Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 28
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Should mergehistory be enabled for importers?
- Should WP:TITLEFORMAT take precedence over WP:CRITERIA?
- Open letter regarding the Wikimedia Foundation's potential disclosure of editors' personal information
- Extended-confirmed pending changes and preemptive protection in contentious topics
- Are portals encyclopedic, and are they appropriate redirect targets?
- Should recall petitions be limited to signatures only?
- Should the length of recall petitions be shortened?
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was Delete both. Icewedge (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of people who appear to fall into several similar but different categories, none of which have their own article (presumably because the label or lack of label has no bearing on defining behaviour). Included in the "list of people who do not label their own sexual orientation" is a singer who is quoted as saying "I guess you would call me bisexual". All entries seem to be celebrities who are quoted by the press, which may imply a reluctance to discuss their sexuality with the general public, rather than a some strongly held belief. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy tag removed by an IP on the grounds that the company exists. No assertion of notability beyond that, except for a talk-page assertion that the store once had its storefront smashed by a car. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete POV title; this was a no-consensus close last time round, but this has been tagged for cleanup for soooo long and no one is bothering to clean it up, time for it to go now. Anything non-trivial here can or should be found in Human rights in Russia, so we don't need this POV-bomb lurking around what we call an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. I know there are some weak keep arguments, but there are good ones too and very little are supporting deletion - so close to a snowball here. JForget 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to establish notability outside that of the fictional universe. — Dædαlus Contribs 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep - but the article needs continued cleanup and watching per WP:BLP. Famous for a famous event, the subject is likely to remain in the news and he may yet have a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A thoroughly inappropriate WP:BLP1E in the middle of an ongoing and high-profile legal case. The initial justification for this article cited Murray's having "gained more than enough name recognition and notoriety to merit his own page". However, Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate anybody's "notoriety", and WP:BLP's in particular should not be fanning flames. If Murray is confirmed (and not just anonymously suspected) to have had a role in the death of Michael Jackson, and is formally found liable (e.g., through a criminal conviction), then--maybe--he would warrant an article of his own. As it stands, however, the subject of this article needs a bodyguard due to assumptions that may or may not be ultimately verified; he is covered sufficiently (perhaps even excessively) already in Death of Michael Jackson, and he does not need to be subjected to presumptions of independent notability that could, if ultimately discredited, be construed as massive defamation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a first, at least for me personally - I created the original article. Looking at the edit history, I seem to have created this article to make another one easier to read. That's a terrible reason to create an article. Now, I could G7 the article, and if an admin wants to close as delete pursuant to G7 that's fine, but I'm also looking for a very lightweight unofficial forum on WP:ATHLETE as it relates to cyclists. WP:ATHLETE states individuals are notable for "compet[ing] at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." The highest level of cycling is the UCI ProTour; even though the ProTour itself has had its status diminished, the 18 ProTeams are unquestionably the most esteemed teams in the sport. Rosendo rides for a UCI Professional Continental team, which is a step below ProTeam level. I'm not sure he necessarily satisfies notability for riding for a UCI ProContinental team, and he certainly can't be considered notable for having never won a race. Nosleep break my slumber 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list of a handful of single-nation Bingo-related nicknames. Could be merged into a list of worldwide nicknames (if exists), but is not WP:notable enough for inclusion on its own, or even does it include reliable sources. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROD contested by an IP user with no edit summary at all. The subject is a youth team footballer with no first team experience at all, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Too broad in scope of a list topic to provide much value. inappropriate list RadioFan (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'll Withdraw this nomination.
Does that offer a suitable argument, Nishi? HumanFrailty (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one article consist many names, keep it as it is informative.-Iross1000 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
|
The result was No Consensus - there are credible arguments by both sides of the discussion. Both the supporters and the detractors of the article are invited to work together in editing the text, thus ensuring WP:RS and WP:NPOV standards are maintained. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are legitimate places for much of the writing in this article: they are blogs, NGO web pages, and letters to the UN and others. But not a stand-alone article like this. I beg an admin to take a decent stand on this stuff and recognise that consensus is not a vote. There are several cool and mderate heads here arguing for a delete/merge solution - Drmies, Carlossuarez46, yousaf465, SpacemanSpiff and Phil Bridger (as well as some lightly less moderate voices, YellowMonkey :-)). I do not think any compelling arguments have been made by the 'keep's, provided everyone understands that it is not being proposed to keep this material out of WP: just that it be in the civil war and human rights articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly unlike other areas the European Union ,Ban Ki Moon along with Human rights Watch and Amnesty International are calling for a International probe into allegations of War crimes in the recent War.[1][2][3][4] I will improve the article there are several sources and recent events are not incorprated. I agree with user Nishkid that state terrorism including War Crimes are different from human rights abuses. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (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 speedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yuval David (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This promotional bio is longer than the actor's actual resume. I don't think this satisfies the acting criteria for notability. No refs to back up claims, which is a BLP problem. Law type! snype? 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – if you took out all the promotionalism, all you'd be left with would be "Yuval David is an actor. Appeared in 9 episodes of Days of Our Lives. And not a lot else." – and an AfD tag. Non-notable. No reliable refs to be found (only social networking ones). Google is alive with the sound of his PR team, but that's about it. – B.hotep •talk• 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE as he never played in a fully professional league. During his games at Dagenham they were not fully professional including their school teacher top goalscorer and more notably fails WP:N having only played in the English Fourth tier.
(outdent) If he is working another regular job then they are part time - simple as. I am not saying he isnt personally notable - he is for playing at his previous clubs - but it just further emphasises that the league is not fully pro. Here are some more examples - Dave McKearney at Morcambe kept his job when Morcambe went into the League, John Askey was an insurance saleman when he played for Macclesfield, Darren Tinson was an anaesthetist, Liam Dickinson was a graphic designer when he was playing for Stockport County, Neil Howarth was a journalist when he was playing for Macclesfield, Paul O'Connor worked in the Wilkinson Sword factory near Hartlepool whilsts playing for them and famously had to missed a reply in the FA Cup against York because his boss wouldnt let him change his shift!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he never played in a fully professional league. During his 5 games at Dagenham they were not fully professional including their school teacher top goalscorer and more notably fails WP:N having only played in the English Fourth tier.
(outdent)*Latching on to a previous AfD doesn't mean it's policy. If we're going to go on previous AfDs, players have kept for appearances in FL Trophy. I've backed up my point with inclusion criteria, do you have any criteria to back up what you're saying or just going to keep repeating the same point? --Jimbo[online] 22:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:ATHLETE BigDom 17:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notable roles, no independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (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 speedy deleted by JeremyA (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Matt King's Bloodhound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
unremarkable dog, not eligible for speedy..Kinda sad that we could speedy Matt King as unremarkable, but the unremarkable man's unremarkable dog has to go through ProD, or AfD WuhWuzDat 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Speedy A7
and amend Speedy criteria A7 to include all named organic beings :)RayTalk 21:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Speedy Delete.
Clearly a speedy deletion candidate - byA7as the dog is being used as a WP:COATRACK, or by G2/G3 or, failing that, WP:IAR!I42 (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like I'm the latest to spot A7 was updated to include animals. Is this article some kind of publicity stunt for that change? :-) I42 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so, but it sure is bringing attention to the change! WuhWuzDat 22:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I speedied an article about a cat as A7. I was surprised that it was accepted. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. No notability, no reliable sources. (My surprise came the other day when I noticed this revision of A7 on an article about an unremarkable horse.) Accounting4Taste:talk 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed delete per all above. Accountant, why not use one of your magic buttons? Drmies (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we have articles on dogs now? Jeni (talk) 00:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure we do - Moose (dog actor) ? But good grief, this 'article' is as obvious a speedy delete as I've seen make it through to AFD in some time. Nosleep break my slumber 00:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers, I'mperator 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable band that has literally done nothing so far, Band created yesterday (see article talk page). Epic fail of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND. WuhWuzDat 21:33, 28 July 2009 (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 speedy delete, obvious advertising for a promotional business that contained no minimal showing of importance: a New York based management agency representing hair stylists, colorists, makeup artists, fashion stylists and photographers. Proposed deletion was contested by User:NYCCommunity, a handle that suggests conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Community NYC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Agency appears to be attempting to use Wikpedia for promotion of its clients. Notabiliy not established. There is not even any text in the article, it is nothing but lists of clients. Most of the links under "References" are not actually references about the agency, but rather blog or other articles about one or another client. Yworo (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Per WP:CSD G11. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one way or another per nominator--a speedy would have been and still is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:CSD_A7. The article doesn't indicate the importance or significance of the organization. The reference list is a WP:LINKFARM. Google searches show no apparent signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would delete but it is not clear it should be speedy. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No sources to verify. No real claim of notability. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:corp.Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Anton Sport. Has a few links but they are press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines..
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignAShirt.com
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term is a non-notable one in the motor industry. Google returns 430 hits [35]. The article creator has a conflict of interest insomuch as it was originally a copy/paste of their own website: personalcommutingvehicle.com – it was speedy deleted by myself as a copyvio. Then a discussion ensued on my talk page (still there as this was only yesterday) in which they virtually admitted that it was a "new" term [36] and that they wanted to "spark public discussion". I also found out that the creator works for a company called TTW which specialises in... personal commuting vehicles. Compare username to name (autore) at bottom of page. The article is pretty much original research and veiled spam. Even after I advised them this after the first creation, they still went ahead and recreated it, albeit with different words. For comparison, using the example of "how did SUV start?", also on my talk – 7.37m
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No major chart success, no major tours, no real media coverage turns up in a google search. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Term is non-existant in the literature and appears completely made up by the article creator. The article is nothing more than a collection of disparate events that are completely unconnected and appears to exist solely for national POV purposes. --Athenean (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the article title problems does this person meet the notability guidelines? This article is such a mess it's very hard to tell. Polly (Parrot) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. I admit I am a newbie and perhaps I didn’t follow proper procedures. I find the instructions on Wikipedia written for computer nerds, but not for the average person like me. So I am doing my best to understand and anyone who has valid concerns, I am willing to read and respond accordingly. 2. That said. Let me make some preliminary remarks first. I do not know any of the people who are making these concerns. I don’t know if you are gay or straight. Whether you are a leader in gay rights movement or whether you were a large contributor to the Prop 8 campaign. I don’t know whether you are saying “nay” because you honestly do not feel my achievements are not worthy or whether you have a bias against gays and don’t want Wikipedia to show anything which would put gays in positive light. One of the people who responded was a minister (I don’t see his comments now for some reason). Now I know that there are many denominations which are supportive of the gay community such as Quakers, Unitarians, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Churches and Reform Jews. But there are many denominations which have cause a lot of pain to the gay community such as Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Assembly of God. So I don’t know where you are coming from. I do not mind making some editing changes, but I do not want to be removed because of homophobes who has a bias against gays. So let’s take a look at some of the concerns. 1. Polly said that I said I was the first gay school board member and she didn’t think that was correct. She is right. It isn’t correct, because that is not what I said. I am the first gay person in the country to win a seat on an elementary school board. I was also the very first gay person to be elected to a school board below college level in California. Someone said where is the verification. I am not sure what verification you need, however you can verify what I said from a book called Out for Office which was published by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund. If there other things that you need to be verified let me know and I will provide that. Someone said that being the first gay school board member, why is that so significant? Please refer to the Wikipedia page for Harvey Milk. He served in office less than a year before he was killed by a homophobe. He was elected to the city council of that city. As the Wikipedia page says he was elected as the first gay man in California. I have served on a school board for over 20 years. Are you saying that a gay person who served less than a year is more important than a gay person who has served for over 20? So how can I appeal the decision to have me removed? Please respond to [email protected]
Strong delete (1) There are no sources for the statements in the article, meaning it is not a wiki article. (2) The statement that he is the first homosexual school board member is not true, although he may be the first to publicise it. (3) Being a school board member, homosexual, communist or jihadist is not notable, nor is it being a politician. (4) Wiki has NEVER, in my experience, been anything other than ultra-liberal, politically speaking. The idea of it being homophobic - and the author's accusations that that may be the reason for going against this article - are both laughable and rather indecorously 'playing a card.'--Fiskeharrison (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as G7 by User:WereSpielChequers. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Article prodded, and endorsed, however this looks like nonsenses, and possibly WP:OR. probably should be speedied.
I've deleted "membership probabilities" per G7, so please focus discussion on Membership probabilities. ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Merging can be dealt with on the talk page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No third party reliable sources, no evidence of notability. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". That is clearly not the case here. B (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus to delete. Merge proposal may be discussed at the article talkpage. Skomorokh 15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable island. A total of 59 Google hits to various web forums discussing humorous-sounding place names. Couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources at all. Jafeluv (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2009 (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 Speedy Delete, G11 by User:Orangemike. Lenticel (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sploder! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable web site. No sources support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N in every way. Undead Warrior (talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A brief search reveals no sources that would assert any notability for this; perhaps worth speedy deletion as non-notable web content. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Jeni (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR, no need for this to run any longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Allison Iraheta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. DJ 12:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to American Idol (season 8). Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep. Iraheta is notable for her performance on Idol, as well as on Quinceañera. This nomination appears to be more the result of an agenda-driven editor than an editor who read the article and thoughfully applied the AfD criteria. Nonsense. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would say it's best to keep this one for now. While most of her notability currently is based on participation on one show, she did just sign a record deal (per cited information in the article itself), so let's see what comes out of that before we rush for deletion. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Subject was arguably notable before she appeared on Idol, due to winning Quinceañera. Idol showed that she was notable for more than just one event. She's also got a single that's just under the Hot 100 right now (which would clearly meet WP:MUSIC), and she's appeared on The Tonight Show based on that single and not as an Idol contestant. Finally, Other stuff exists; just because one person in category X had her article deleted does not mean that everybody in that category should have their articles deleted. I still assume good faith in the nominator; however, at the least, a baby got caught in the bathwater. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close - see WP:POINT. Keep as obviously notable. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as Iraheta is a notable figure, with non-trivial amount of history, and who has signed with a record label to produce an upcoming album. pbryan (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 institutions, this is a non-notable, pile of plots from an alternate universe. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This article may be too long to comfortably read and navigate. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and using this article for a summary of the key points of the subject."
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
No information that can't already be found on each of the musicians respective pages, suggest at least a redirect or merge with the artists pages Str8cash (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2009 (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 speedy keep. Seriously. Don't do this again. Smashvilletalk 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- G-force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The whole concept of calling an acceleration a force is wrong. g-force is a slang term used by people unfamiliar with the principles of dynamics. This article will create more confusion in understanding the principles of mechaanics. RHB100 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? This is a commonly used term and a perfectly valid subject for an entry. If it's inaccurate it needs editing, not deletion. Even if there's something fundamentally wrong with the concept, it would still merit an article explaining why. Hairhorn (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this even needs explaining? G-force is a natural thing... Str8cash (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The plethora of reliable publications cited would disgree that g-force is a "slang term"... Jujutacular talkcontribs 19:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. I thought G was a perfectly acceptable gravitational constant in physics? G-force, then, is a force exerted on a body as a result of acceleration and not a vector quantity like acceleration? Well, regardless, 1,167 Google Book, 13,600 Google Scholar results and my common sense say that it may be informal but it's definitely not some WP:NEO or WP:HOAX term. Definitely keep. — Rankiri (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Claims to notability are either vague ("spent over a decade working in some of the most successful recording studios on the planet") or unsourced ("his first album was released to critical acclaim"). Google searches turn up only Myspace, Twitter and the like. Hairhorn (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus to delete. Merge proposals, where applicable, should be pursued on the individual article talkpages. Skomorokh 15:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of notability. I am also nominating the following related pages because this cluster of articles seems to be a self-promoting cluster:
Irbisgreif (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fiske-harrison break 1[edit]
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE, NASDAQ and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this case. However, sufficient independent sources usually exist for such companies that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage, analyst reports, and profiles by companies such as Hoover's (a commercial source)." I have added half a dozen more articles talking about Fiske plc and Clive Harrison and here is Fiske's Hoover page [56]. --Fiskeharrison (talk) 15:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the problems of all 4 articles being here together as a sort of family project, but this is best handled by keeping them brief and factual. Given that they all 4 represent different problems, I think the group nomination was an error. I remind the author that if there is merging, it might be better for others to do it. DGG (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication that this particular product and model number is notable, no references in this one-line article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2009 (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 withdrawn by nominator. Source came to light showing the band is in the rotation at CBC Radio 3. - 2 ... says you, says me 04:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Darlings of chelsea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I denied my own A7 tag after realizing they were voted "Best New Band of 2009" by Mass Movement Magazine. The only problem? Mass Movement looks like a blog, and I couldn't find any independent non-trivial coverage of the band that isn't underground or a blog. I see nothing else showing notability, a single (uncharted) release on a small independent label with a website noting that "they like it" doesn't satisfy WP:MUSIC. - 2 ... says you, says me 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. freshacconci talktalk 18:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is coverage in Chart, including this and this and in Exclaim! here. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought that this entry conformed to the guidelines for many reasons, specifically "multiple non-trivial published works"; Chart and Exclaim are arguably Canada's two biggest music magazines ([1] | 2) and Mass Movement Magazine is not a blog, it is a print magazine that just moved to digital format, has writers from Rolling Stone Magazine and has offices in both the UK and US. The band also has rotation on CBC Radio 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBC_Radio_3) and has members from three other notable bands as listed in Wikipedia: Jay "Halo" Millette - The Black Halos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Halos), Robby Ruckus - Robin Black (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Black) and Chris "Jimmy" Nova - Kill Cheerleader (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_Cheerleader). I'm not sure if this is in the guideline but I've also seen the album for sale at Amazon.com, eMusic.com and iTunes. http://www.amazon.com/The-Mimico-Sessions/dp/B0029CXBFS/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248813922&sr=301-1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollaction (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A1. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- List of economic models (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete unsourced one-liner purporting to be a list which it isn't, not encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alexf(talk) 01:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be a Hoax - Virtually no relevant Google hits - not Mentioned on Valencia website despite the fact he is meant to be a first team player. Nigel Ish (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was No consensus to delete, merger is an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not notable Vulgar Latina (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unref WP:CRYSTAL. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability or any third-party in-depth review. This article was used in an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS edit summary to support notability of Dooble during its AfD. Article has been translated into numerous other wiki-languages, but none of them are any better...really literally translated, with no additional info or WP:RS. DMacks (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable softball tournament, no sources - 2 ... says you, says me 17:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another unsourced one-liner about some technology from Intel. Yes, Intel's big, great, wonderful, etc....but not each piece of technology that emanates from Intel is inherently notable, and this has no sources and minimal context: basically Intel has some technology that's like someother technology. Not very encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria for inclusion in the list are not very objective; hence liable to become unmanageable. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Concerns from importing an offsite article are appreciated, but the article is quite extensive, reasonable well cited to primary sources, and it has been demonstrated that independent reliable coverage which can be used to expand and verify the article exists. Skomorokh 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Character already covered in Dumbledore's Army#Ginny Weasley. Jujutacular talkcontribs 16:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simply not notable. Minimal appearances after Britain's Got Talent, and no reliable sources cited. Being on Britain's Got Talent does not automatically make you notable. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (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 (G3) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dumb Kooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability; no evidence found at IMDb that the show ever aired. Previous prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as pure vandalism. Production company doesn't exist, show "creator" is an 8-year-old Australian soccer player, article creator has short but clear history of hoax edits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nomination, and I suspect this could have been deleted as non-notable web content if the misleading word "television" had not been included. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ORG easily. All of the coverage I have found on this society doesn’t extend beyond the local area (, from WP:ORG: “Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability”,) and of that local coverage all of it seems to be trivial mention (“Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability”). Did plan to work with author to try and find some way to improve the article, but author has been inactive since late January of this year. Otumba (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments proferred as to why this article is necessarily untenable. "Consists only of a list of red links and external links" is a cleanup complaint, not a deletion rationale. Skomorokh 15:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consists only of a list of red links and external links RadioFan (talk) 13:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable billinghurst (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to List of association football families of note. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, the "Wilkins family" is far more than a handful of footballers. Each of the actual players have their own article. If the family is so notable, it should be moved "Wilkins football dynasty" or something, and not so generic as "Wilkins family". We do, after all, have a couple of dozen articles or more on different Wilkins. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Jabberwocky. JForget 00:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Lacks references. Doesnt appear to be an encyclopedic subject. RadioFan (talk) 12:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus 06:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC. PROD declined by IP author. Gnews search turns up 0 hits for this group (note that there are hits for this phrase, which is the name of a SF book, and is occasionally used casually). RayTalk 12:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. DJ 12:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep per ThaddeusB. The nominator should really check out the nominated-articles a bit more, seeing as they meet WP:MUSIC 9. Cheers, I'mperator 19:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. She appears to have released an album, but it did not chart and this violates WP:MUSIC. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. DJ 12:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR, no need for this to run any longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chikezie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The iTunes releases did not chart and therefore fail WP:MUSIC. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. DJ 12:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to American Idol (season 7). Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Jeni (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Chikezie is (about to be) signed with a record label and is in the process of doing something post-Idol. He appeared not only the summer tour, but also on Idol side tours. On a side note, he is my second favorite American Idol finalist. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines; the Alexis Grace deletion was improper per that guideline, and this one is even more so. --RBBrittain (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Crafty (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] Previous AfDs for this article:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dooble
No assertion of notability in reliable sources; sole evidence of notability that I'm aware of is here on Softpedia, but it appears to be a download page. The page was previously discussed here with a result of delete. The article was nominated for speedy deletion based on a re-creation of previously deleted content {{Db-g4}} but contested so now it's here. I'm unaware if the page was an exact re-creation of the previous content, but the current version contains nothing to suggest it's had any attention in secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR, no need for this to run any longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramiele Malubay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. She appears to have released some singles, but none have charted. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. DJ 12:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to American Idol (season 7), Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 18:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Jeni (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from the unproductive nature of the multiple nominations, this smacks of WP:POINT. Regardless, Wikipedia:Notability quite clearly lays out the criteria for notability: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This article most certainly meets the notability guideline, and to say otherwise is absurd. Most likely the others do as well. faithless (speak) 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines; the Alexis Grace deletion was improper per that guideline, and this one is even more so. --RBBrittain (talk) 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Crafty (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Dspradau → talk 11:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was early close keep - very clear consensus exists that this singer is notable; see WP:POINT. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Castro (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. The possibility of a future album breaks WP:CRYSTAL. The American Idol-related releases do not warrant him the right to an article, as it was released by every contestant, meaning that notability is speradic. For instance, if 1000 people set a notable world record, does each and every one deserve an article? DJ 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep from WP:MUSIC: "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition". I would call American Idol a major music competition, and I would think fourth place warrants inclusion. Jujutacular talkcontribs 15:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that he was still making the news a year after his appearance (eg, [58], [59]) makes him notable enough for me. Even if the album never gets completed, he still made the news for working on an album, and that should go towards satisfying WP:N.
You can't use Alexis Grace as precedent to delete this article. She didn't make it beyond the audition stage, while Castro was a fourth-place finisher.(Never mind that last comment. I was confusing Alexis Grace with Alexis Cohen.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Keep I think some bitter Alexis Grace fan has started tagging all the American Idol articles up for deletion. I agree with all that was said before about why this article should not be deleted, but above all, this contestant in particular is currently signed to a major label (Atlantic Records) after Idol and is working on an album. If Grace gets signed to a major label and releases something noteworthy, then Wikipedia will allow her to have her own article. Fanficgurl 4:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Firstly, as I am British and have never seen a single episode of American Idol, I am not a bitter fan of Alexis Grace or any other participant. You need to read WP:GOODFAITH. Secondly, you keep saying if she releases something, if she becomes notable. We don't keep Wikipedia articles just in case the subject becomes notable. You need to read WP:CRYSTAL. DJ 22:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR, though the article is notable. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They’ve done nothing worthy of note since they appeared on American Idol. DJ 11:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About an upcoming film which is not meet WP:NFF, according to the guidelines. Although it has 148,000 Google search hits. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR by another user. This one actually is leaning towards a "delete" consensus, but is marred by what ThaddeusB calls "a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination." King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. He's done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 10:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. One non-charting charity single from e-Bay; this fails WP:MUSIC. She's done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 10:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was declined for speedy deletion because of "international exhibitions". However this has been speedy deleted twice and recreated each time. As well, there is an obvious conflict of interest as the files uploaded by the editor are indicated as owned by the artist. The text itself shifts from first- to third-person. In any case, there is no evidence of notability. The artist has not had any major exhibitions and there are no reliable sources provided. A google search reveals only commercial or unrelated sites. This clearly fails WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 10:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. A member of a now defunct Christian Rock band, which did not chart, failing WP:MUSIC. DJ 10:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. One non-charting EP which is no longer comercially available; this fails WP:MUSIC. She's done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 10:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. She's done nothing of note since leaving Idol, and the frequent mentions of an album "coming soon" breaks WP:CRYSTAL. DJ 10:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. His one album did not chart and this fails WP:MUSIC. He's done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 10:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] He did collaborate with Blake Lewis for his album, why does his article need to be deleted?--75.37.61.208 (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (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 speedy close keep - see WP:POINT - placed fourth in Idol and has recording career since. Bearian (talk) 23:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LaKisha Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Her one album did not chart and this fails WP:MUSIC. She's done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 10:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. 4th place finish + work since Idol on TV and Broadway seem to inch her past WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Idol (season 5). Equating deletes to redirects in this case. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. The American Idol album does not warrant him the right to an article, as it was released by every contestant, meaning that notability is speradic. For instance, if 1000 people set a notable world record, does each and every one deserve an article? DJ 10:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. A few TV appearences doesn't pass WP:ACTOR. DJ 10:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The American Idol album does not warrant him the right to an article, as it was released by every contestant, meaning that notability is speradic. For instance, if 1000 people set a notable world record, does each and every one deserve an article? They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol bar some personal issues and a sex tape, but still not enough for her to pass WP:PORNSTAR. DJ 09:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Speedy Delete; re-creation of deleted content. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. They have done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Savol has done nothing of note since leaving Idol. DJ 09:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article should be kept, but cleaned up significantly. Artemis84 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. No evidence of any notability. ~ mazca talk 17:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsourced, non-notable place of worship -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. A few appearences in off-Broadway and regional plays also doesn't pass WP:BIO. DJ 09:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR, no need for this to run any longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vonzell Solomon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The subject has released one non-charting album, hence failing WP:MUSIC. DJ 09:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as an (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Jeni (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Crafty (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close Per ThaddeusB. Shappy talk 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Only semifinalists are to be merged with the American Idol season X artcles. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines; the Alexis Grace deletion was improper per that guideline, and this one is even more so. --RBBrittain (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- F'n Speedy close just because...--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Speedy Delete, re-creation of deleted content. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. DJ 08:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of her name before, not quite positive where but the article has withstood the test of time, keep. Str8cash (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Thaddeus but I swear I am going to yell from the roof tops if I keep seeing "BLP" being mentioned everywhere. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The article claims that she released and album in early 2009 - a quick google search doesn't seem to have a sprinkle of knowlege on this. DJ 08:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The singles he has released since the programme have not charted, failing WP:MUSIC. The American Idol album does not warrant him the right to an article, as it was released by every contestant, meaning that notability is speradic. For instance, if 1000 people set a notable world record, does each and every one deserve an article? DJ 08:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. As the subject's single and album's have failed to chart, he fails WP:MUSIC. The American Idol album does not warrant him the right to an article, as it was released by every contestant, meaning that notability is speradic. For instance, if 1000 people set a notable world record, does each and every one deserve an article? DJ 08:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The article claims that she has released some albums, EPs and singles, but a quick search brings up nothing but MySpace results and neither Amazon USA or Amazon Canada have any records, making the claims doubtful. DJ 08:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The subject has self-released and EP since his exit from the show, failing the aforementioned WP:MUSIC. DJ 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The subject has done nothing of note since the programme and the article admits that: "her brief musical career...further success eluded her" DJ 08:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JD Fan (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JD Fan (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR, no need for this to run any longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Kimberly Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The woman has done nothing since leaving the programme, bar having a fling with another contestant and having a cameo appearence in a movie as herself. DJ 08:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even if your purge of all the AI finalists is correct, you're wrong on this one. Caldwell has been a host or correspondent on a number of entertainment or reality shows since her time on AI; her IMDB listing is indicative of this. She hasn't become a big star from AI, but she hasn't "done nothing" either, and an article on her is warranted. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She has done just enough post-Idol to merit inclusion. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Jeni (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Crafty (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines; the Alexis Grace deletion was improper per that guideline, and this one is even more so. --RBBrittain (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable software, with Google returning nothing but sites to download it. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 08:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The person has done nothing of note since their appearence on the programme. DJ 08:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. The person has done nothing of note since his appearence on the programme. DJ 07:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW and/or WP:IAR, no need for this to run any longer. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan Starr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. Being a contastant on 4000000 reality shows and starring in a direct-to-DVD movie doesn't establish notability. DJ 07:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With the chart (semi-)success of My Religion (song) and her knack for butting into various appearances on other TV shows (CSI, Surreal Life), she seems to pass WP:BIO. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Youngamerican. Str8cash (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close as a (unintentionally) disruptive nomination. The nominator rapid fire nominated 38 American Idol contestants all with the same (invalid) rationale that Alexis Grace (who finished 11th and hasn't had a chance to do anything post Idol yet) was deleted. It is quite clear that he/she made no attempt to research any of the nominations as several quite clearly meet multiple inclusion criteria. Some of these articles should be kept, and others merged, but none should be deleted. All arguably meet WP:MUSIC #9: "Has won or placed in a major music competition" by virtue of making the finals of American Idol and the less notable ones should at least be merged with their respective American Idol season X pages.
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Jeni (talk) 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per ThaddeusB. Crafty (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close per Wikipedia:WikiProject Idol series#Guidelines; the Alexis Grace deletion was improper per that guideline, and this one is even more so. --RBBrittain (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW and nobody aside from the nominator supporting deletion JForget 23:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination) saw a “delete” outcome, I feel that the time has come to determine which of the American Idol contestants truly deserve their own articles. This fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. WP:NOTINHERITED tells us that just because somebody appeared on American Idol, it doesn’t make them notable and worthy of an article. The article says that McKibbin release one (non-charting) album and several singles (again, all non-charting), therefore failing the previous 2 guidelines. DJ 07:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of mass nomination is unproductive because it leads to people voting based on "I like it"/"I don't like it" since no one can reasonably be expected to properly research 38 articles of the same nature in a week. (Indeed this has already begun to happen.) Since the results of these AfDs are likely to be influenced by voting rather than a proper discussion, they should all be closed with no prejudice against reopening a few at a time after a good faith attempt to determine notability has been made. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to List of 1632 characters (fictional). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the works themselves, no real-world notability. See also news and [75]. "Michael Stearns" is even worse. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 03:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this article since it is fiction & does not seem notable. V. Joe (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2009 (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 speedy deleted by Orangemike under WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cage radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Supposedly the "#1 one man MMA Show in the world"... whatever that means. Unsourced, non-notable, reads like an ad. Google search for Cage Radio Jon Motsenbocker returns nothing but myspace pages or worse. Delete ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 06:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Unnotable, unsourced, uncategorized, worthless juvenilia. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Should be speedily deleted for the reasons cited above. Frmatt (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which csd would be applied, since it makes some assertion of notability? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
- G11. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which csd would be applied, since it makes some assertion of notability? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
- Strong Delete. No sources nor inline citations available. --TitanOne (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article does not appear to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria for notability, or otherwise demonstrate general notability. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This video game title has not been confirmed. SkyWalker (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Self published author and uncredited bit-part actor/extra (according to user-submitted content on IMDB). A Google search finds nothing useful - however there are plenty of hits for the name those 'free press release'-type sites, various web forums and on Usenet (some *very* outlandish claims there!), which leads me to believe that someone is trying very hard to publicize this person online. I've actually encountered people inserting unverified claims about this person on WP for several years now (usually along the lines of how he's been writing songs for various pop stars), or just trying to insert the name into various lists to get it on the 'pedia. I was tempted to speedy G4 this - but I'm sending it to AfD due to the non-substantially identical nature of the previous content. Suggest salting if closed as delete. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2009 (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 I added a speedy delete tag to it so that the article can be deleted and that the pointless stress can be ended. I do not want to deal with the article anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fiber One bars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable product. — Dædαlus Contribs 04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was told that the sources aren't reliable without explanation. I think that they are reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Self published sources are never reliable, as since they are self-published, they do not meet our reliable sources policy. Just because you think they are reliable does not make them so.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But they AREN'T self-published sources. Every website that I added has more than one writer. Joe Chill (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Self published sources are never reliable, as since they are self-published, they do not meet our reliable sources policy. Just because you think they are reliable does not make them so.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom unless we can get some reliable sources in there that say otherwise. Self-published sources aren't reliable. (I had prodded this article after I declined speedy as nonsense) Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't self-published. Joe Chill (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be glad to change my position if you'd stop edit warring, stop arguing and go improve the article with some actual WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I THINK that they are. Your opinion is not mine. And you are arguing yourself. 05:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I'll be glad to change my position if you'd stop edit warring, stop arguing and go improve the article with some actual WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't self-published. Joe Chill (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." None that matches the sources. Joe Chill (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because they aren't published by you does not mean they aren't self published. From what I have seen, they are.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What have you seen? Joe Chill (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several blogs, which are self-published. Not reliable in the least.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't blogs and you can shut-up about the article now because I added a speedy to it. Joe Chill (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are. I've been here my fair share of time, and I know a blog when I see one.—Dædαlus Contribs 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also. I was active on the site starting summer 2008 with a different account that I don't use anymore. People have different opinions of what a blog is. Joe Chill (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't my opinion, that is a blog, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my opinion and your opinion, period. Joe Chill (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it isn't. Those are blogs, if you don't think they are, that's your problem, but they are collective blogs. They are not news agencies with peer review and fact-checking. They have disclaimers if you search hard enough for them. They are blogs by our policy.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my opinion and your opinion, period. Joe Chill (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't my opinion, that is a blog, period.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also. I was active on the site starting summer 2008 with a different account that I don't use anymore. People have different opinions of what a blog is. Joe Chill (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, they are. I've been here my fair share of time, and I know a blog when I see one.—Dædαlus Contribs 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They aren't blogs and you can shut-up about the article now because I added a speedy to it. Joe Chill (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Several blogs, which are self-published. Not reliable in the least.— Dædαlus Contribs 05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What have you seen? Joe Chill (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The article could certainly use work, but it strikes me as a well-known, widely-advertised commercial product (one for which notable sources could probably be found). If they stop making them in a few years, we can always delete it then. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, but it seems Joe has got fed up and decided to request Speedy Deletion himself. Astronaut (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A subject that meets WP:BIO can still be notable even if they fail the specific guideline (here WP:PORNBIO). As the IP editor points out, PORNBIO does not make other notability guidelines obsolete and none of the delete !votes addressed this issue at all. That there are far more of them does not make the argument stronger, especiall since they all were "does not meet PORNBIO". RegardsSoWhy 09:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
The subject of the article does not appear to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria. The subject also does not appear to be otherwise notable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. The article does not meet WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. However, there should be no prejudice against a possible near-future recreation of the article with proper referencing. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced, notability unclear
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Elsa Baye (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2009 (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 speedy keep as no valid rationale for deletion has been given, and the outcome is fairly evident at this point. Shereth 14:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairfield Area School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
this article should be deleted because the school district this article does not want people knowing about its policies in places other then its own website Evilmaster23 (talk) 02:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia isn't censored for anyone's benefit, not even the school's. The school district can contact OTRS if they want to contest the material, but an AfD nom on that premise is fatally flawed. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 03:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is not a valid reason for deletion. We will write about notable things, whether or not they want to be written about. If the board does not want to be written about, they can contact [email protected], though they will probably be told that unless there is blatant libel or copyright violation, the article will remain intact. Firestorm Talk 04:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The nominator is the article's creator. I first noticed this mentioned at WT:AFD and wondered if the article would qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G7. However, now since there are 2 "keep" !votes, that ship has sailed. However, I see no problem with stubbing the article down. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason to stub it down, just because the school district doesn't like it (which we haven't even verified through OTRS or anything). It does need to be trimmed down to reduce unencyclopaedic content, but no need to stub it. It is no different from any other school district article. Firestorm Talk 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep School districts are inherently notable per longstanding consensus. Issues regarding policies the district "does not want people knowing about" should be addressed based on sourcing; Keep if sourced, delete controversial issues if unsourced, without need for deletion of the entire article. Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In this edit, the article was aggressively rewritten for tone and to remove clearly unencyclopedic content and some universal content (for example, essentially all high schools have sports and music programs - those that don't deserve mention). While I personally believe that a two-school district should be below Wikipedia's inclusion standards, that is not the current consensus. Rossami (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It needs to be sourced and accurate, but school districts are notable.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - school districts, as government organisations, have long been accepted as notable. However, this should be speedy kept since no valid deletion grounds have been specified. It is not uncommon for schools/boards to request deletion of their pages and such requests are invariably rejected. TerriersFan (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The purpose of an encyclopedia is to reveal information, not to conceal it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that certain people are misreading the nomination. The basis of the nomination is that the school district would rather have its own authoritative website, not that there are policies that the school district "does not want people knowing about." The verbal skills of the nominator/article creator may be the core of this controversy. Racepacket (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia isn't censored and we are not here to be either an alternate website for a district nor as cheerleader for it. The district has the right to have its website, and so do we. School districts are generally notable, except for very small or new ones. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Wikipedia isn't censored not even for School Districts and many other things,and we don't hide information if we are an encyclopedia, and we are an encyclopedia!!!!4DJONG talk
- Speedy keep no valid assertion with basis in policy has been made to suggest that deletion is appropriate. Public agencies do not normally have a policy of secrecy and/or suppression of media coverage, and Wikipedia does not have any obligation to honor any such alleged policy. Any legal complaint of inappropriate content or violation of copyright or whatnot could certainly be dealt with without deleting the article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vanilla Series. SoWhy 09:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article gives no assertion of notability. Does not appear to have received reviews from notable critics, nor is there any coverage by secondary sources that I can see. I don't know what the guidelines for hentai are, but if they exist then this probably wouldn't meet them. Firestorm Talk 02:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. No useful information to merge. Malinaccier (talk) 03:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the article itself cites, it's use of the term "ivy" is "intended to promote the other schools by comparing them to the Ivy League, but unlike the "Ivy League" label, they have no canonical definition". This hardly seems notable. The article is an academic booster-magnet and would grow to be a "loose collection" of vaguely defined "prestigious schools". As it currently stands, it provides no other reliable sources or information then what is already available in the article Ivy_league#Other_Ivies. Work permit (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. SoWhy 09:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable product, unreferenced Falcon8765 (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Keep. A google news search yields several relevant hits that can be used as sources for information. The articles there (including one by the Chicago Tribune) appear to be enough to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This is one of those genre pages that has stuck around far longer than it rightfully should have. There's no factual evidence that this is an actual genre. Instead, it's just an assemblage of bands that use the cello instrument. The first AFD from two years ago passed as "Keep" with little comment and was based on the argument that "Hey, these bands all use cello!", which isn't good enough for our notability and original research guidelines. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete. Information is unencyclopedic. Malinaccier (talk) 02:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is basically the catalog for a program at a university. Such as topic is not encyclopedic; Wikipedia is not a directory. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 28 July 2009 (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 nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Game Boy games in the Castlevania series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This page is the result of a sudden merge without consensus of four different articles, none of which have been argued to not assert notability or even have a merge discussion put in place. Given that independent reviews can be found for each, conglomerating them into one mega-page solely on the grounds they all appeared on the Game Boy is a bit of a stretch, and results in a rather unnecessary article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Withdrawn in favor of a redirect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Im inclined to agree with kung fu man. Ive been searching for an indication as to why the merge has taken place. As far as i could tell most of the original articles were well sourced and significant in size on their own. Had consensus been asked I probably would have opposed the merge. That said I am curious if there was a discussion for consensus, or some kinda of project related initiative. It would be good to hear from the author of the article as well, before deciding where to go with this. Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems kind of unnecessary for an AfD; you could have merely reverted my edits and turned it into a redirect to the Castlevania series. Unnecessary redirect, but it's simpler than the AfD process. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I didn't consider that. Withdrawing nomination and changing to a redirect.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - notability has been confirmed in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was deprodded, article has no insufficient of notability, it considering fails the notability requirements. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 01:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just add photo with sign of this trail on one of the main buildings in city.--Chlorofil (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2009 (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 speedy deleted by Orangemike, see below. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New Omega Wrestling Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable championship. The article on the wrestling league has been speedied twice Delete, speedy if possible. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable.--WillC 02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also nominating:
- New Omega Wrestling Xtreme Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New Omega Wrestling Intercontinental Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- New Omega Wrestling Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These are all dependent upon New Omega Wrestling, an article on a minor (possibly fictitious) league, which has been repeatedly speedied. I'm taking 'em all out as G8s. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; also obvious advertising: In the last few decades and due especially to the continuous transformation of the economy, small businesses have found themselves having to take great efforts, often without results, to achieve an improvement in competitiveness.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Small City Commerce European Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Spammy, previously prodded non-notable Europroject. The text bears a striking resemblance to a press release. Organization seems to run some sort of training program. Abductive (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Press release spam. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable boutique firm with only 50 employees Orange Mike | Talk 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] Keep - This is a notable firm with which I am familiar from my work in the private equity space working with the Private Equity Task Force. I just saved the article from being hastily speedily deleted but the nominating editor decided to list for AfD before even looking into the subject. Only 50 employees is not a basis for determining whether a company is notable - in fact I would argue for that type of firm 50 employees is sizable. Nevertheless, the notability should be based on the depth of coverage. This is a stub article which already has some notable references including the Wall Street Journal. My guess is that many additional references can be easily added over the next couple of days and that the notability can be well established.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of employess is irrelevant. However, there is no indication either in the article or in this AfD discussion of notability. As I look at the article now (28 July) it has no inline citations, and the "References" listed are as follows:
None of these constitutes significant coverage by an independent source. If we exclude unreliable sources (blog posts, self-published sources) and links to pages which do not mention Probitas Partners at all, we are left with precisley one "reference": the one from the New York Times, which tells us precisely that the company has a new employee. Urbanrenewal gives us some links and says "I think those establish notability". I have looked at all the links, and here are some typical examples of what I found:
There is more of the same, but nothing different in character. If a company issues a press release every time they hire a new employee, open a new office, etc, they will soon manage to get a significant number of trivial mentions in the press. While a lot of fairly minor mentions may add up to significant coverage, a lot of trivial mentions like this don't. An article which in passing gives a quote from a member of the firm does not constitute significant coverage of the firm. Zachlipton says "there are significant mentions in a number of other pubs". Well, if so then show them to us: so far nobody has done so. Urbanrenewal says "My guess is that many additional references can be easily added over the next couple of days and that the notability can be well established". If so then I will happily change my mind, provided the references are significantly better than the ones we already have, but it remains to be seen whether Urbanrenewal's "guess" will be borne out. At present there is nothing that even remotely begins to approach Wikipedia's required standard for establishing notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1.^ Shutdown Of Merrill's Fund Placement Biz Resonates. Reuters Buyouts, July 6 , 2009 -- Discusses Probitas as one of the two leading independent placement agents in private equity 3.^ Boeing Auctioning Off Venture Holdings. Private Equity Insider, March 4, 2005 -- A major transaction in the private equity secondary market in which probitas ran the auction from a noted industry publication 4.^ Scale Venture Partners closes $400M fund, BofA exits. San Francisco Business Times, March 7, 2007. -- Another major transaction in which probitas ran the sale process for Bank of America from a noted business publication 5.^ Shine Is Off Mega-Firms, LPs Say In Survey. Reuters Buyouts, March 17, 2008 -- Probitas survey of LPs is profiles in article in Reuters Buyouts, a major industry publication 6.^ LPs Doubtful About Buyouts, Survey Says, Reuters Buyouts, April 2, 2007 -- Probitas survey of LPs is profiles in article in Reuters Buyouts, a major industry publication 7.^ Lack of access to top funds is No. 1 LP concern, Reuters Venture Capital Journal, May 1, 2007 -- Probitas survey of LPs is profiles in article in Reuters Buyouts, a major industry publication + The Private Equity Secondaries Market, A complete guide to its structure, operation and performance The Private Equity Secondaries Market, 2008 -- An industry publication in which Probitas was editor + DiNapoli’s Ban: A Placement Agent Responds. WSJ.com April 22, 2009 -- A WSJ profile of one of Probitas' execs talking about the Placement agent scandal in NY + Former UBS Executive Joins Probitas Partners New York Times Deal Book, April 9, 2007 -- AN article in NYTimes Deal Book discussing a major hire from UBS + In A World Of Reduced Appetites, Distressed Debt and Secondary Funds Come To The Fore. PE Hub, January 20th, 2009 -- An article by a probitas exec in an industry publication (doesn't itself establish notability) + Will Placement Agents Push Themselves right Out of a Job?. Reuters Buyouts, December 12, 2005 -- Article with prominent mention of Probitas Plus there are literally dozens of incidental mentions in other articles, quotations of Probitas execs. I am not sure I understand the argument that a company can be notable enough for major publications but not for wikipedia. These are all reliable sources. The only question is what constitutes trivial coverage - per WP:CORP example of trivial coverage are "Works carrying merely trivial coverage; such as (for examples) newspaper articles that simply report meeting times or extended shopping hours, or the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories." I have a hard time seeing how the coverage of this firm would be classified as being this trivial. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://searchwww.sec.gov/EDGARFSClient/jsp/EDGAR_MainAccess.jsp#topAnchor you get about 50 hits. Some of these may be trivial but if you were doing research ( didn't type the term Probitas in but you found them while reading this documents derived from a different search criteria ) you may reasonably want to know who these people are ( hence notable to you as a researcher to the point where you may turn to an encyclopedia for more information). So, I guess I'd be inclined to keep but there would need to be more content than puffery copied from their own PR material. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" I have no axe to grind here, other than I was attracted to this AfD because one of the principals is on my watchlist. I looked over the google hits, and once I got past the first few, which were essentially the same regurgitation of the companies "propaganda/marketing," I started to get into Reuters; Huffington Post (for what THAT's worth) ect. This article gives more information in one place than any of the single hits I checked out. The fact that a multi-national like Boeing is using the firm as a broker has undeniable interest, at least to me. Is this article we are discussing really much different from this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogent_Partners Food for thought/discussion, perhaps. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. JForget 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. My argument here is similar to the one I made for Frederick L. Frazier a year and a half ago. While I respect the fact that being the world's oldest man is now a very notable position that attracts more than sufficient coverage to pass WP:N, this was not the case in the 1970s. A Google search as well as a Google news archive search does not reveal any substantial coverage of or information on the subject of the article except for the news article cited by this article and a plethora of sites/lists that discuss his ranking amongst in history among the world's oldest people - aside from that one article, however, I have not seen evidence of any non-trivial coverage. Thus it has little potential for expansion and contains no information aside from what is present in the various supercentenarian lists. My basic problem with this article is that there is little, if any, information out there that could be added to this article aside from what is already present on these lists. For those worried that the Google test is not sufficient, I performed searches at both the University of Texas Libraries Catalog (which covers several voluminous libraries) and jstor.org (which covers journal articles back to the 1800s) with no results; while I realize that these searches might not be entirely appropriate or relevant to the individual at hand, it does eliminate the idea that he is an individual of significant academic interest. I acknowledge that it might be more appropriate to merege/redirect him to List of British supercentenarians or something like that, but an attempted merge/redirect in the past was rejected. I would still support either of those ideas, however, if that were to be the consensus. Simply put: this individual lacks multiple, non-trivial references in reliable publications to establish notability; his status as world's oldest man at one point does not confer automatic notability nor do 1000 mirrors of his ranking amongst the world's oldest people Cheers, CP 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, here'sa 1964 article on him in the Tucson Daily Citizen, and here's a 2008 mention in the Yorkshire Evening Post, which indicates more coverage there in 1974, and there is the Times obit in the article.John Z (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to cases like Frederick Frazier, with no content other than the statistics, I can understand merging into the national lists. But here we have a little more to go on than just a name and age.Ryoung122 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- TYPO3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Non-notable software promotion; deleted once, no significant improvement, tagged again for speedy, speedy tag removed "no marketing.. it ist just true" Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawn with an hope that the "tons of coverage" which led to the prior "Keep" will actually get into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD (tag removed with zero explanation). Firefox extension with no assertion nor evidence of notability; no third party sources; tagged with notability concerns since last year without a single edit, let alone any improvement Stormie (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Sparafucil's comment as a "weak keep" so I don't have to say "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the WP:COI concerns and peacockery raised at the composer's project page, the subject of this article unambiguously fails the notability standard articulated at WP:COMPOSER. It should be noted that the reference to "publications" by Sibelius refers to an upload section on the website promoted by the popular notation program Sibelius. Eusebeus (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Copyvio. —Sean Whitton / 15:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very well-written and comprehensive article, but... I don't know if this fellow is actually notable by Wikipedia's criteria. First off, a Google search for his name, "Marian Renta" results in 175 pages, 42 of which are "unique". A lot of them are opinion pieces he has written for various chronicles, while some of the results are MySpace and Friendster and such. Google searches for "MR Records" "Marian" and "MR Records" "Renta" are similarly unfruitful. Secondly, the one independent source provided in the article is to the American Chronicle which, by the looks of it, is a website that anyone can contribute to (I guess it's somewhere between a newspaper and a blog). Furthermore, the article in question is dated July 27, 2009, which is weird, considering the last edit to the Wikipedia article was July 26. Unless someone with better research skills than I can find more information about this subject, I would recommend delete.
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable, Promotional, References are press releases Treedel (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made only minor backup appearances in famous rock bands. Fails WP:MUSIC.Lack of several references. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 22:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about a small-town preacher who had no apparent claim to notability outside his own congregation. No Google hits outside WP, mirrors and genealogy websites. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] NOTE: This article has conflict of interest issues as well.
|
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising for company that doesn't meet notability criteria. Dbratland (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No further notability, fails WP:COMPANY and over 1.3 million searched from Google about the Australian campus name. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have revised the profile. Please kindly review. Many thanks. - Ystaas (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)— Ystaas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This page has no particular assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Triplestop x3 22:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article has no insufficient notability, fails WP:CORP. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. JForget 00:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks reliable sources to establish notability of a musical group. A Google News search returned zero results; Allmusic does have a very small biography on them. tedder (talk) 11:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nabil Abou-Harb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Does not establish notability of the individual. Sparse IMDB page, few verifiable resources and a Google search for this person returns few hits about this individual. Most are about other Nabil Abou-Harb's completely unrelated. While the short-film "Arab in America" has received some recognition, does Wikipedia spotlight every short-film director who has won an award? HeatWillRockYou (talk) 3:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: — HeatWillRockYou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Speedy Keep I went through the article's entire history change-by-change and noted a history of vandalism to the article by anonymous IPs and SPAs, as well as constructive edits by registered users... some adding and some subtracting. I found no evidence of there ever being a first AfD nomination, only a declined speedy. Yes, the BLP needs some cleanup to remove any remaining hyperbole or unsoucable claims, but subject meets the WP:GNG through Kansas City Star, Al Arabiya, USA Today, Providence Journal, Saphir News (french), Watan, Kuwait Times, all address either the filmmaker or his award-winning work. He has enough for notability. Per WP:DEL, issues with the article itself should be addressed through cleanup, not deletion, and certainly not by vandalism. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB does not confer any notability, so having a short list there is of no consequence. And actually, and every g-news hit was about THIS person and no other. Perhaps the nom did not include the name in quotations? I belive it will be proper to send courtesy notifications to the author and the article's major editors so they might address the nom's concerns. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 4 courtesy notifications have been made to registered users who made more than one edit to the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability established by coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I find the work of this director very notable indeed and it is regularly featured in many film festivals as well. I have personally watched "Arab in America" precisely during a film festival and it got applause and critical acclaim. I am informed it also won Grand Prize of the One Nation Many Voices Online Film Contest. werldwayd (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now added the winning of the Grand Proze in the festival I mentioned. This will add further substantiation of the request to keep article on Mr. Abou-Harb. Plus I have added as reference a "USA Today" piece on the short film win. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-16-muslim-films_N.htm But I do find the enumeration of all the commercials a bit redundant. One can mention that he has done a lot of commercials... unless one or more particular commercials have had citations for excellence etc. I also have to admit I don't like the general tone of the article. There's so much excess info not needed, plus it really sounds like a promotional piece, not an entry in an encyclopedia, thus needs serious re-editing to say the least.werldwayd (talk) 21:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The director's film may be notable (I expect not), but the individual has not received anything close to "significant" coverage in any reliable sources (the reliable sources that mention him do so only as the film's director and provider of the story), and the film's own recognition is not sufficient to imply director's notability. Bongomatic 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His film doesn't pass the criteria for WP:NF; there's no way he does. Most of the references are trivial: Reports that he graduated college, blogs, web pages of no notability, and in at least two cases dead links. PhGustaf (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PhG, there's an entire write up in USA Today headlining his film as the grand prize winner [84]. I know you prefer the creative writing in the NY Times, but surely USA Today counts as a reliable source? And that's just one of the many sources listed above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ChildofMidnight, the film may have received some praise, but so have many other short films. What qualifies this director as someone of notability or importance? Does Wikipedia normally let short-film directors who've won an award have their own page? HeatWillRockYou (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That other films have received write-ups, only indicates that they too might merit an article. What matters to WP:GNG in the write-ups being in reliable sources. And yes, if a person has won multiple awards and has the write-ups that meet the WP:GNG, whether for himself or critical praise of his work, Wikipedia "allows" that they might have an article, no matter the legth of their films, or the subject of their career... whether sports or author or politician or filmmaker. Its the WP:GNG that governs. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG requires that the individual, not his works, receive significant coverage. The coverage is insignificant, even in USA Today (notice how I'm rising above the temptation to comment on that publication's reliability!)—the article is nine sentences long, of which precisely three mention the film, and only one mentions a fact about the filmmaker (that his name is difficult for some to pronounce). Bongomatic 05:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PhG, there's an entire write up in USA Today headlining his film as the grand prize winner [84]. I know you prefer the creative writing in the NY Times, but surely USA Today counts as a reliable source? And that's just one of the many sources listed above. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the subject, the sources prove the notability. Film-makers become notable through the making of films, just as authors become notable by writing books, politicians by winning elections, mass murderers by murdering. The only people who become notable by their personal lives are some web and media celebrities--and we properly are somewhat reluctant to include them, as compared to those who become notable because of what they do.DGG (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment The film is non-notable, and you can't get notable by making a non-notable film. There are plenty of sources, but they're mostly en passant mentions in articles about something or someone else. The film runs thirteen minutes, two short of what we each have as birthright. PhGustaf (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment. DGG, of course filmmakers become notable through their films. And the consensus for how they do this is summarized at WP:CREATIVE. The subject of this article fails each of the criteria set out in that guideline. Bongomatic 22:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sources provided by MichaelQSchmidt and the subject passes the GNG. Failing CREATIVE is not an automatic fail, as clearly stated in WP:Notability (people). It is rare, but sometimes movie makers can be notable for less than to default "2 notable movies". --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually read the sources? Which one do you think is "significant coverage" in a "reliable source"? Bongomatic 23:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment OOPS, I did not intend to relist this. It can be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed prod. Lacks reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. No hits on Google News for Nabeel Tirmazi, and no general web hits to establish notability or "critical acclaim" for the films mentioned: "Kulli Faqeer Di", Chamakdey Taray, Tulsi Khul Ja Sim Sim, Khoj Khani. Likely autobio. tedder (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
- ^ [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8054821.stm
- ^ [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6387782.ece
- ^ http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/06/20096642943521220.html
- ^ [http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/08/sri-lanka-repeated-shelling-hospitals-evidence-war-crimes.