recognition? Wouldn't that cover it? I just don't see a need to delete this article. Outback the koala (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does voting to accept it as a UN member count, considering that shows clear recognition the other is a equal, valid, and sovereign entity? CMD (talk) 16:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree it could be anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity. Outback the koala (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All that is needed for diplomatic recognition is some form of diplomatic activity in which the two states or polities recognize each other as soveriegn peers. A treaty, diplomatic note, or simply the accreditation of a diplomatic agent is all that is needed to establish diplomatic recognition.XavierGreen (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Again - if some source is about "pleasantries" it should be removed. The encyclopedic content here is the list of "diplomatic recognitions" - a foreign policy act different from "obvious recognition" (deduced from UN admission without objection, pleasantries and welcome notes, etc.) Japinderum (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point that all countries have recognised South Sudan following it's unanimous admittance to the UN. All we're reporting is those who have published pleasantries on the internet. This is absolutely meaningless. Bazonka (talk) 08:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both before and after South Sudan admission to the UN many states have issued official explicit statements about its diplomatic recognition and some have established diplomatic relations with it." - that's the next sentence - I propose we tweak it additionally (and/or change the existing footnote "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit official unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement doesn't necessarily mean the state has objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party. South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."), so that any CMD concers about "implying SS doesn't have obvious recognition from everybody" are addressed. I think the explicit and not one of the states with limited recognition are sufficient, but I'm OK with further tweaks to the text. Japinderum (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Japinderum, that was a question addressed specifically to Outbacks note about "anything that shows clear recognition that the other is an equal,valid soveriegn entity". It had nothing to do with statements of explicit recognition, and nothing to do with the UN being a sovereignty gatekeeper, and so your post has completely missed the point of my question to them. CMD (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Both before and after South Sudan admission to the UN many states have issued official explicit statements about its diplomatic recognition and some have established diplomatic relations with it." - that's the next sentence - I propose we tweak it additionally (and/or change the existing footnote "Diplomatic recognition is an explicit official unilateral act in the foreign policy of states in regards to another party. Not having issued such a statement doesn't necessarily mean the state has objections against the existence, independence, sovereignty or government of the other party. South Sudan is not one of the states with limited recognition."), so that any CMD concers about "implying SS doesn't have obvious recognition from everybody" are addressed. I think the explicit and not one of the states with limited recognition are sufficient, but I'm OK with further tweaks to the text. Japinderum (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan since South Sudan is a large and new country in the world. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of South Sudan. While a list of states which recognize South Sudan isn't notable (since presumably they all do) the dates of recognition are as per the arguments above. TDL (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seneca, South Carolina. Wifione Message 05:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- J. N. Kellett Elementary 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)
School, now de-commisioned (so unlikely to generate much in the way of new news), through grade 5. Appears to be run-of-the mill, but for the fact that it was closed. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Nominated for AfD half a decade ago, and kept under what appear to have been standards different than those applied at wp today.Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Seneca, South Carolina per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 19:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Spyder_Monkey. - Jorgath (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Bmusician 03:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- European Union acronyms, jargon and working practices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be a kind of glossary of eurospeak. Fairly clear violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 21:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need a better title, but I think it is nonetheless sufficient important as an auxiliary aid in understand the articles in the encyclopedia to be kept here somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is no rule against glossaries on Wikipedia; in fact, they are specifically recognized as a legitimate variety of list. See MOS:LIST#List articles, as well as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries (currently undergoing a revision). Although not currently titled as such, this article is a useful list, mainly populated by (and providing concise and helpful explanations of) blue-linked terms. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My $0.05: the article can be useuful for quickly findig relevant articles on the European Union. I'd use the following rule of thumb; anything that is factual, informative and helps readers quickly find what they are looking for should usually not fall foul of Wikipedia house rules. --Grimne (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 21:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dwayne Buckle (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 as with first nomination, WP:BLP1E. - RoyBoy 04:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hasn't produced enough work of note to pass WP:FILMMAKER. There might be a case for him passing WP:VICTIM, but there seems to have been little coverage of the event historically, and WP:BLP1E applies. Yunshui 雲水 13:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per media coverage. WP:BLP1E is a vague reason for deletion in this particular case.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His awarded works as producer and director are enough for me to pass WP:ANYBIO#1. Cavarrone (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per Yunshui. Not notable as a filmmaker, the other matter already has its own article. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reading over WP:FILMMAKER... In this case none of the necessary conditions of notability are met. i.e not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers, is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique, has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, etc. Also does not meet criteria for WP:VICTIM and that matter is handled elsewhere.--MLKLewis (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MLKLewis. - Jorgath (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: BLP1E is a "vague reason" to delete? Err, that is a black-letter notability guideline, and failure to meet its requirements is a solid reason to delete. As far as the subject putatively passing WP:ANYBIO, what about honorable mentions at minor film festivals constitute "a well-known and significant award or honor?" Perhaps we can revisit Buckle should he win a genuinely significant award such as an Academy Award, a BAFTA, an Emmy or receive notice at a major film festival such as Cannes, Sundance, Venice or Berlin. Ravenswing 08:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arlo Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable musician, no reliable sources found to indicate that he is notable. Mattg82 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this person; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC at this time. Gongshow Talk 21:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ARLO JACKSON- IS A VERY REPUTABLE MUSICIAN.. IN FACT IF YOU GOOGLE HIM MOR HIS PRODUCTION COMPANY YOU WILL SEE HE IS CURRENTLY CREATING MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS AND ALSO ACTIVE IN THE SKATEBOARDING COMMUNITY....
FURTHERMORE IT WAS FOOLISH OF YOU TO TAKE THIS ACTION. THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.118.146 (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You'd a lot more persuasive if you backed up your claims with proof, with reliable, third party sources about why he's notable, rather than writing in ALL CAPS and calling people foolish... Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Partly per nom. Partly because it appears to be an autobiography as well (not a reason in and of itself, but rarely a good sign), and lacks any independent sources. While we're at it, we might want to put up one of those "this is not a vote" templates in the event that we get some more "interesting" comments like the above.Tyrenon (talk) 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not demonstrated in any way that relates to WP WP:N policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of third party coverage. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per the fact that he doesn't meet WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The article will be deleted if User:Coryburnell confirms his identity, per the standard treatment of "no consensus" AfDs in which the subject requests deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cory Burnell (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 is borderline notable, if notable at all. The only secondary source which appears to be about him is no longer accessible. Various single-purpose editors have deleted his only noteworthy activities: his well-sourced participation in two separatist groups. I'm guessing the subject now finds these past activities embarrassing. Rather than continue to tussle over the bio it seems like it'd be simpler to just delete it. The subject would still be mentioned as a co-founder of a notable group, Christian Exodus, but his other activities, like starting a meet-up group, are not noteworthy enough for a standalone biography or even worth a redirect. Will Beback talk 08:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This is not the way to resolve content disputes. Burnell has obviously received significant coverage in news sources - a simple gnews check reveals numerous articles, such as Christian movement moving in from USA Today. StAnselm (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many crappy refs, but there's gold amidst the dross; between the Seattle Times and USA Today articles there's a clear pass of WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject disputes accuracy of secondary sources. Nothing's notable other than founding of Christian Exodus and subject is referenced as such on that page, consequently this article is redundant from a notability stand point and should be deleted. Anteater21 (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence at all that the "subject disputes the accuracy of secondary sources"? StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that question. I'm not aware of the subject himself making any statements about this material. Some editors have objected, but none have identified themselves as the subject. Will Beback talk 01:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I know Cory Burnell and will tell him to post here. Anteater21 (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A content dispute is not ground for deletion. Three solid sources (Seattle Times, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal) establish notability. What we need to be discussing is why several statements that are well-referenced continue to be deleted from this article, and what should be done about it. I propose that this page be protected. If the subject disputes something in the article that others can substantiate with reliable sources, he should handle it through WP:OTRS rather than weighing in here or having his friends continue to wage an edit war, per WP:BLP. Steve CarlsonTalk 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, it seems reasonable to relist in anticipation of possible comments of the subject to which Anteater21 refers. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've emailed Anteater21 to let him know the discussion has been held open temporarily to allow further comment. Will Beback talk 21:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the subject clearly isn't notable. A few 1-segment appearances on TV doesn't qualify anyone as notable or deserving of a listing in this encyclopedia. Turner17 (talk) 07:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I direct the Delete proponents to WP:GNG, which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Burrell is mentioned in significant detail in several reliable sources; done deal. Whether he is now embarrassed by some of his past involvements - as the nom suggests without proffering any evidence of the same - is irrelevant. Whether he disputes the accuracy of the news reports - again, something a Delete proponent alleges without proffering any evidence of the same - is irrelevant. Ravenswing 08:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Gentlemen, thank you for your involvement in this discussion, and I apologize for its controversy using up your valuable time. My friends have correctly posted that I didn't hold an official post with the Texas League of the South, but my involvement was mistaken as such and that misinformation was then repeated. However, as to being embarrassed about it or any other activities that's simply not the case because there's nothing to be embarrassed about. The Texas League had no sinister or racial motivations that I ever witnessed, but was solely focused on Texas independence - a notion that's gained momentum in recent years. It's unfortunate that misinformation quite easily spreads these days and the League of the South has been a victim of this with perception overwhelming reality... so few people make any effort at truth-seeking beyond perception (and no, the Southern Poverty Law Center is not an objective or credible source LOL :-). I'm sure that's what's given rise to the sensitivity surrounding accuracy with my associations with the Texas League of the South; accuracy being necessary because perception isn't accurate. So as the subject of this article, I'd ask you for two considerations: either 1) please delete the incorrect reference to my holding an official position with the Texas League, or 2) delete the article entirely to end any future controversy. Please contact me if I can provide any further information to keep the record straight. I thank you all in advance and wish you all the best. Coryburnell (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)— Coryburnell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I have temporarily removed the League of the South statement from the article. However, it is in the cited source (the Seattle Times), and so we would need confirmation before making the alteration permenant. Please could you contact the Response Team at info-enwikimedia.org to confirm your identity (in theory at least, anyone could register an account under the name User:Coryburnell in an attempt to derail this discussion)? Yunshui 雲水 14:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Don series. The creator and main editor of the AfDed article argued s/he would clean up and develop the article if it was left up, but now three weeks have passed and nothing happened. Leaving this a stand-alone article would not be the right decision in this case. – sgeureka t•c 10:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roma (character) (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 movie character - no notability outside the films, and no significant coverage found for the individual character. Completely unreferenced. Tried redirecting to the main film article, but page creator kept reverting, so bringing this here for definitive resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Conservatively merge to Don series, the best location for characters featured in more than one of these films to give an overview of them from the entire series. This kind of merger should almost always be done with fictional characters from notable works or series, and we should handle that through normal editing rather than AFD. Roma (character) should probably redirect to Roma, given that there are multiple fictional characters to which that name could apply.
Note: the nom's description of this as "completely unreferenced" is incorrect (to the extent an article's current state as unreferenced is even relevant here; we are concerned with what is verifiable), as the movies themselves are reliable sources for their own content, provided a description does not veer into interpretive OR. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the character is quite important aswell as the male lead which is the character don she is the female lead and has notability outside the film and she has been at events as the character and was notable at every event whether it was awards, conferences, premieres or promotions.2.26.14.49 (talk)— 2.26.14.49 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I also think that the article should not be deleted it has alot to offer. .Bollywood Fan1 (talk)
- Comment - the above comment was added by 2.26.14.49, not Bollywood Fan1 - this appears to be a single editor trying to pretend to be two. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a few comments were made without being signed in. It's a common newcomer oversight. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the above comment was added by 2.26.14.49, not Bollywood Fan1 - this appears to be a single editor trying to pretend to be two. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree that the article is not in good state and does not have even a single source, hence it looks like it should be deleted. But the creator of the article, if he wants the article to stay, then he has to clean it up and make it match Wikipedia's quality standards, along with many reliable sources. If Bollywood Fan 1 refuses to these, I am sorry for his article :-( ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. We don't use deletion processes as an ultimatum like that, and we certainly don't delete articles based on their current state. If the subject belongs in Wikipedia, then it should stay, keeping in mind alternatives to deletion such as merging which don't require compulsive processes anyway but can be done by any editor. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ok i will clean it up but can you please just leave the article up because i am trying to clean it up and get sources and pictures so please leave it up and i will clean it up Bollywood Fan1
- You better do it fast. By the way, sign your posts using 4tildes. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By "4tildes", he means this: "~~~~" (upper left area of your keyboard). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You better do it fast. By the way, sign your posts using 4tildes. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ok i will clean it up but can you please just leave the article up because i am trying to clean it up and get sources and pictures so please leave it up and i will clean it up Bollywood Fan1
- AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. We don't use deletion processes as an ultimatum like that, and we certainly don't delete articles based on their current state. If the subject belongs in Wikipedia, then it should stay, keeping in mind alternatives to deletion such as merging which don't require compulsive processes anyway but can be done by any editor. postdlf (talk) 17:12, 23 January 2012 (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) 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Truveris (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 and no real asertion of notability. A few refs confirms that it exists but none give it any claim for notability. Looks like a back-office type software provider. Quite big, but size doesn't count for anything on Wikipeia Velella Velella Talk 20:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:NCORP requires secondary WP:reliable sources coverage. The Businesswire (in the article) seems to be one, another can be StartupGazette's Truveris Raises $3.8M in First Round of Venture Funding (though it seems to address the same event). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per SL93. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Businesswire regurgitates press releases. Most of StartupGazette's content is the same press release. SL93 (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a news source has things like "About company name" (this press release has it in 4 places), has mostly quotes from the company, is filled with promotional language, and has no author listed with only contact information for the company, it is a press release. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another venture-backed, privately-held, healthcare information technology company that provides pharmacy bill review software as a service promoting itself on Wikipedia. Routine announcements that a firm has received capital do not even generate minimal significance; if they hadn't, no one would bother to spam on their behalf. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Steve Palmer (footballer born 1977) (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 find any suggestion that this player meets the GNG. —WFC— 20:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. —WFC— 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above. The leagues he's played in aren't part of the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Apollo (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. All offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 19:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: article's talk page contains some more reviews which seem to be less related to the copyright holder. But don't count this comment for keep vote: I neither checked those, nor made my own research. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually checked those links: there are 4 more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone), but all come from some obscure sites. I thing it is just not enough, so I vote
delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually checked those links: there are 4 more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone), but all come from some obscure sites. I thing it is just not enough, so I vote
- Czarkoff, I am obviously biased, but I don't suppose I could put on the scales two mentions by http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ as evidence that Apollo is indeed something that is being talked about and considered? We are not going to be mentioned by the NYT, but we believe we are notable and Wikipedia-worth. Tony Mobily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong keep: Am I allowed to vote, being one of the people behind Apollo? Maybe not, but I would like to make a couple of points. LoudHowie, maybe I am biased (or, definitely) but I don't see Apollo as "minor". Many working in the industry would agree with me. I love Wikipedia and want to keep totally honest. I was open about things in the discussion, and am adding links to the article from the discussion page (I didn't do because I expected others to do it). Plus, I want to highlight that a lot of the reviews from sources that are anything _but_ obscure. Finally, you call the article a "minimal listing of the maker" -- did you see Basecamp's entry? What's your take on that, since I didn't see a deletion tag for their article? I am happy to extend the article with more information.Tony Mobily (talk) 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Several points: (1) please avoid arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFF, (2) sure, you are allowed to vote (you might want to change your comment label above to keep or strong keep), though your vote would be given some less weight, as you are the initial editor of article, (3) if you know of reviewers in reliable sources, please identify them. As you might have seem, I voted above delete, as I failed to find those. Still I would be happy to vote keep if they were in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Humm ok (2) OK I voted 3) Not sure what makes a reliable source in WP books, but ReadWriteWeb is strong in Europe. Also, TechCrunch mentioned Apollo in an article as an alternative to ProductEve, does that count? http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Tony Mobily (talk) One extra note: if you consider ReadWriteWeb (ranking 1,545 in Alexa) obscure, or The Next Web (ranking 1,487 in Alexa) obscure, or BrightHub (ranking 1,994) obscure, or TripWire (Ranking 954 in India) obscure, then I don't think I stand a chance to get this article to stay -- but I don't think it would be fair and feels like WP:ZEAL to me. Tony Mobily (talk)
- I see no ReadWriteWeb article. The four sources I identified as "more or less adequate sources (both in size and tone)" are BrightHub, TheNextWeb, TripWire and AppStorm. Among them only BrightHub has the editorial oversight, which is a minimum for satisfying WP:RS. Am I missing something? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Humm ok (2) OK I voted 3) Not sure what makes a reliable source in WP books, but ReadWriteWeb is strong in Europe. Also, TechCrunch mentioned Apollo in an article as an alternative to ProductEve, does that count? http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Tony Mobily (talk) One extra note: if you consider ReadWriteWeb (ranking 1,545 in Alexa) obscure, or The Next Web (ranking 1,487 in Alexa) obscure, or BrightHub (ranking 1,994) obscure, or TripWire (Ranking 954 in India) obscure, then I don't think I stand a chance to get this article to stay -- but I don't think it would be fair and feels like WP:ZEAL to me. Tony Mobily (talk)
- Several points: (1) please avoid arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFF, (2) sure, you are allowed to vote (you might want to change your comment label above to keep or strong keep), though your vote would be given some less weight, as you are the initial editor of article, (3) if you know of reviewers in reliable sources, please identify them. As you might have seem, I voted above delete, as I failed to find those. Still I would be happy to vote keep if they were in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Humble apologies, ReadWriteWeb only did a passing mention to Apollo (but well it's there) here http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php OK, so 4 major web sites covered Apollo (the ones mentioned above), and two major ones did a passing mention http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Amongst the 4 ones I consider "major", you only consider BrightHub as noteworthy. The fact that it's talked about, reviewed, etc. does, in my (biased) opinion, make it qualify to stay. Tony Mobily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Per policy passing mentions don't count, but it seems you can relax anyway: this AfD stands for 7 days and have 4 editors' opinions: it is very likely too close as keep if closing admin takes your side or no consensus otherwise. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Humble apologies, ReadWriteWeb only did a passing mention to Apollo (but well it's there) here http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php OK, so 4 major web sites covered Apollo (the ones mentioned above), and two major ones did a passing mention http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/what_cloud_computing_means_for_small_businesses.php and http://techcrunch.com/2012/01/24/producteev-drops-slew-of-new-apps-now-lets-you-crowdsource-your-tasks-on-taskrabbit/ Amongst the 4 ones I consider "major", you only consider BrightHub as noteworthy. The fact that it's talked about, reviewed, etc. does, in my (biased) opinion, make it qualify to stay. Tony Mobily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. A cursory look at the nom's contributions reveals a streak of WP:ZEAL. Beyond that, there are plenty of references in the Talk page, which suggests WP:GNG. If these references need to be put in the article, then a {{refimprove}} tag would be a far better better choice and an AfD. -- Dandv(talk|contribs) 03:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please specify those sources that are usable for WP:GNG purposes? Hope you don't consider Tumblr post as satisfactory reference. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm tired of deletionism. It really demotivates potential contributors. 79.183.31.138 (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: after some more though I conclude that Tony Mobily has the point: though the sources this article has are not as good as one may generally expects, they are discuss the software in depth; though Alexa ratings don't show the quality of sources, they may be taken for the credibility people put in the sources. And in the end this article has a devoted editor who will gradually improve it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuen Wo Road (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 18:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 21:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Delete and merge content into locality or locality-transport article. - Jorgath (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: Honestly, I think this cops an A7; never mind that there is no evidence of notability proffered, there is no assertion of notability in the first place. Ravenswing 08:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a clear consensus that Ms Machado is notable in Wikipedia's sense and should have an article. If she is unhappy with the content, there is advice at WP:BLP/H and contact details at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). The IP says "information was copied from another source almost verbatim" - if you can show a source which pre-dates this article, it will be deleted as a copyright violation, but according to user Pkeets (talk) s/he wrote it. Once published in Wikipedia, the CC-BY-SA license permits copying and re-use, so there is no fraud in Chrono Press republishing it, though we may think they have a nerve to try to charge CDN$42.32 for what can be read for free here. There is also nothing wrong, from our point of view, in Facebook reproducing the information, though I imagine Ms Machado can ask Facebook to take it down if she does not want to have an entry there. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Marianella Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completing nomination on behalf of User:Golothir. On the merits, I have no position at this time, though I may comment on the allegations in the nom. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original rationale from the nom's edit summary reads thus: Not a famous person; information on this page has been used in Wikipedia Copy and Paste Fraud. See ISBN 978-613-5-78520-3 in Google UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've asked the nominator to comment here; I can't find the work the ISBN refers to, either through the search link or through Google. Even if the subject used wikipedia to write a book, they can do that if it's properly attributed, and that's not a reason to delete. The non-notability, on the other hand... UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Marianella Machado is a Music Encyclopedia topic and therefore considered notable enough for an article. I'm the writer. What copy-and-paste fraud? Pkeets (talk) 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; well-established composer with a notable career. Having an article in the New Grove -- and she does, by Carmen Helena Téllez -- is certainly evidence of notability. Antandrus (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search for terms, and found a copy of the Wikipedia bio on her Facebook page and also here: Amazon link, which appears to be the ISBN in question. The book and page both credit Wikipedia. I can't see any fraud. Pkeets (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I've asked the nom to post additional information here. As to notability... it is a little thin, but news articles and encyclopedia entries are good evidence of at least some notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone with an entry in another encyclopedia is considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Pkeets (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very much depends on the encyclopedia, I imagine. But in this case, I agree. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone with an entry in another encyclopedia is considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Pkeets (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. I've asked the nom to post additional information here. As to notability... it is a little thin, but news articles and encyclopedia entries are good evidence of at least some notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I note that she is an accomplished composer, musical and mathematical theoretician, and has many musical and scholarly article works. Moreover, her work has itself been the subject of articles. This is from one of the sources: Some of her scholarly and creative achievements have won awards and recognitions: her dissertation for her Doctor of Musical Arts degree in Composition, "Dihaguara" (1993), a ballet that integrates music, visual art, mathematics, was sponsored by The University Research Council Summer Fellowship, University of Cincinnati (1991); her dissertation for her PhD degree in Hispanic American literature, "Asi en la tierra como en el cielo" (1998), an approach to analysis and creation of poetry from a music theory perspective, won the Taft Foundation Fellowship Award at University of Cincinnati (1997-98); her choral composition, "Trilce, Poem XXXII" (1982), was chosen and recorded in Ukraine by ERMMedia Recording as part of its CD collection, "Master Pieces of the New Era" (2006). Also, two of Marianella Machado's articles, "Reflexiones sobre la relación poesÃa-música" and "Una interpretación del ritmo poético en Mester de LejanÃa de Pedro Lastra," (published by the journal Mapocho, in Chile, 2005 and 2007, respectively) are examples of her interdisciplinary research. Moreover, her musical composition "The Triumph of Love," based on an old Spanish legend, was commissioned and premiered by The Starling Chamber String Orchestra of Cincinnati at the Kennedy Center of Washington D.C. in November 2005. Finally, it is important to mention that Butterfly Triptych, for chamber ensemble, was the subject of a cross-disciplinary research that Marianella Machado undertook with Dr. Dirk Schlingmann (a Professor of Mathematics and Chair of the Eastern Kentucky University, Mathematics and Statistics Department) and Dr. Chris Kulp (a former Assistant Professor of Physics at EKU). The result of this collaborative work was the publication of an article, "Composition and Analysis of Music Using Mathematica," at the journal, "Mathematica in Education and Research" (MIER), in February, 2007; and also the presentation, "Composition and Creation of Music Using Mathematics," for the Roark Lectures Series Award of EKU, in March 2007. Furthermore, she was given the Excellence in Research and Creative Activity Award of EKU for the academic year 2009 - 2010.Marianella Machado's poetry books, "Encuentros Causales" (2006) and "Menudencias" (2001) were published by Authorhouse Publishers in March 2009. "Marianella Machado Biography". American Composers' Forum. Retrieved February 8, 2012. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree that she's notable, membership in the ACF is not restricted or audited in any way; it seems that anyone could join and have their biography posted in the member directory. But I see where you're coming from. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that membership does not establish notability. But I think accomplishment (and scholarly reaction to it) does. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
- And if you look up her name on U-tube, she has a really neat video of her horse. Actually, she has like three videos. :) Just kidding (about the notability of that, but I did like the video). 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that membership does not establish notability. But I think accomplishment (and scholarly reaction to it) does. 7&6=thirteen (☎)
- While I agree that she's notable, membership in the ACF is not restricted or audited in any way; it seems that anyone could join and have their biography posted in the member directory. But I see where you're coming from. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found many references in news, books and google scholar that point to meeting criteria for WP:CREATIVE--MLKLewis (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets our relevant criteria for notability. Agree that her membership does not factor into that determination.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of which goes to show that "notable" is not the same as "famous." Pkeets (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Has an article in Grove; nomination rationale flawed ("not famous"?). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I cannot think of a single precedent in eight years of being a Wikipedian, for seeing someone with an article in the New Grove -- the gold standard for music encyclopedias, in any language -- being deleted at AFD. Speedied sometimes, if the article was just a single line stub, but never AFD'd. Antandrus (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the nominator hasn't commented since I opened the debate, nor have they edited anywhere, this looks very much like a drive-by tagging. If nothing else, note that no one is recommending deletion, and this will likely be a slam-dunk close as keep. It also puts what could be a serious allegation (copyvio) to bed, seeing as how the AFd tag got people looking into that. Not a total waste of time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is the allegation? The book postdates the article, and it looks to be one of those things that presents Wikipedia biographies in book form. It's clearly identified as such in the Amazon description. Pkeets (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's my point, I asked the nom to explain what exactly he was on about, and he never showed up. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is the allegation? The book postdates the article, and it looks to be one of those things that presents Wikipedia biographies in book form. It's clearly identified as such in the Amazon description. Pkeets (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the nominator hasn't commented since I opened the debate, nor have they edited anywhere, this looks very much like a drive-by tagging. If nothing else, note that no one is recommending deletion, and this will likely be a slam-dunk close as keep. It also puts what could be a serious allegation (copyvio) to bed, seeing as how the AFd tag got people looking into that. Not a total waste of time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I work in IT at Ms. Machado's university and am writing on her behalf, as she is not experienced in such matters. Her point of contention with this article is two-fold. Firstly, information was copied from another source almost verbatim as an article. This article was then published in a paperback "anthology" which cost $40 USD. She was notified about this from colleagues at another institution who questioned the authenticity and quality of such a publication. Additionally, I believe other works of hers have been published in a similar manner originating from this technique. She is concerned that future publications may be rendered using this information in which her likeness and work are used without her knowledge and consent. We are aware that the ISBN is invalid. She has and can provide proof that such a book exists.
- Moreover, she argues that she is a private individual and not someone of renown sufficient to warrant that an article be published.
- I would be happy to put her in contact directly with anyone wishing to verify these facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.50.120 (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Within the scope of Wikipedia, there isn't a whole lot we can do once our material has been published - even if this article were to be deleted, such deletion does not revoke the License under which it was originally published. This means that the material could still be used for a book (or whatever), so long as it is correctly attributed to Wikipedia. That said, it's possible that Ms. Machado may wish to pursue recourse against whoever is writing inaccurate books about her, and that falls into areas of law - and Law is one area on which, by rule, we cannot offer advice. In the context of this debate, a good first step might be to post the correct ISBN here. AFD debates are not indexed by Google and other search engines, so noting the ISBN here will give no free publicity to this individual, if that is your concern. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (after edit conflict) You claim that information here was copied from another source almost verbatim. Could you please identify that source? If there is a copyright violation then such content will certainly be removed from Wikipedia. You also say that Ms Machado is a private individual and not someone of renown sufficient to warrant that an article be published. Does this mean that she has also contacted the Oxford University Press to request that her entry in Grove Music Online be removed? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 157.89.50.120 writes: "her likeness and work are used without her knowledge and consent." Her likeness? Her work? Where? What is she talking about? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you for your attention. I will apprise Dr. Machado of these comments as well as the functionality of this AfD page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.89.150.106 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since she is notable as many commenters have said. If the subject has an issue with the content of the article, can she (or her representative) please clarify what content is objectionable, inaccurate, or in violation of copyright so that it can be corrected or removed? - Jorgath (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There should be no copyright violation; the sources for the article are listed in the references. This article appears on a Community page at Facebook. If she is unaware of it, then she needs to take control of the page at Facebook. I can't see in the history that her likeness has ever been attached to the the Wikipedia article. Perhaps the book has made use of other resources as well? I don't think the ISBN is invalid. Here it is from Amazon.com:
Marianella Machado [Paperback], Pollux Variste Kjeld (Editor), Price: CDN$ 42.32, Paperback: 60 pages, Publisher: Chrono Press (July 2011), Language: English, ISBN-10: 6135785206, ISBN-13: 978-6135785203. Pkeets (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Like most other editors who have commented, I agree that a Grove citation is the gold standard for musical subjects, and the only public figures who succeed at having their Wikipedia articles removed are far, far more borderline than that ... leaving aside, of course, that people who want to retain anonymity probably ought not publish books, compose concert music or write numerous academic articles. (That aside, I am quite surprised by the anon IP's assertion that Dr. Machado, an accomplished and multiply-published academic, is "not experienced" in using words to get her point across.) Ravenswing 09:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To publish or not - that is becoming a quandary, isn't it? Facebook has even appropriated her name for a page. Pkeets (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tree.io (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article offers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: all I found is hosted on some pretty obscure resources: In addition to an editor-rated review by the software's author (already in the article), I got a roundup of "10 Brand New Productivity Tools You Probably Missed" and a strange review of CRM history recommending Tree.io (on articlebase, it seems to be blocked here, so no links). I wouldn't consider those to be reliable sources. Note: the article was created by Renatello, who committed no unrelated edits. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Goplan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article offers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker, the award it didn't win, and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only reference in the article not sourcing directly to the company's own site is effectively a product announcement and, as with the January 2010 AfD that resulted in deletion, there's nothing that would indicate proper notability. AllyD (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt: the article was created by FredOliveira, who has a short contribution record, similar to that of the author of the previous article. No significant changes since first AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No notability shown after the first AfD in January 2010. SL93 (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I Dared To Call Him Father (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 declined by creator. Non notable biography of non notable person. No RS links found in gnews or google. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this article need to be improved and no need to delete, hence sitation and materials are provided for this articles, indicates the importance of it. and deletion will be harsh and rude decision. the article is useful for Wikipedia. and need to more studied. Dsouzamarshall (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article presents no indication the book is notable. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zero evidence of notability! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article makes several assertions supported only by the book's ad copy and the occasional blogger; it lacks reliable, independent, quality sources. Ravenswing 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am unconvinced by the coverage, and a BLP should be held to high standards henrik•talk 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alan Yurko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violation of WP:ONEEVENT. See article history for examples of using this WP:BLP as a platform for advocacy of various types. — Scientizzle 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A fairly regulation example of WP:ONEEVENT - the subject of the article has no notability outside of the sorry tale described in the article, and sad though that event is, neither it nor the person reach the levels of notability required for an article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He seemed to have gotten quite a bit of coverage beyond his original conviction - his release based on a sloppy autopsy, his subsequent re-imprisonment for burglary, his case bizarrely being picked up by the anti-vaccine movement, etc. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and him being named a "hero" by the fringe International Chiropractors Association Pediatrics Council (antivaccination freaks). We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for notability here. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep alot of coverage beyond original conviction. Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @ BabbaQ & Nwlaw63: I fail to see the type of WP:RS-coverage that justifies this WP:BLP. If you have sources to present, please offer them. — Scientizzle 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. If there are RS, independent of the self-promotion fundraising efforts used by Yurko and his antivaccination friends, please provide those sources. I remember at the time looking up his criminal record and convictions (he's a career criminal), but those are primary sources we can't use. Otherwise his wife has run the fundraising campaign, and he's gotten publicity on unreliable websites, mostly chiropractic and antivaccination. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 18:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Glasscubes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. All offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. LoudHowie (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per references in the article. Three sources with two of them by the same person and different publishers – sufficient for WP:GNG. At least the article in ReadWriteWeb implies notability which satisfies WP:NSOFT. I see no reason to delete this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: One source is not enough. SL93 (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one you consider reliable? There are ReadWriteWeb, The Next Web and CMS Wire? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually a vendor did a good job of collecting reviews. The list features TechCrunch and BNet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close; duplicate nomination with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Easy Projects .NET (2nd nomination) (note placement of period). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Projects. NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Contested proposed deletion; this article has been speedily deleted once before as obvious advertising. Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article's only claim to historical or technical importance of the sort that would make this software package a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article is a claim to have been a "finalist" for consideration to a minor industry award that confers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker, the award it didn't win, and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising.
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason
Contested proposed deletion; Yet another minor "project management" website or software. The article's only claim to historical or technical importance of the sort that would make this software package a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article is a claim to have been named "The 7 Coolest Startups You Haven’t Heard of Yet" which offers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudHowie (talk • contribs) 7 February 2012
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this one is notable indeed. The article features references to LifeHacker and Wired (though this one isn't suitable for WP:N purposes). Apart from those I found:
- Zukerman, Erez (2012-01-27). "Trello – A Unique, Simple & Powerful Project Management System From A Good Home". MakeUseOf. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- Rao, Leena (2011-09-13). "Joel Spolsky's Trello Is A Simple Workflow And List Manager For Groups". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- Guay, Matthew (2011-09-28). "Trello: An Online Bulletin Board For Your Tasks". appstorm. Retrieved 2012-02-08.
- I think it's enough for both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: you won't read about Trello in The Economist; what sort of notability are we after? It's a software project that TechCrunch has written about. That should be enough. Disclosure: I do not use Trello, and don't even like it; I simply am highly knowledgeable about web-based project management software. As a software developer and the main contributor to the Trello article, I feel pained when deletionists like the nominator contribute nothing to Wikipedia and instead nominate software projects for deletion. Awaiting a litany of WP: policies cited as grounds for dismissing my arguments, Dandv(talk|contribs) 01:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: seems significant enough. Shlomif (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am a competitor (!). I would egoistically have any reasons to vote for deletion. However, it would be _incredible_ if Trello disappeared from Wikipedia. I am writing this without ever talking to the Trello people, and not expecting absolutely anything back. I consider myself an expert in the field, and trello is definitely notable.Tony Mobily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Projects .NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason
Contested proposed deletion; this article has been speedily deleted once before as obvious advertising. Yet another minor "project management" website or software. This is made by a business we don't have an article about. The article's only claim to historical or technical importance of the sort that would make this software package a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article is a claim to have been a "finalist" for consideration to a minor industry award that confers no notability in the wider world. All other offered references are internal to the business. The article itself is simply a minimal listing of the maker, the award it didn't win, and a features list, which essentially makes Wikipedia a free web host for advertising: this is essentially a sales brochure. Google News would appear to yield nothing but press releases and advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LoudHowie (talk • contribs) 7 February 2012
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Of the references listed, all are blogs or the company website.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: only BNET's blog entry may be found somehow conforming to what is expected for notability proof, but (1) it is too promotional to be considered reliable source, (2) it is more about the concept of online project management then the software itself and (3) it is the only source theoretically usable as a proof of notability, which is not enough for both WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BestPrice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertising. Spam article about a spam website. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of third-party sources; all sources are either from the company or its parent company Phaistos Networks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BestPrice.gr is NOT a spam site and this article is by no means a spam one. If so, please elaborate. Thank you. Phaistonian (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 100% promotional with only related links. Author looks to have a Conflict of Interest. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phaistonian (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) I fail to see "100% promotional". Sorry.[reply]
- If it is your employer, that is understandable. But it won't save the article. And we don't have to convince you that it is promotional, but you have to convince us that it is not promotional. Up until now, you fail on that. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phaistonian (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Yes, I am a related to the company (co-founder). If that makes the article promotional, so be it. All that's written are facts. If you are not familiar with the Greek market/internet and that way you call this promotional, again, so be it.[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable shopping website with no independent sources. The name has been used to refer to many different things. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phaistonian (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) It's not notable because it's Greek. In Greece it's far more than notable.[reply]
- Delete per above. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No notability put forth even after the creator's complaining. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:GNG and is clearly WP:SPAM. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above, does not meet WP:CORP. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are many Greek companies on Wikipedia, see Category:Companies_of_Greece. But they have sources that show they are notable. But this one doesn't. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phaistonian (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC) Can you please point me to what source they are pointing at? Some of those articles don't even point to the company's site.[reply]
- Do you really not understand that Wikipedia is not a medium for advertising? Night of the Big Wind talk 18:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why isn't this a speedy delete? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [10] --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess because we are nice lads and lasses and are willing to give mr. Phaistonian a steep learning curve. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK thanks it looked a clear G11 candidate to me. Oh well. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Snow. Per the above string of rationales. Let's stop wasting time.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Team Gallery (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 gallery. RS refs are about artists, and only mention gallery in passing ("currently having a show at...") Gaijin42 (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps you did not examine the references. The New Yorkarticle is not a PR piece,but a full article. The Art in America article is even fuller, and is in a major professional magazine for the subject. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hrm, I will admit some misreading. I was using the "articles" section as if it were the references for some reason. And for all of those, I still hold that the subjects of these articles are the artists, and not the gallery. I see several "new york" articles, but none that I consider about the gallery. In any case, that is moot as I agree the two actual refs are about the gallery. If those are deemed RS, then I am in the wrong on this nomination. I do not know why I misread the sections in this way.Gaijin42 (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've moved the article to the correct capitalisation, and I think I've made the correct adjustments to the links at the top of this discussion to correct the links. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per sufficient RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam article about a spam website. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adman -- it appears that nomination was never closed. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of third-party sources; all sources are either from the company or its parent company Phaistos Networks. --McGeddon (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional article created by the company in question - no reliable sourcing to be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No indication of notability. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- William 'Billy' Burton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Smuggling some weed seems hardly to be a notable crime. Aside from that, no notability is really asserted here (there are a lot of thalidomide babies, it takes more than that to be notable) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, maybe even speedily under WP:CSD#A7. No notability is demonstrated or even claimed in this article - as the nom says, neither smuggling drugs nor having the bad fortune of being a thalidomide baby are notable. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An unsourced BLP and an orphan article, too. Carrite (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is not unsourced: multiple reliable sources are provided under the heading "References". The notability asserted here isn't because of the crime itself, but because of the well-publicized campaign to secure his release, which was covered in multiple papers in the U.K., Philippines, and Australia. On the other hand, WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E may apply here, but those guidelines suggest that instead of deletion, we might consider using this material in an article about the campaign, or possibly to merge this material into an appropriate article: perhaps a new subsection of Prohibition of drugs#Penalties focused on the Philippines. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Angel Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to be a notable musician and model. I'm unable to find sources to document many of the claims in the article, and indeed cannot find anything about this individual. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if any of the claims were verifiable she might approach some level of notability. As such I can see nothing about her and S Club 7 or The Falling Feathers. On top of all that, is it not strongly against BLP policy to be discussing peoples sexuality on Wikipedia without citing sources?! Sionk (talk) 16:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sticky PROD Unsourced BLP. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one way or another. Either through this Afd, as a sticky prod, or speedily as a hoax. Article makes some bold claims which are unverifiable (at least by my searches). I can find no coverage which would prove this individual meets the notability requirements for an article. Deletion should be the outcome, just depends how we get there. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my thought with the AFD; if this ends in Delete, then future recreations can be speedied under WP:CSD#G4. Best to take the time and do it properly, and AFD does not take much longer than PROD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fairly sure this is fictional/hoax. Look at this press release announcing the death of one of the "Falling Heathers" a few days ago:[11]. I do love a good fictional band story, though, I hope the artwork for their sole album "Loosing Control" surfaces soon.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DNA consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A nonsensical crock of junk with no indication of noteability. The vast majority of quoted sources are conveniently from a single author on the subject. I'd have categorized this AFD under science and technology, but that would be implying that this is scientific in any way. Jtrainor (talk) 15:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Any statement made in the article specific to the subject has a reference from John Grandy, but references applicable to most articles in the field of genetics. Seems like a hoax to me. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:Complete Bollocks - pure, unrestrained nonsensical theorizing of the worst sort, with no foundation in reality whatsoever, dressed up with some real biological references as Camouflage. One-man fringe theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is simply a non-notable theory. ChemNerd (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am uncomfortable with the rude comments here, and ask that they be dialed down. But I don't feel that the sources are notable enough to justify an article. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. It may be nonsense, and it may be the biology of the new millennium -- it may even be both. But in the absence of independent reliable sources we can't have an article on it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete - Not finding sources that cover this topic. I did find this mention in Salon, but not much else. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable as science (as if it were science). Non-notable as woo. All references are either general to neurobiology and don't refer to the 'theory', or are self-authored in an off-topic general publication of dubious quality (an Anthropology encyclopedia, which should not be considered a WP:RS for molecular consciousness). Agricolae (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - seems a genuine WP:FRINGE belief expressed by Timothy Leary and others, but is probably not notable enough for an article. -- 202.124.72.190 (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL, Looie496 and Cusop Dingle. I don't see any sources that can show that this model is notable yet. It does not, on the other hand, appear to be complete bollocks. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. The source found by Northamerica merely mentions the subject; the salon article does not discuss the subject in any depth, except in the context of kaballah. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Open to snow -- fails to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable OR. Complete nonsense of zero encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is largely based on original research. In addition, the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthieu_Rachmajda (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 page is unnecessary, biased and clearly written without objectivity. 'Owner of the Pick of Destiny'? It's clear the author of this page is fixated on this particular guitarist and has written it with a clear bias. Plenty of weasel words, plenty of puffery (tremendous success?), very few sources and a general non necessary article.
Without sounding harsh, the guy is a somewhat famous YouTube user. If every somewhat famous YouTube has a page on Wikipedia, you are going to get a lot of nothing articles that don't mean anything. The facts:
He's a youtube user, his entire 'discography' (if you can call it that) was released via YouTube and iTunes... to put it into perspective, I can release a song via iTunes, does that mean I should have a wikipedia page?
The Shows and Concerts section is a whole joke in itself, first concert..... in front of a full crowd? What the hell is that? Pub bands regularly play their first gig in front of a crowd full of people.
To me, it just seems as if this article was either written by the guitarist in question or someone with very 'fanboyish' tendencies. There is no need for it and it should be deleted asap.
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article doesn't assert notability, and the only source that is possibly reliable is in French. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly unnecessary and no assertion of notability. Heavy use of 'puffery' words adding little to what it is very limited content. Practically un-sourced. Biased language of what is really, a nothing article.
- Delete Only French references. Not a single English reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.163.2 (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jazmín De Grazia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability. Subject is known primarily due to being a murder victim. Her participating in a reality show 10 years ago was not particularly noteworthy (if she had won it would be a different story). Seems to fail WP:BIO. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:VICTIM and almost no documented coverage of the subject exists. Aside from the murder aspect, she doesn't meet WP:BIO either. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 15:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 06:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's rationale.Cosprings (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Also appears to fail WP:NMODEL criteria for notability.-Kiwipat (talk) 08:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Goofey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unmaintained instant messaging software with no signs of historical significance notability per WP:N or WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with you, but WP:NSOFT is an essay not a policy or guideline.--Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, an essay is a valuable source of rationales. WP:NSOFT is only enforceable as an explication of the way WP:N works regarding software, and as such is a good ground for a position in AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with you, but WP:NSOFT is an essay not a policy or guideline.--Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom.. It should redirect to Goofy. Yutsi Talk/ Contributions 16:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, probably redirecting to Goofy is a better idea as far as this spelling is alternative or frequent. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Easy call. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. I've looked through the various Google searches for Goofey + "instant messaging" and there is simply nothing to be found, as expected from Goofey's description as something WP:MADEUP by three first-year CS students. Msnicki (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldn't find anything to grant notability. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't prove notability, but I think it's a mistake to simply rely solely on Internet searches for the usage of software that predates the web. If you look at the source code the majority was mostly written (and presumably used) in 1991-93. --ozzmosis (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why I searched Google books and Google scholar as well before deciding there was nothing. Msnicki (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact I wouldn't bring this software here if there was at least any indication that it has any kind of historical importance. But it doesn't: a more advanced Zephyr appeared before this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- VALOR (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 organization. only links to organizations sites, no sources to be found. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 14:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. First event hasn't even been held yet.... 99.12.241.215 (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert (?) - This page has useful history as a redirect to Windstream Communications, a company that used to operate under the name Valor Communications Group. Why not just revert the edits? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, thanks for noticing. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 14:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Normally I'd agree, though in this case VALOR seems like a fairly non-specific redirect to the communications company; not sure why it's written in caps. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Karl334: Sadly, once the AFD is in play, it has to run its course, so your revert to the redirect page is actually not a valid action until this discussion has been resolved. As evidenced above (99.12.241.215), my suggestion is not met with universal acceptance, so we must reach consensus here before the matter can be fully resolved. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the article is deleted, a disambiguated redirect, for Valor Communications Group, can be created; we're already halfway there: [12]. 99.12.241.215 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete MMA organizations is non-notable. I don't see a valid reason for redirect to Windstream Communications as "VALOR" does not appear to be the name of the acquired company and the article/page title doesn't conform with WP:CAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a redirect is determined to be the preference (it's too early to tell), it really should be redirected to Valor which is a disambig page. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is unsourced and the organization does not appear to meet any notability criteria. I don't think a redirect is proper since there are other WP articles that start with Valor that would also have valid claims for being a redirect target. I don't think anyone will confuse an MMA promoter with a communications company. Papaursa (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Outer Limits episodes#Season 6 (2000). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Simon Says (The Outer Limits) (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 notability is still missing since 2009. I did search printed (Google Books) and online publications for IRS without success. I think it's time to remove. NeoLexx (talk) 13:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 14:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The Outer Limits episodes#Season 6 (2000). There's no evidence that this episode is notable in and of itself. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this question already has been discussed, see this page. The short summaries of the episodes already are here. Krasss (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "this question already has been discussed" — the linked discussion is about the separation of the original b/w series and the color remake in two lists instead of one. The current topic is about the removal of the "Simon Says" as a separate WP article because no IRS found in two years — a rather different question. A pretty much the same discussion is currently going at ruWP (in Russian) so the current consensus opinion of enWiki (if any exists) would be useful to compare.
- To summarize:
- does enWiki consider the series notability as inheritable by default? Other words, if the series itself is notable enough to have its own article then any separate episode of that series is notable by default to create a separate article for it?
- does enWiki consider the relevant IMBd record as an IRS?
- To summarize the preceding two: if (the series X is notable and X[i] is an episode of the series and X[i] has its record in IMDb) then X[i] is notable for its separate article where a short summary and IMDb data added would be enough to not consider the article as a stub.
--NeoLexx (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, finally. Wow, has it been three(!!!) years already? I merged all episode stubs into the episode list back then because ... well, read Talk:List of The Outer Limits episodes. Now looking back, nearly everything turned out true. These articles are still stubs and no-one wants to work on them. Notability might be there if someone looked really hard, I acknowledge that for at least some episodes, but per WP:SPINOUT there is simply no reason for wikipedia to have them as separate articles at this point. – sgeureka t•c 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per User:Ultraexactzz and User:sgeureka's rationale. SaveATreeEatAVegan 21:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doesn't the outcome of this discussion affect the other episodes in this show?Curb Chain (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. henrik•talk 18:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- George Weisgerber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Second nomination - subject is not notable and his accomplishments are discussed in other pages TheNate (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't think the notability is here, though winning a reality show does weigh in favor of keeping the article. But there aren't really sources, either. Not sure where this would redirect, if deleted - usually it would go to the show itself, but he's been on multiple shows, so I dunno. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Todd Martin (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject has not achieved notability through external sources; page reads like an advertisement TheNate (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. The page is an advertisement, and no external sources are present that would make the subject notable anyway. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The musician may or may not meet the notability criteria for a musician, but deleting links to him within 16 minutes of starting an AfD seems defeat the purpose of discussing it. --J Clear (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no external link verifying that information or confirming its significance, I really don't see why it belonged on the Mont Clare page. If you feel it added worthwhile information to the town's history, then by all means restore it. TheNate (talk) 02:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatantly promotional. 99.12.242.7 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gospel for Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable religious organization. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.141 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This organisation is indeed notable in Christendom. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The GFA has received substantial coverage in books and newspapers, including a degree of controversy. The nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. -- 202.124.73.141 (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Several reliable sources have been added to the article. Given the extremely high level of controversy about the GFA in India, I find the nomination incomprehensible. -- 202.124.72.101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Since the nomination, the lack-of-sourcing issue that was the entire reason to delete has been fixed. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, rewrite recommended to brush up the quality standard. Deryck C. 23:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Schabas (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 autobiography with arguable notability. It was created by Micheal Schabas himself. If he deserves an article, someone should write one for him, as per WP:AUTO andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 18:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Name gets 16 hits in scholar, 130-ish in google books, most of which seem to be about this person. HausTalk 19:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOTCV. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure what way to vote yet. But, there are refs about him and his different rail companies. There are 25 news articles that mention him with his companies and a ton of web references. I added a couple to the article. Note to submitter, a person can write about themselves, but it is strongly discouraged. It is not grounds for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The "couple" of references added to the article both merely mention his name once in passing. No evidence of substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a pet peeve of mine. You obviously have only looked at the article and not have done any research. There are hundreds of hits in newspapers, web, book and journals that have him mentioned. I haven't voted one way or the other because I haven't gone thru them all. I only added the refs to back up the statements in the article as some of the nominators reasons for deleting were a) unreferenced b) COI and thus the article could be making statements that were false or misleading. Of course if this was a musician, people would be saying keep, but that is a pet peeve for another day. Bgwhite (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder why I "obviously" have only looked at the article and not have done any research. I wonder how my contribution would have differed had I looked further, found nothing relevant, and therefore had nothing more to say. Of the mentions of him on Google books, we can presumably ignore those he wrote himself, those making one passing mention, a report on a conference, in which his name appears only in a list of names, and is not mentioned otherwise, other sources in which his name appears only in lists of credits, lists of company directors, etc. We are then not left with much, as far as I can see. The only thing among the numerous sources that I checked that was an independent source making more than passing mentions was a report on a British government consultation, in which he gave evidence. In that case there are several mentions of his name, but they scarcely contribute substantial coverage about him. Merely saying that there are many mentions of him without consideration of the nature of those mentions does nothing to establish notability. However, perhaps you have better sources than I have been able to find, since you must have used something more effective at finding mentions in books than Google books, because you say there are "hundreds of hits", but Google books produces only one hundred and thirty eight. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After going thru the refs: He was a rail owner in England, currently a part-owner of a railroad in Germany, is a transportation expert, publisher of articles in transportation journals, was an adviser on the EuroTunnel and railprojects Australia, Africa, Germany, and England. However, none of these refs ever go into detail about Mr. Schabas. Without "significant coverage" per WP:GNG, he doesn't pass the nobility test. Bgwhite (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - apparently notable railway executive management - This person's opinion and experience is taken as valuble in reliable third party publications that I would expect to be beyond reproach - ie see the google books results - (not the usual self published crap) includes stuff like Institution of Civil Engineers and witness to UK parliament. Consistent activity and associated with several notable firms that still exist - not flash in pan. Archive web news search also reveals coverage as promoter/manager of several schemes eg Die Welt, Telegraph, The Independent and reliable rail industry publications.
- What needs to be looked at is the article - I don't see any real evidence of promotion - has it actually been established that the creator is the subject?
- In terms of simple rules based notability "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" -check - created or founded more than one successful and notable railway business - and receives repeated recognition for it in press.
- Article needs checking and referencing, plus double check for any negative news missed.Mddkpp (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this odd piece http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/5306/ about a business transaction of GB Railways (subject was a key board member) - I haven't made full sense of it yet, but it shows that a more thorough look at the situation might be needed -this isn't even mentioned in GB Railways yet Edelaraudtee claims they are still owners!!Mddkpp (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a bit odd, although I did also happen to notice the article itself is from Aug 09, 2001. SaveATreeEatAVegan 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with GB Railways although with less mention as there is little about him outside of that company. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 21:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The founder of a major firm is part of the "enduring historical record". History includes the history of business enterprises, and most certainly the history of infrastructure such as railroads. There is strong possibility for expansion, as the man has done other things, and may go on to do more. Successful businessmen usually do. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - My sense is that Wikipedia is better with this article than without it, although this is obviously a very borderline notability situation. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG's reasoning; merger to GB Railways is also possible, but his significance seems to go beyond that one company. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This is a substantial figure in the UK rail industry. I should have thought he was notable just on the strength of the articles and papers he has written, but even leaving those aside, he has played an important part in several developments. You would not necessarily find these in Google hits because by no means everything is on line. Modern Railways for instance is the leading UK railway industry periodical and it is not on line. He has often appeared in it for one reason or another. We need to beware of the false idea that "if it's not on the internet, it didn't happen". -- Alarics (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article strongly needs an article/biography/interview with Schabas - if you (or anyone else) can find one can you print out the volume/issue number/date on the articles talk page. Although there are lot of good internet sources on this persons activities there doesn't seem to be a "1 on 1" interview or mini-bio which is so valuable for a biography article.Mddkpp (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember WP:VNT, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. So even if a fact about him is true, there needs to be reliable sources to prove that. The internet is the most efficient way of obtaining sources, so that's why there may be a slight lean towards that statement you made. Not everyone can go around reading every book in the universe until they find one with Micheal Schabas in it, a Google search is miles easier as most things are online nowadays (ie Google books). The sources and books found online mostly only include a brief mention of him, which is why this case is in my opinion, a person of borderline notability. That's why I brought it here. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article strongly needs an article/biography/interview with Schabas - if you (or anyone else) can find one can you print out the volume/issue number/date on the articles talk page. Although there are lot of good internet sources on this persons activities there doesn't seem to be a "1 on 1" interview or mini-bio which is so valuable for a biography article.Mddkpp (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Whilst not the most notable person his, influences are wide spread throughout the transport industry. Given that he has moved onto different things I don't feel it right to merge him with GB Railways. LongRobin79(talk) 10:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - although I've been following the UK rail industry for the best part of 20 years, this name doesn't ring any bells. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that case you cannot have been reading the railway press very attentively. -- Alarics (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before jumping to conclusions, a simple check of his own published list of papers shows that only one article in Modern Railways was published (over 11 years ago). Lamberhurst (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is by no means his most recent appearance in Modern Railways. He has been reported and/or discussed there on for instance his leading role in Superlink (railway network), the proposal for an alternative to (or more ambitious version of) Crossrail. -- Alarics (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But is there proof of this? Per WP:OR, you can't just say "he's been in 10 magazines in the past 5 years" for example without citing where you got that fact from. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is helpful - there is no reason to think that anyone is making stuff up - eg WP:AGF. Though I agree that internet sources are preferable - paper literature can be easy to access for some people - but not so much if you live in a different country. It is annoying when an universally accessible source isn't given (as it is not possible to check that an incorrect interpretation has been given - which does happen) - but that doesn't affect the validity of paper sources in any way.Mddkpp (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I thought anyone was making anything up, I just stated that WP:OR is an important policy to remember when making claims such as that. I have no doubt that Alarics is telling the truth. WP:AAGF ;) --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 22:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to find quite easily "Michael Schabas and Mark Causebrook join First Class Partnerships" vol 65 (2008) and "Schabas goes for open access" vol 66 (2009) which are more recent.Mddkpp (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that is helpful - there is no reason to think that anyone is making stuff up - eg WP:AGF. Though I agree that internet sources are preferable - paper literature can be easy to access for some people - but not so much if you live in a different country. It is annoying when an universally accessible source isn't given (as it is not possible to check that an incorrect interpretation has been given - which does happen) - but that doesn't affect the validity of paper sources in any way.Mddkpp (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But is there proof of this? Per WP:OR, you can't just say "he's been in 10 magazines in the past 5 years" for example without citing where you got that fact from. --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 21:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is by no means his most recent appearance in Modern Railways. He has been reported and/or discussed there on for instance his leading role in Superlink (railway network), the proposal for an alternative to (or more ambitious version of) Crossrail. -- Alarics (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you ask me Bob Crow is not worthy of a mention in wikipedia, yet someone has taken time out to include him, the argument here is should Michael Schabas have a wikipedia entry. Yes I agree he's not the most well known rail figure and there are not many internet sources about him. He is at best a weak keep but remember that someone took the time to include him and we're all here debating him, therefore he must have something about him? LongRobin79(talk) 21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately the "someone who took the time to include him" appears to have been Michael Schabas himself, which is frowned upon of course, but, as was pointed out earlier, that in itself is not a sufficient reason for deletion if the case for notability stands up none the less. As for "internet sources are preferable", that seems to be tantamount to saying that paper-only sources are inferior, which I thought was supposed to be a heresy to say on WP. At all events, as I pointed out earlier, when it comes to UK railway industry matters the most authoritative source, Modern Railways, is not on line at all. As it happens I possess a complete run of it since 1972 and I could no doubt find several Schabas items if I had time but at present I don't. -- Alarics (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this gentleman the same subject in question? If so, I'm surprised I don't see any of this information included in the article as well. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a http://www.firstclasspartnerships.com/who-we-are.php associate of that firm, so it's not an independent source. Mr. Schabas appears quite good at ringing his own bell - perhaps we should invite him to complete his own article .. ;) Mddkpp (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha! I also noticed while searching a copy of his resume. Not sure how outdated it is...looks pretty impressive if you ask me though! According to this, he's been involved recently with a high speed rail project in the United States. SaveATreeEatAVegan 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He's a http://www.firstclasspartnerships.com/who-we-are.php associate of that firm, so it's not an independent source. Mr. Schabas appears quite good at ringing his own bell - perhaps we should invite him to complete his own article .. ;) Mddkpp (talk) 10:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but it needs a serious rewrite to meet WP:NPOV. He meets notability as others have commented, but the article POV is strongly in his favor. - Jorgath (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article, remove the tags as it now appears to have been rewritten with a better neutral point of view. - I included another citation within the article that verifies him as a founder of GB Railways Group. He also played leading roles in the development of Vancouver Skytrain, the London Docklands Light Railway, Jubilee Line Extension, and Britain’s first High Speed Railway (the Channel Tunnel Rail Link). Regardless of whether or not he was the article's creator, he's notable. SaveATreeEatAVegan 20:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that he is notable for his political appointment. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Naeem Gheriany (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 am completing this nomination on behalf of 204.152.214.234 (talk), who correctly followed the instructions for IP users at WP:AFD by completing Step 1 and noting reasons for deletion on the article talk page. The reasons given are:
- According to Wikipedia for scholars "notability criteria" are:
- A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- Or, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times.
- Or, the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
- This entry does not meet the guidelines and it should be removed.
I do not think that acting as clerk to complete the nomination disqualifies me from giving my opinion, which I shall do below. JohnCD (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepKeep - the nomination refers only to WP:PROF, but whether or not he meets that, per WP:POLITICIAN #1 a government minister is undoubtedly notable. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On going back to check WP:SK I realise it does not apply here. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JohnCD; the subject does appear to meet POLITICIAN, regardless of PROF. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Government minister, meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per JohnCD and meets WP:POLITICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per others, meets WP:POLITICIAN. Jeancey (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kogan Agora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a WP:ADVERT for a not-especially-notable product that was never released. The name "Kogan Agora" is now used for a different product line and is more than adequately covered in the Kogan Technologies article. Dcxf (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article about a non-existent product, no suitable references. North8000 (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- International B.A. degree in Liberal Arts and Humanities (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 which is effectively a leaflet about a standard degree course at Tel Aviv University. Has already been redirected to the TAU article and prodded, but on both occasions the article's creator undid the changes. Number 57 11:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just because something passes the general notability guideline, doesn't mean we should have an article about it. No claim is made in the article as to why this degree is of any more note than the thousands of other degree courses that we don't have articles about.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the above. Not sold on the redirect, though - if another university were to offer a similarly-named program, we'd have to figure out which was which. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, unambiguous advertising promoting some kind of mobile phone for playing games. HTC Rezound conveys some impressive specifications to the table as you start considering what is beneath the hood. The 1.5GHz dual core Snapdragon S3 Central Processing Unit is one of the quickest stock processors attainable in a mobile phone. Join this with a 1GB of RAM and Adreno 220 GPU and you have a mobile that will easily run any game you scarf at it. It went on in this vein at some length. Also redundant to HTC Rezound. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- HTC Rezound Overview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay, unreferenced and mostly copies information already on HTC Rezound Osarius Talk 11:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we don't need a second article, and this is unencyclopedic fluff: "Beats Audio for increasing your listening joy" etc. (I'll be surprised if it's not a copyvio, though I haven't found a source). JohnCD (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean Henry Mead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sourced only to her own website, searches produce mirrors of this article. The fact that she has interviewed famous people doesn't make her books notable, no evidence that they are. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources added include " "Cambridge Who's Who Registry", Who's Who in American Authors, American Western Magazine, Wyoming Author's Wiki, The Roundup Magazine, Kings River Life Magazine" - none of those are mainstream news sources appropriate for notability. TheNate (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:VSCA; poor sourcing and nothing substantial or independent found upon Gsearch. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to meet our notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 06:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of infrared articles (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 be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article. This article seems to be an administrative article. Topic is also too narrow to be renamed to "Index of plasma (physics) articles" Curb Chain (talk) 11:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (although technically I should say delete). Wikipedia needs to create a place/legitimacy for this type of an article/list. It fills a unfilled need. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is also a new article I just created a few days ago, and it will be more notable for I only have it linked to infrared article. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. This infrared list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a infrared specific field of interest. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of laser articles, List of plasma (physics) articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar. I can also fix it more to improve it.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete[Comment] per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of plasma (physics) articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of laser articles). --Kkmurray (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of infrared topics to help others find infrared topics. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of infrared to see also is not spamming plus I only linked it to infrared article. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this infrared list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Energy includes political and economic articles related to energy.
Index of energy articleIndex of energy articles's theme is energy-per-the-physics-theory, so articles with a theoretic-scientific connection are listed.Curb Chain (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a valuable infrared list source to find other infrared related topics to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC) — Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A useful list. Theoretically, it would be better served by categorization as opposed to a list, but the people who own categorization will find some way to delete the category as not specific enough or "overcategorization". - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a categorization is trivial, then the same article would be trivial as well.Curb Chain (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and I didn't say categorization would be trivial, I said the people who WP:OWN the categorization wikiproject would get the category deleted because, although it would be very useful, there's surely some old discussion they had on a talkpage someplace that sayd they don't want it. Additionally, per Northamerica1000's point above, arguing that it is redundant to a category is not a valid argument for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No one owns the category "project", nor is it a wikiproject. Maybe this misconception is informing your opinion of Categories and Lists.Curb Chain (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The advantage of Lists is that you can add references to the article. Doing so would prove that an item on a list fits the inclusion criteria. This list here only lists laser-related articles on wikipedia. This serves no extra purpose that Categories do not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDUP. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that lists are regularly deleted and kept not on the basis of this guideline you are quoting voids this argument.Curb Chain (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDUP. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and I didn't say categorization would be trivial, I said the people who WP:OWN the categorization wikiproject would get the category deleted because, although it would be very useful, there's surely some old discussion they had on a talkpage someplace that sayd they don't want it. Additionally, per Northamerica1000's point above, arguing that it is redundant to a category is not a valid argument for deletion. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Again categories cant be searched on the web and you need to add a : after category in order for it to show up on Wikipedia where list is much more of a common word to type in, having both categories and list gives Wikipedia users a more diverse way to find info. I still have more to add to this list.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of plasma (physics) articles (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 be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article. This article seems to be an administrative article. Topic is also totoo narrow to be renamed to "Index of plasma (physics) articles")Curb Chain (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Seems to serve navigation/development purposes as per WP:LIST does it not? --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a purely administrative article, as it only lists articles which exist on wikipedia. That is why the category system is sufficient and this is redundant. I can't imagine how adding references can improve functionality of this page, as it only proves the articles are notable, which is redundant as only notable topics have articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is also a new article I just created in November, and it is notable with 6000 views on its statistics chart. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. This plasma list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a plasma specific field of interest. Plus having all of plasma equations and creations it will help understand on how to make future plasma machines, weapons like a plasma window force field. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of laser articles, List of infrared articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Art carlson I don't see how this list confuses or steers anyone away from the more useful categories for this list has almost every plasma related article. Again categories cant be searched on line google like list or index, plus you cant really type in category plasma physics with out this (:) after category, more people would just type in list or index of something instead of category they should not be deleted, having extra is a bonus of allowing Wikipedia people to find what they want in a more diverse way. I found a rare article Spaser, surface plasmon amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. This spaser article has no link to any kind of plasma physics article. Thanks to making this plasma list I been able to find dozens of unknown plasma articles that open a whole new world for die hard plasma people to know about very plasma article on this list. If you type in spaser plasma on google this plasma list shows up 17th on google which the more you type relating to plasma words it shows list of plasma physics at the top.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How often are you planning to vote on this?
- In software development, it is a good principle to do something "once and only once". It makes it easier for the developer to keep things up-to-date, error-free, complete, and understandable, and it makes it easier for the user to learn and remember how to do things. Some developers, however, hold to the opposite view, There's more than one way to do it. Wikipedia seems to lean toward the latter philosophy, so you and Burpelson may be right that Curb and I are arguing against Wikipedia policy in general as much as against keeping this particular page.
- The usual way to enter a category for browsing would be to go to any related article and then click the category link at the top. Colon free!
- If you are interested in spasers, you will type it into google and the top hit will be the Wikipedia article. Where's the problem? The reason Spaser is not linked to Plasma (physics) or in Category:Plasma physics is that it is a matter of opinion how closely the topics are really related. If you think they need to be associated, then you can easily make the wiki-link or add the category without worrying about your list.
- I don't understand your point about google and categories. If I google on "plasma category" the top hit is Wikipedia's Category:Plasma physics.
- Art Carlson (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying hard to understand why this article was not named "List of plasma articles". Even Index of radiation articles is broader
thatthan the subject matter of one 'state-of-matter'.Curb Chain (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- The word "plasma" has several meanings in various fields, so the disambiguator "physics" is needed in the title. Or do you think that we should lump in articles about blood plasma (or the trivial meanings that you inexplicably gave more prominence than the two primary meanings in the disambiguation page) with the ones listed here? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. In this case Categories are a much more effective way of organising articles. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of plasma topics to help others find plasma topics or a specific plasma field. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of plasma articles to see also is not spamming plus I don't link every plasma topic only if its related enough to it. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this plasma list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. This plasma list has been out for 3 months and only one person wanted it deleted it has decent amount of views better than its plasma category. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a valuable plasma list source to find other plasma related topics to it.Halo laser plasma (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)— Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. I see no purpose that is not already served by Category:Plasma physics, or possibly by the search function. Red links for potential articles should be placed in Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Natural_sciences#Plasma_physics. If a user doesn't understand the Category system, adding a parallel List system will only cause more confusion and steer him away from useful categories on other topics. It could well be that other List and Index articles should be deleted, but that is no argument for keeping this one. Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not, then, have exact copies of articles for every category we have?Curb Chain (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, why not? You are the one proposing that we shouldn't do that, so you are the one who needs to answer that question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we have a category system.Curb Chain (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been explained to you more than once in this discussion, the fact that we have a category sytem is no reason not to have parallel lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...omitting the fact that if a need for a parallel list article is warranted because some deficiency of the category system.Curb Chain (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been explained to you more than once in this discussion, the fact that we have a category sytem is no reason not to have parallel lists. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we have a category system.Curb Chain (talk) 10:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, why not? You are the one proposing that we shouldn't do that, so you are the one who needs to answer that question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the list meeting the purpose of lists on wikipedia (WP:LIST) and Northamerica1000's reasoning.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need list/navigation articles like this which do things that categories don't. This one a bit weaker keep than the others by this editor because the category comes a bit closer than the others. North8000 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article does not meet notability criteria. The "list" would indeed be better presented as a category. (Incidentally, with the absence of references, the "list" also fails verifiability, but that would be an indication for clean-up, not deletion.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A useful list that hurts nothing. I'm going to copy someone's comments from another deletion discussion: per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I think arguing that it would be better served as a category also violates the spirit of these guidelines, as saying that something should be categorized does not appear to be a valid reason to delete a list. Both can exist simultaneously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both can exist simultaneously but what is the point of that?Curb Chain (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reread the statement as it answers your question. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it does not answer my question because if this was to be fact then the wikipedia would doubled with spam.
- The advantage of Lists is that you can add references to the article. Doing so would prove that an item on a list fits the inclusion criteria. This list here only lists laser-related articles on wikipedia. This serves no extra purpose that Categories do not.Curb Chain (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should start an RFC on the guideline's talk page because your beef is with the guideline, now me. All I'm doing is stating what the rules say. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've run across several situations where a list of articles (which can include some context notes) would have been very useful in ways that categories don't fill the bill and disambig articles don't allow. And the guideline also supports this. That's why I advocate KEEP. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather, you are misinterpreting the guideline.Curb Chain (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No... I'm not. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you should start an RFC on the guideline's talk page because your beef is with the guideline, now me. All I'm doing is stating what the rules say. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reread the statement as it answers your question. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per Per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LIST. And the nom's rationale ("This article seems to be an administrative article") is too vague and appears an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Cavarrone (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also use this plasma list as a fantasy/real science plasma guide. Ball lightning has numerous theories involving plasma mechanisms like Buoyant plasma hypothesis, some of these plasma equations help back up the theory to discover how ball lighting works plus its like a euphoria effect of encountering something new. By having ball lightning and these plasma mechanisms along with plasma equations to back it up inputting it right underneath ball lightning in a outline detail, is all that to much or just keep it basic like plasma space propulsion, plasma confinement fusion and so on. Where is the detail for plasma window from physics of the impossible is it not aloud to go into such detail, this plasma window along with other factors like laser curtain, carbonnanotube screen along with photochromatics to stop absorb or some kinda refraction reflection material to absorb the laser pulse beam with environmental x factors that might hinder this aegis series of shields like index of refraction, suns blazing rays, clod cover over cast sky or the enemy using a full force of a cosmic meteoroid impact clash so the timing of the tides earth rotation to hurl that meteoroid in the enemy's control, make sure your equipped with a airborne laser sensor to track and time your frequency laser switch from the intercontinental ballistic Missiles and preventing these projectiles infra red radiation or sonic spaser laser taser phaser gaser hazer saser maser hazer blazar quasar invader raider anything that has ASER at the end and every elemental cosmic atomic bomb force microwave any thing u can think of like a laser fence/mosquito laser that needs to know what kinda malaria wing pattern beat is the real malaria causing vector or else it will laser zap every vital mosquito specie. The point of all this is that wikipedia just explains in simple terms and not every detail or any extreme sequence of events that do play a role for the future. I understand these plasma laser infrared list are okay but wikipedia will not allow it to be like a text/fantasy real deal intrigueing article page, yes a plot summary with bloopers extra possible outcomes that might throw off the main concepts but why does it have to be a thriller or descent movie to be in Wikipedia, we can add all these events into a outline without names of movie characters overloaded with romance and box office money statistics, it sounds like it will get out of line chaos editors with random vandalizing jokes, but theres a way to keep it professional for a Plasma/laser outline fantasy article with relevant/wikipedians. Example imagine this list of plasma articles now imagine next to it saying list plasma/laser/fantasy real science kind stuff but locked to certain point for trusted wikipedians, but a side page where u add notes and if your serious they add u to the major laser palsma fantasy list league, this is obvious and easy not to get off track cause the headline will be next to it, what's the problem? plus it will say novice or expert or fantasy possible virtual world. Wikipedia has potential to be universalpedia buy borrowing wikipedia articles and saying hey thanks wikipedia for the upgrade, everyone's happy gilmore with more knowledge and less stress on just solving plasma equations with no NO2 to rage the bonfire adventure mind and than leading to a insane migraine. Is there a way to have this list as A-P and than Q-Z separate list to reduce loading time for possible future outline/glossary or is that only for category style. Art if u type in plasma window force field laser on the google bar or anything that is on this plasma list it will be 2nd choice maybe depending on the ratings or whatever that this might guide people that want to know on how to create a doomesday plasma laser device, even plasma experts like u might be satisfied with a list and not a money paying textbook or magazine with fancy or basic words that take a while to find what u need plus jumping back and forth trying to locate plasma related articles on the web that might end up with a spam. Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikolaos Papadopoulos (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 contested by myself because the original article Nikos Papadopoulos was deleted by PROD. Concern was "Fails WP:GNG as having not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and WP:NFOOTBALL as having not appeared in a fully professional league." and it's still valid. – Kosm1fent 10:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. There is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG, and until he makes his debut he fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Is this not eligible for speedy deletion under WP:CSD G4? Mattythewhite (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. He didn't go through AfD. – Kosm1fent 21:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Harrow House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Private English language school - definitely not notable. Bob Re-born (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete No evidence of any notability beyond its basic existence. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unlikely secondary schools, there is no presumption of notability for private language schools. Zero coverage other than the school's own website found in Ghits, Gnews and Gbooks. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - is there any possible case to be made that the subject is in any way notable? I think not. Fmph (talk) 04:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of laser articles (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 be replaced by the category system. Otherwise, there is no notability for this article: Lasers are definitely notable, but this article seems to be an administrative article.Curb Chain (talk) 10:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems reasonable. Much of this material is only loosely related to lasers anyway, the more relevant topics can be found by other means more easily than here. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Seems to serve navigation/development purposes as per WP:LIST does it not? --Stvfetterly (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a purely administrative article, as it only lists articles which exist on wikipedia. That is why the category system is sufficient and this is redundant. I can't imagine how adding references can improve functionality of this page, as it only proves the articles are notable, which is redundant as only notable topics have articles on wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a new article I just created, and it will be more notable for I only have it linked to a couple of articles. If you look at Index of radiation articles which has only 128 views in its statistics for that month that was created in 2005 and is not complete yet, which is kinda underrated since radiation is a huge x factor in science. If you think this article has loosely material relating to lasers than maybe I can delete the below semi laser related links to it. This laser list is good because it has a rack load of red links that one day could be created to a article, so its good to keep in touch with this article for it benefits people who want to find a laser specific field of interest. Seems like you curb only want to delete articles I created List of infrared articles,List of plasma (physics) articles and not try to help improve articles for this list will not harm anything and adding it to a category will make it less notable since some people have no clue of categories, plus Wikipedia category list does not show up on Google's search bar.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. In this case Categories are much more effective way of organising articles.21:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pit-yacker (talk • contribs)
Delete[Comment] per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Picking a broad physics topic, making and populating a list article, then spamming the See Also sections of any related article in order to drive up the page views of the list article is not a sustainable model. --Kkmurray (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I picked it because its my passion and its vital to science. How does it indiscriminate to anything it is not a Excessive listings of statistics its a list of laser topics to help others find laser topics or a specific laser field. Spamming is when it relates to nothing of that topic or is sending garbage info to it, linking list of lasers to see also is not spamming plus I don't link every laser topic only if its related enough to it. I just use the statistics chart as a example of how notable it is and compare it with others. I do not get any credit fame or reward for NO2 overdrive boosting the statistics up. If this laser list is deleted than almost all of Wikipedia's list of articles on whatever topic should all be deleted example, Index of wave articles, Index of solar energy articles ,Index of energy articles, Index of radiation articles, List of Pokémon characters, and List of Pokémon, 90% of the world has no clue of these dinosaur like pokemon plus it has no use in real life. Like User:Stvfetterly said it meats Wikipedia's standards WP:LIST. Just curious how does this all play out if more people vote for it to be deleted would it be deleted.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its a valuable laser list source to find other laser topics to it.Halo laser plasma (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)— Halo laser plasma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete (or permanently userfy if the creator wants to keep it for personal reference): This unencyclopedic list of articles does not belong in article space. Categories are the Wikipedia way of handling this kind of organization. —teb728 t c 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Categories and list articles can exist simultaneously, to further accommodate user browsing per various user preferences. Also, per this section of the editing guideline, ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Northamerica1000(talk) 12:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously not. That is why it should be deleted on the basis that it is not notable. With your reasoning, which should have exact copies of articles for every category we have.Curb Chain (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the list meeting the purpose of lists on wikipedia (WP:LIST) and Northamerica1000's reasoning - does not meet valid deletion reason.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We need navigation list articles like this where categories do not do the job as well. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A useful list that hurts nothing. I'm going to copy someone's comments from another deletion discussion: per WP:NOTDUP, "redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." ..."Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." I think arguing that it would be better served as a category also violates the spirit of these guidelines, as saying that something should be categorized does not appear to be a valid reason to delete a list. Both can exist simultaneously. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and revamp as Outline of lasers. The nominator is correct in that this is not an appropriate list article. In lieu of deletion, resorting this as an WP:OUTLINE would be a viable option. ThemFromSpace 15:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep or Strong keep for I did not know about these extra terms, but if the speedy keep does not count as a keep vote than put Strong keep. Iv'e deleted about 85 laser articles, most of them where long so that should cut down on its loading time, plus I deleted some [[]] bracket links. I found a few vital Laser articles, like SASER, Sound Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, which is kinda rare to find. A lot of these laser articles I found for this laser list will make them more notable along with creating articles for the laser red links articles. I thought about making it a outline but usually outline's need a short definition, plus theirs a huge laser word column where you don't have to read the laser part just the part after it like Laser broom, Laser bullet system and so forth just read the broom part much faster to scan. It could be called a index but list sounds more known. The laser category is not really a category right now, and if it was some people have no clue about it, plus both would be good to have. Teb this is kinda a encyclopedia it just does not have definition's next to it, even Encyclopedia of Laser Physics and Technology does not have it right next to it.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This might be off track for it is copied from List of plasma (physics) articles. I also use this laser list as a fantasy/real science plasma guide. Ball lightning has numerous theories involving plasma mechanisms like Buoyant plasma hypothesis, some of these plasma equations help back up the theory to discover how ball lighting works plus its like a euphoria effect of encountering something new. By having ball lightning and these plasma mechanisms along with plasma equations to back it up inputting it right underneath ball lightning in a outline detail, is all that to much or just keep it basic like plasma space propulsion, plasma confinement fusion and so on. Where is the detail for plasma window from physics of the impossible is it not aloud to go into such detail, this plasma window along with other factors like laser curtain, carbonnanotube screen along with photochromatics to stop absorb or some kinda refraction reflection material to absorb the laser pulse beam with environmental x factors that might hinder this aegis series of shields like index of refraction, suns blazing rays, clod cover over cast sky or the enemy using a full force of a cosmic meteoroid impact clash so the timing of the tides earth rotation to hurl that meteoroid in the enemy's control, make sure your equipped with a airborne laser sensor to track and time your frequency laser switch from the intercontinental ballistic Missiles and preventing these projectiles infra red radiation or sonic spaser laser taser phaser gaser hazer saser maser hazer blazar quasar invader raider anything that has ASER at the end and every elemental cosmic atomic bomb force microwave any thing u can think of like a laser fence/mosquito laser that needs to know what kinda malaria wing pattern beat is the real malaria causing vector or else it will laser zap every vital mosquito specie. The point of all this is that wikipedia just explains in simple terms and not every detail or any extreme sequence of events that do play a role for the future. I understand these plasma laser infrared list are okay but wikipedia will not allow it to be like a text/fantasy real deal intrigueing article page, yes a plot summary with bloopers extra possible outcomes that might throw off the main concepts but why does it have to be a thriller or descent movie to be in Wikipedia, we can add all these events into a outline without names of movie characters overloaded with romance and box office money statistics, it sounds like it will get out of line chaos editors with random vandalizing jokes, but theres a way to keep it professional for a Plasma/laser outline fantasy article with relevant/wikipedians. Example imagine this list of plasma articles now imagine next to it saying list plasma/laser/fantasy real science kind stuff but locked to certain point for trusted wikipedians, but a side page where u add notes and if your serious they add u to the major laser palsma fantasy list league, this is obvious and easy not to get off track cause the headline will be next to it, what's the problem? plus it will say novice or expert or fantasy possible virtual world. Wikipedia has potential to be universalpedia by borrowing wikipedia articles and saying hey thanks wikipedia for the upgrade, everyone's happy gilmore with more knowledge and less stress on just solving plasma equations with no NO2 to rage the bonfire adventure mind and than leading to a insane migraine. Is there a way to have it A-P and than Q-Z separate list to reduce loading time for possible future outline/glossary or is that only for category style.Shawn Worthington Laser Plasma (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I think this should be moved to the category space. --JC Talk to me My contributions 05:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus below is that coverage is sufficient to establish notability for this particular primary school. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Port Regis 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)
Non-notable primary school, with no obvious redirect target. Bob Re-born (talk) 09:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable primary. If redirect required, I guess Shaftesbury is closest. Fmph (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cautious keep We seem to have established that secondary schools are inherently notable. We do not have a clear guideline on primary schools, but this one could be a bit more notable than most, if 2 of the queen's grandchildren have been there. PatGallacher (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is most definitely not inherited. Fmph (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary schools are not entitled to a presumption of notability, but I nevertheless lean to keep on this one. I note that there are about 60 GBooks hits for this school; some of these are just routine listings, but here are a couple of sources about the architectural/historical significance of the Motcombe Park building[13][14] as well as a snippet about a significant folly that was reconstructed there [15]; and there's a number of sources for the school's particular popularity with those who can afford such things, such as [16][17]. Throw in the sundry coverage of the school in connection with the Phillips kids, and I think there's enough to pass WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. As someone with no particular interest in schools, I am not familiar with any notability policy which favours secondary over primary schools, though I add that such a policy strikes me as being clumsily prescriptive (there must surely be hundreds of secondary schools of no great distinction, and conversely not a few primaries that are worthy of note). I have come to this page after having trawled through a long list of articles requiring assessment for the Dorset WikiProject, and quite a few of the school articles in that list have made me think "Why is this in Wikipedia?" Compared to some of them (e.g. Talbot Combined School), this one seems reasonably notable, for the reasons noted above. However it could be redirected to the Motcombe article, where there is already a mention of the place... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Keep (after weighing up). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. As demonstrated by Arxiloxos, sufficient sources already exist to demonstrate notability. While notability is not necessarily inherited, the link with royalty will ensure that this school has received wider than normal coverage in the local and national press. The school is also housed in an historic building which will provide further scope for expansion.Dahliarose (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the present article is miserable, the school clearly has several elements of notability for a school - a long history, notable former pupils, notable buildings, etc. It also seems very likely that it has enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the general WP:N principle, too. I'll try to improve the references a little. Moonraker (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - bizarre nomination - independently assessed to be notable, sources meet WP:ORG, historic school. TerriersFan (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a historic school. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 13:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Origin and Science of Music as per WP:AFC. It's possible, even likely, that the submission will not be accepted, but the user will be counseled as to why that is and how to proceed, something that AFD does not typically do. Note that the article had an AFC template already, so it's possible this was the author's intent from the beginning. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Origin and Science of Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay →Στc. 09:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:ESSAY. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (U.S. season 1)#Lakoda Rayne. JohnCD (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lakoda Rayne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Eliminated girl band has no notability outside of the show, does not meet WP:MUSICBIO and has only minor record contract. ApprenticeFan work 08:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a notable band besides it's brief participation in the programme. Keep it as a redirect to the specific series of the show werldwayd (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 1)#Lakoda Rayne No compelling reason to break article out of List of article until actual group activities or album releases occur and sourcing picks up on those events. Nate • (chatter) 08:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A note for closing admin: the incoming redirects are being discussed at RdD. Please leave a note there upon closing this AfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 1)#Lakoda Rayne largely per Nate above. The subject lacks a significant amount of coverage in reliable third party sources needed to establish the person's notability. With that said, it is a plausible search term, and it would be best to redirect to the main article at this time. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per User:Alpha_Quadrant. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turning in the road (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 how-to guide. I don't see why this is necessary when articles like U-turn already exist. Biker Biker (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Others pointed out that there's content worth saving, so rename to three-point turn. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an instructional guide. U-turn or 3-point turn — how to decide?!? Carrite (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - article completely re-written since beginning of the AfD. I'm now neutral on deletion, and think that Three-point turn would be a better article title. HausTalk 17:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete, unreferenced content fork.HausTalk 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Delete, there's already plenty of coverage on this, like that mentioned by the nominator Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 18:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite hasn't mentioned anything to do with coverage. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- R̶e̶d̶i̶r̶e̶c̶t̶Rename - Salvage information related to 'Three Point Turns' and rename article to 'Three Point Turns'. There's already an article for U-Turns, so Three Point Turns should have one as well.--Stvfetterly (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean rename, not redirect, then. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. Yes, I mean rename.--Stvfetterly (talk) 13:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean rename, not redirect, then. Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NOTHOWTO, and an unlikely search term too (I've never heard of "turning in the road" before...) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- You need to revisit the Babel claim about British English on your user page, then. Because even a superficial
site:uk
restricted search in Google Web turns this name up all over the place in the U.K. (including one WWW page that had an annoying Flash animation with audio that pointedly said that it wasn't officially called a three-point turn). Uncle G (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to revisit the Babel claim about British English on your user page, then. Because even a superficial
- Comment If this is deleted, then please redirect 3/3-/three-point turn (which currently point to this page) to point to United_Kingdom_driving_test#Manoeuvres where the phrase is now mentioned alongside the official terminology PamD 09:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename: "Three point turn" is the common name, although not the official terminology used in driving test. Alternatively expand title to "Turning in the road using forward and reverse gears", because only this title disambiguates it clearly from U turn. The phrase "turning in the road" is unfamiliar as anything other than a phrase involving common words; the longer phrase evokes "Oh yes, that's what a 3 point turn is called in the driving test". PamD 09:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename, Rewrite, and Keep: probably will never be a large article but, after having been rewritten, it is suitable for an encyclopedia article. Note too, the subject of this article is NOT the same as U-turn. It is a very specific maneuver and probably the most infamous part of the UK and Ireland driving tests. (Boldly moved to common name.) --RA (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Boldly reverted! Please let the AfD run its course before renaming an article. However, that name would make sense if the article survives. --Biker Biker (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to "Three-point turn" per common name convention. This manoeuvre is significantly different from a U-turn, and should not be lumped into that article. the wub "?!" 12:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on form of possible new article title: I was wondering between "Three point turn" and "Three-point turn". Ghits are mixed, but Oxford English Dictionary uses a hyphen (and has first citation from 1957, for your interest), so I'd suggest "Three-point turn" as new title (as was done, and reverted, above). PamD 13:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename "Three-point turn" per COMMONNAME - As a UK citizen, I've never heard the phrase "turning in the road (using forward and reverse gears)", not even from my driving instructor, who taught advanced defensive driving to these guys. This technique is not a U-turn and therefore shouldn't be lumped in with that article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Three-point turn. This can be expanded beyond just an instructional guide. -- roleplayer 21:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Three-point turn as suggested above - that is quite article-worthy and I'm amazed there wasn't a better article than this on it already. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sha On Street (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not demonstrated notability and no sources are currently cited. Craddocktm (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Keep, merge and redirect to Ma On Shan (town). 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. The merge suggestion is not a reasonable one, as the article is wholly unsourced, has been tagged as such for nearly five years, and fails wp:v.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shing Tai Road (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no notability. This is just an average non-notable road. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 175.159.193.30 (talk) 08:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC) — 175.159.193.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at This SPA has identical !voting record as 218.250.159.25 (UTC).— Preceding unsigned comment added by SchmuckyTheCat (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 February 2012[reply]
- I have compare the contributions of 175.159.193.30 with my own. Only some of his/her votes are the same as mine. That isn't identical. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my further comment below. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Delete. Does not meet WP:N. The subject matter itself is not notable and I see no hope of expanding it to an acceptable standard. Craddocktm (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If in case this article isn't kept, it should be merged and redirected to Heng Fa Chuen. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Siu Sai Wan Road (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:N and no sources are given. Craddocktm (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Keep, merge and redirect to Siu Sai Wan. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tam Kon Shan Road (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree that the road is not notable at all.Craddocktm (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, merge and redirect to Tsing Yi. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete merging any useful content to locality or list of roads. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not demonstrated notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. Craddocktm (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Merge and redirect to Tuen Mun New Town. Don't delete. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kam Tin Road (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 contested without improvement with rationale being "main road"- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Craddocktm (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless shown to be notable. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Expand. This is a main artery that connects Pat Heung with Yuen Long through Kam Tin. Together with Route Twisk, Lam Kam Road and Fan Kam Road, it forms the backbone of the highway network through the centre part of mainland New Territories. All other major highways in the New Territories form a beltway. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G11, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SimSimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant advertising! No external references either, with nothing but language promoting the product and links to its own website Cssiitcic (talk) 05:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even though I'm not sure how nationally reputable is the College Music Journal, I'm giving the benefit of doubt to Theornamentalist's reference. Any dissenting views, please direct to my talk. Thanks. Wifione Message 05:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Through a Frosty Plate Glass (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 appear to be notable; Google seems to confirm this. LF (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NALBUMS, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - charted on CMJ chart in 2001. Some more info at Discogs. Trivial mention, but usable. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - references added. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spiritual Direction of the Muslims of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero refs. Zero RS gbooks hits. Zero RS gnews hits. Epeefleche (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless can find reliable third parrty source. 198.252.15.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm finding coverage by....searching in Ukrainian. Not voting a knee-jerk delete because of the absence of English sources is the simplest way of countering systemic bias. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and rename. Article's only problem is mistranslation of the name. Search by the official Ukrainian name Духовне управління мусульман України returns not only the vibrant own site, but also plenty [18] of results, including some news articles. The organization
looks marginal indeedthat managed to build a large mosque in the center of Kiev (the first one for 70 years), and is officially recognized by the government. A correct English name would be something like Clerical Board of Ukraine's Muslims. Ukrained (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2012 (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) 02:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is argued that under the Ukrainian name there is references for this article... but the article claims the unreferenced name of "The Spiritual Direction of the Muslims of Ukraine" and even goes on to the acronym of SDMU and is uncited. So to move it to Clerical Board of Ukraine's Muslims may be a better english title but unfortunately it seems a little WP:MADEUP. What is required is the exact english translation that has the ability to be cited in my opinion. Pmedema (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep One entry on the first page of general GHits is a Ukrainian government webpage which looks in context to be a fully official government publication - and thus pretty certainly a reliable source. Some others, including this, are from the website of the Religious Information Service of Ukraine, which is run by the Ukrainian Catholic University - arguably reliable, but it would depend on what degree of editorial control RISU is exercising. However, I think the official Ukrainian government webpage is probably enough in this context - an organisation that the Ukrainian government deems representative of a significant proportion of Ukraine's Muslims is almost certain to be generating enough reliable coverage in Ukrainian to be notable. PWilkinson (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Square Peg Round Hole Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources are poor as of 2008, bands and label have disbanded Craigster92 (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the sources cited possibly meets the requirements, thisisull.com which only states that "During the summer Kill Surf signed a distribution deal through Square Peg Round Hole Records." Others seem to be user contributions to the sites or do not mention the label, and a search doesn't find anything useful. There isn't a strong indication of notability in the article, and the sourcing problem seems unlikely to be resolved as there is not enough verifiable information available. Peter E. James (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 18:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But does lack of sources equate to being not-notable? Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tieto Engineering Toolbox (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, per my review of gnews and gbooks. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and zero refs nearly 2 years ago. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable and unreferenced, per nom. Dialectric (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- I could have deleted the article given the background of the article and even the comment above. Just relisting one final time to be sure. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Carrite's view should be taken into consideration by future recreators of this or any related article. Wifione Message 04:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Muslim peace movement (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 group. Second reference in the article is the only WP:RS, but it's a trivial mention. No other coverage in reliable sources. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 21:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
If any of the information is ever properly sourced I would say just have it included in the page for Islamic Peace.SaveATreeEatAVegan 21:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- After further review, no specific value is worthwhile merging. SaveATreeEatAVegan 02:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this article might have some value, and would recommend that it is either kept or merged with Peace in Islamic philosophy. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What value do you specifically think it has that is worthwhile merging to Peace in Islamic philosophy? -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After further evaluation, in response to your question I'd have to say that there is nothing in this article that would be worthwhile to merge into the article on Peace in Islamic philosophy. SaveATreeEatAVegan 02:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is really an article about the Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice organisation which has not received signficant coverage in indepndent reliable sources. The rest of the article is not useful in any way so there is no reson for any merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is obviously a mistitled piece, it should be Swedish Muslims for Peace and Justice. No opinion about inclusion-worthiness at this time, but please do check for sources in languages other than English. This might be a good case for someone to work one-on-one with a new content creator, teaching them how to wikify things, etc. Carrite (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Open Source Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - By gum, I actually found a reliable source — "Call for Advisors: Open Source Shakespeare," (2006) from the web site of Shaksper, the Global Electronic Shakespeare Conference, including a short history of origins, etc. I think this article is written in a promotional manner, with external links in the body of the piece instead of where they belong, but this is ultimately an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll spend a few minutes getting that material integrated into the piece and getting this thing up to our basic standards. Hold the phone... Carrite (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an even better source, coverage of the project on a site of George Mason University, entitled "Alumnus Makes Shakespeare’s Works Easy to Search." Carrite (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll spend a few minutes getting that material integrated into the piece and getting this thing up to our basic standards. Hold the phone... Carrite (talk) 16:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm done. A pretty clear Keep now, I think. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure blogs and email listservs are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. The only other citation is an alumni news article, which is not exactly an independent third-party source. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that for the purposes of establishing notability, SHAKSPER is not "a listserv" or "a mailinglist", nor even "an academic listserv". While the techincal implementation is a listserv, SHAKSPER was conceived as an "electronic conference" whose participants include at least several of the editors of the critical editions of the plays from both Arden and Oxford and several other professional as well as unaffiliated Shakespeare and Elizajacobean scholars. The list is moderated (by Hardy M. Cook) and is frequently cited in papers, journal articles, and even books (from OUP, Cambridge, etc.). While it does not quite reach the level of an academic journal (there's no double-blind review etc.), you would be closer to the mark to consider it akin to the proceedings of a relevant conference or similar. Its closest kin would probably be Notes & Queries and TLS. --Xover (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure blogs and email listservs are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. The only other citation is an alumni news article, which is not exactly an independent third-party source. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm seeing enough Google Books search results to indicate it meets WP:WEB e.g. 1a, 1b, 2, 3. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—If you search Google Books for "Open Source Shakespeare" you'll find several mentions, for instance from works such as The New Cambridge companion to Shakespeare edited by Margreta De Grazia and Stanley Wells (both well known Shakespearean scholars, and the New Cambridge Shakespeare series is of great renown); and if you do the same on Google Scholar you'll find similarly numerous results from purely academic sources. I am not sure I would have chosen to create an article on it had it not existed, but I think there is ample grounds for establishing general notability now that it does exist. --Xover (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SGS Industrial Services (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 subsidiary of a company. I can find no evidence that the particular division is notable, and the only references provided are self-references. In addition, a previous reviewer has tagged it as a possible COI and the author originally had his AfC request for this article originally turned down as "advertising". AndrewRT(Talk) 00:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another global provider of technical inspection, verification, testing and conformity assessment services for industrial markets advertising on Wikipedia. Unreferenced but self-congratulatory history of the business. Current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising, IMO. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (worst case) Corporate advertisement; best case merge to SGS S.A. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- NewCom 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)
Promotional article about a communications company with unclear notability. The company did win one award, however Google News only returns press releases. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another global telecommunications provider advertising on Wikipedia. Referenced only to in-company sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Several sources are from Satmagazine.com, (see article), which doesn't appear to be affiliated with NewCom International. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, this source from Satmagazine.com is an interview with a NewCom International employee: [19], and may possibly be applicable regarding topic notability. However, these two articles from Satmagazine.com were written by a NewCom International employee, and are considered primary sources (not suitable to prove notability): [20] and [21]. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:44, 31 January 2012 (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) 00:16, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of reliable third party sources to attest to notability. No news hits, all are afor namesakes Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to meet our N guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grow My Media (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. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2012 (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, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:GNG. no evidence of wider coverage than Mancheseter. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't fathom its notability. lacks sources, and most Ghits seem to be generic usages or WP mirrors. Articles cited do not even mention the agency. No news hits. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- N. S. Venkatakrishnan (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, Hardly any references, References are not reliable, Not neutral Veryhuman (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom --Anoopan (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to indicate biographical notability. AllyD (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the low participation, this is a "soft delete"; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request to any admin or at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerry U21 Hurling Championship (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 championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Violates Wikipedia's core policies. Cloudz679 11:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the low participation, this is a "soft delete"; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request to any admin or at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kerry Junior Hurling Championship (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 championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, incomplete and non-notable article. Cloudz679 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione Message 04:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2000 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rupert Raj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neutral nomination on behalf of proposed deletion-requestor (contested at requests for undeletion). Proposed deletion rationale was "Article does not establish notability of person." Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the biography of an apparently non-notable living person. That said, I'm surprised this didn't go forward as a promotional Speedy Deletion, and I would not object to that - it's essentially a resume. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Because it fails WP:GNG. I unsuccessfully looked for reliable sources to support this person's notability. Wikipedia is not the place to post your résumé. Jance day (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; this is entirely unsourced and is essentially written as a CV rather than an encyclopedia article. Furthermore, although it was still very poorly sourced and deletable, it at least resembled a real encyclopedia article until it was edited to its current format last April by User:Rupert raj, bringing up a conflict of interest issue, shortly before it was originally deleted. Also worth noting that the undeletion requester didn't actually provide a reason for requesting undeletion; rather, their reasoning consisted entirely of the word "reasoning". And I'm saying all this as someone who's met Rupert personally. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2007 Sudan Airways hijacking (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 hijacking. Hijacker makes plane divert, plane lands, hijacker gets arrested without incident. WP:NOTNEWS would apply also. William 02:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -William 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -William 02:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)William 17:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to particularly notable. MilborneOne (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems by all accounts to be a non-event Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2000 Kerry Intermediate Hurling Championship (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 championship lacks requisite substantial RS coverage. Tagged for refs for over 2 years. Article creator has been blocked for over 2 years for repeatedly creating inappropriate articles. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Cloudz679 17:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not an article or even an attempted article, just a small hanful of unreferenced, unformatted score info. And I doubt it would be notable even if cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Any userfication request can be directed to my talk page. Thanks. Wifione Message 04:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wolf Boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is not notable, the film has not even been released yet. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 17:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy incubate as per WP:IAR, as notability cannot be assessed at this time. Unscintillating (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to the userspace of anyone willing to take it. This film may well become notable in the future, but without knowing when it will be released it's hard to assess it yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it fails WP:NFF. I have been unable to find any proof that principal photography has commenced yet. No prejudice towards recreation once principal photography commences and can be verified. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Troika (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of notability. References are given to NY times and Washington post articles but these do not mention the album - only concerts where some of the pieces on the album were played. Artist has no article. Google on full name of album shows very few hits. noq (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability indicated under "Critical reception". The artist has an article. Googling "julia kogan"+troika shows numerous relevant hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D20120101 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 January 2012 (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) 02:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deryck C. 12:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transparent LED-embedded glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sounds more like a advertise for a product made by a single company than a technology Craesh (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is expressly not about a single company product, and that would not in itself exclude it from Wikipedia (if it did, many patent protected products would be out). A google search shows that glass with LEDs embedded is widely used for a variety of purposes and available from many sources. --AJHingston (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2012 (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) 02:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read the whole article and looked at all of the on-line references. The title and the particulars seem to be about one company's products. There is no real overview information as there should/would be if were a general topic/technology. The on-line sources were generally about the one company's product, plus a bunch of patent search results which seem more like incoherent filler rather than supporting text. If this a real field (by this name) rather than one company's product, it sure isn't covered in this article. North8000 (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per AJHingston. But shouldn't it be renamed to LED-embedded glass? "Transparent" is obviously redundant. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gafencu Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While this magazine exists, I cannot find substantial RS coverage of it that would satisfy our notability requirements. Zero refs. Only its official website as an EL. Tagged for zero refs and lack of notability since May. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 19:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Friendbet (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 (and bad spelling too!). Philafrenzy (talk) 23:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Spelling is a fixable problem, I've tried to do some cleanup on the article. Just glancing at the Google results, it appears this site might notable. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:00, 24 January 2012 (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, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing this as passing WP:WEB at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not finding reliable sources for this - just blog posts and the like. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The most substantial piece that I'm finding is this 2010 interview with the firm's managing director. It states aims for usage by end 2011, but I'm not seeing other references that would suggest concrete achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Digivice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A long article, but a long article made up entirely of in-universe trivia and game-guide information. The Digivice is a fictional element with no real-world notability; everything important about them could be (and is) summarised in the main article on the franchise. J Milburn (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a redirect to the main article Digimon would be a logical choice.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. Neelix (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In view of the low participation, this is a "soft delete"; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request to any admin or at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bihar Degree Dhoka (Hindi Film) (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. Unreferenced promotional article for an unproduced and unreleased future film. No article for the filmmaker - film fails WP:MOVIE. Google search on "Bihar Degree Dhoka" shows only 36 unique results, none from reliable sources. Adding the -wiki modifier reduces that to only 12 results. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This can be undeleted or recreated once the film is made and gets coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidance, navigation and control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded with "Dicdef, no sources.", prod2'd with "seems to be a dictionary definition - the three elements considered together rather than a specific discipline". I agree with prod2. Deprodded for no good reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - GNC is a well-established discipline within aviation (people speak of GNC software and GNC computers); there are GNC conferences held annually like http://www.aiaa.org/GNC2012; there are university courses and lectures in the discipline like the one at MIT http://academicearth.org/lectures/guidance-navigation-and-control and the one at Georgia Tech http://www.pe.gatech.edu/courses/guidance-navigation-and-control-theory-and-applications; the term is widely used by respected organisations like NASA http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts-gnnc.html; in short it's a notable term and by no means merely a dicdef. I'll add these sources to the article now - Google offers another half-million for us to choose from if that's not enough. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A topic as big as this cannot simply be dismissed as a dicdef. This is a case where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, and the integration of those elements is the subject of books and provides employment to many. At present it is a stub, and requires input from editors with a proper grounding in the subject, but it has a useful purpose in Wikipedia as providing a place where the wider topic can be explained as well as refering users to specific applications and related topics. --AJHingston (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm inclined to keep as per AJHingston, but there's got to be a better title for this article. I'm not a fan of the comma. I concur that there's probably evidence to support inclusion as its own topic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep handily meets WP:GNG with tens of thousands of hits on gbooks and scholar. Title is unfortunately clunky, but this is what the engineers decided to call this field of study. HausTalk 17:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it does not take long looking at GScholar and GBooks results to see that this is a notable topic. Article needs to be expanded, not deleted. LadyofShalott 21:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. AH, we have a CONTENT FORK: Guidance system contains a whole section starting (my emphasis) "Guidance systems consist of '3 essential parts': navigation which tracks current location, guidance which leverages navigation data and target information to direct flight control "where to go", and control which accepts guidance commands to effect change in aerodynamic and/or engine controls." --- so we in fact have 2 articles both on G, N and C already, and apparently "Guidance system" means both "G by itself" and "G with N and C". Perhaps a Redirect or Merge would be best??? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Article needs a lot of work to make it useful. Other then that it is an article that is needed.--NavyBlue84 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- GN&C is definitely a notable engineering discipline, especially in spaceflight which I am a bit more familiar with. "GNC Engineer" is a common job title for those who write the software to perform the GNC functions necessary for a typical space mission. I will say that I agree that the article need lots of citations to reliable sources. But the correct Wikipedia solution is to remove the specifically challenged unsourced claims after a while rather than to delete the entire article. N2e (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Hope Movement (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 seem to meet WP:ORG, specifically WP:NONPROFIT. --Non-Dropframe talk 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete founded last year and, unsurprisingly, doesn't yet pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this NPO seems to be real but too new to have attracted attention, so it is not yet notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Gongshow Talk 04:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Walter Alexander Coachbuilders (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 WP:notability. Only source is not found. Google searches provide few hits and nothing to establish notability. noq (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep. A publicly listed company with over 80 years of history, for much of it one of the largest bus manufacturers in the world as well as operating large numbers of other businesses, was always likely to have rather more coverage than this article's state would suggest. Although the vast majority of it is offline (industry sources, for instance, have written hundreds of thousands of words about this company down the years), sample sources that I can link to include: [22], [23], [24] and many more about its successors (e.g. [25], [26]). Passes WP:CORP by a massive margin - I'd be interested to see what Google searches the nominator tried... Alzarian16 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's frankly difficult to believe that the nominator really did hunt for sources. There are plenty of interesting immediate hits on Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News (archives obviously). These include a government report on the company [27], a discussion of the company in the British Parliament [28], a paper that discusses some of the company's technologies [29], thorough coverage of the company's operations in daily news organization from the trivial [30] [31] to the more substantial [32] to the more dramatic [33]. And this is just a fraction of what I get on the first page of hits in Google Books/Scholar/News. Pichpich (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per references in the article and discussed above. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note also existence of various "Alexander's Buses Remembered" and a forthcoming book (not one of these Wikipedia knockoffs as far as I can tell): "Alexander's Buses: Fife, Midland, Northern" (ISBN 0711035520). AllyD (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep - a famous company with a rich history. A most strange AFD nomination IMHO. We have tens of thousands of articles on Z-list celebs, weather girls and obscure comic characters, yet a venerable and well-established company gets AFDd. Wikipedia needs to seriously re-scope if it wants to be taken seriously as an encyclopaedia. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – although it could certainly use a fair bit of fleshing out, considering the topic. Useddenim (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the few British bus manufacturers still in business. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOW Keep and a {{trout}} for the nominator, per all of the reasons above. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep why would this not be notable? MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable predecessor company to notable successor companies. Although most ghits are not especially substantial, there are an avalanche of them, and the article's sourcing has been improved to reflect them. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient RS coverage -- where coverage is less substantial, we are allowed to consider the number of rs articles covering a subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: wrong forum, redirects should be listed at WP:RFD. Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexander Royale (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 WP:notability. Only reference is to the companies own website. noq (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, what? This title is a redirect not an article at all. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a discussion in the wrong forum This is not an article. Redirects should go to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. But obviously, there's absolutely no reason to delete a perfectly reasonable redirect from a specific make of bus to the manufacturer. Pichpich (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Pichpich. HausTalk 15:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Chad Cowgill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Actor with only bit-part credits in TV, none since 1990. Not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources, does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 00:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete actor with a resume of unnamed TV characters (for example, "Copy Boy (uncredited)" and "Boy #3"), and no roles in 22 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above, except for the "no roles since 1990" issue, which isn't relevant; his notability wouldn't be temporary if he had achieved notability by 1990. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Invest 90L (February 2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Significant breach of WP:OR along with much opinion sprinkled in. Officially, these types of storms (Invests) are any area of disturbed weather that have potential to develop into a tropical or subtropical cyclone. This particular storm was a bit out of season but not unprecedented. It was never considered tropical (main WP:OR breach) and recently dissipated after only minor impacts. WP:OR breach #2 and #3 is within the impact and records: "Although it was not an official tropical cyclone (it might be identified in post-season analysis), it's notable for being only the second system of it's type to form in February, the other was the 1952 Groundhog Day tropical storm." - There is no source to back up either statement made here. Overall, the system is non-notable and does not warrant an article nor does it warrant merger into the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season (since it was not officially classified a tropical cyclone by the National Hurricane Center). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since it was not a tropical cyclone, it should be treated as a generic meteorological entity. It did not cause enough impact to warrant an article on "February 2012 Florida floods". --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a major impact, therefore, it does not require its own article. Plus not recognized as a cyclone. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2012 Atlantic hurricane season - worth a brief mention in the season article, I believe, but absolutley not notable enough for a stand-alone article. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You can add a single sentence about this system to the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season article at most. Crystal-ball arguments such as "Although it was not an official tropical cyclone (it might be identified in post-season analysis)" make for an extremely tenuous claim to notability. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The chances this system will be recognized as a TC after the fact are either slim or none, though slim has already left town. There was a disturbance noted by NHC in February 1989. While it has been unusual for NHC to write tropical disturbance statements/special tropical weather outlooks in February, it has happenned before. Besides, how is most of this information ever going to be able to be sourced? Until the storm wallet scanning finishes (which is on hold due to federal government budget issues) what I said can't even be sourced. It was very brave to create this article in the first place...the editors' enthusiasm should not be squelched. Merely redirected. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no picture, and it wasn't even classified. Certainly doesn't deserve it's own page. I think Tropical Storm 01M does though. WreckEmUp (talk)
- Delete per nom. Hurricanefan25 (talk · contribs) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Single event with no lasting news impact. Git2010 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wifione Message 04:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Necessary Records (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. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2012 (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, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Has been mentioned at least twice in Billboard here and here and several times in Music Week but these are behind paywalls. I added one of the Billboard refs confirming its founder and year of creation. Also notified WikiProject Companies/Record Labels Task Force of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the sources are tangential at best. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The label has multiple charted releases (singles and albums) in multiple countries. Yes, all with a single band, but it has signed multiple bands, so it's not a vanity label. Has been around for 9 years, so not fly-by-night. The article needs a ton of help, undoubtedly, but the subject is inherently notable. 78.26 (talk) 03:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above. A band the label represents has charted releases and been nominated for several awards. The label has multiple bands on the roster. Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – This subject fails WP:GNG; WP:CORPDEPTH is particularly lacking in coverage. Trivial mentions in great sources are trivial nonetheless, and having multiple clients doesn't aggregate notability on that basis alone. It'd be something else if a few bands themselves were notable. JFHJr (㊟) 00:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The label was responsible for the release of Hard-Fi's debut album, which ended up peaking at #1 on the UK album charts. The label was responsible for the band signing to Atlantic Records in 2004. All this can be found on a number of sources, including Billboard Magazine, which is not trival and not tangential in its reporting of the influence that the label has had in the band's success. Dan arndt (talk) 07:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OmniPeace (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 sources which establish notability. Versageek 23:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nomination appears to be based on just the most recent changes, which seem to have mistakenly removed sources. Please take a look at the previous version where many suitable sources are given. I have offered the likely COI bearing account some advice, and will continue to attempt to help them move on to collaborating on improvement rather than trying to, apparently, control the article. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've reverted the article to before the spam content, it now includes references. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:51, 24 January 2012 (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, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've rewrote this after some issues raised in an OTRS ticket, and I see plenty of coverage in reliable sources. However, the concerns raised in the edit summaries of Maryfanaro (talk · contribs) should not be ignored, although I am unclear as to what some of the exact problems are. Relevant OTRS tickets, for those who can access them: ticket:2011120510021835, ticket:2011112210000121, ticket:2011062110015378, and ticket:2011082410000893. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article in its current state adequately refutes the rationale of the nom. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article is well-written, on a notable topic, and very well sourced with inline citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reflects the requisite RS coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.