Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 26
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change (M7YAP)[edit]
- The Muslim Seven Year Action Plan on Climate Change (M7YAP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. A non-notable plan drawn up by a non-notable organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable plan (no Google news hits outside of pressreleases). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All sources are self-referential, nothing to establish notability (and what an unlikely search term this is!). --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SAHARA for Life Trust[edit]
- SAHARA for Life Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing some notability here. Only 2 sources on Google News, and one event doesn't instantly make you notable. —I-20the highway 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The article fails WP:N and WP:NOTNEWS. JJ98 (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks sufficient coverage: not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Heyck[edit]
- Peter Heyck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Political candidate; does not meet general notability or politician notability guidelines. Prod tag removed by IP with no comment. ... discospinster talk 23:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not satisfy WP:N or WP:POLITICIAN. freshacconci talktalk 02:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep No-one, not even the nominator, wants to delete this article. Merger or other editing options may be discussed per WP:MERGE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Manchester United Supporters Association[edit]
- Independent Manchester United Supporters Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Man Utd FC template lists three different groups under supporters, I strongly believe this could be cut into one article about the supporters in general. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the more notable supporter organisations in English football. They received plenty of press coverage during Rupert Murdoch's attempted takeover, for instance. [1] [2] [3] Also, the nomination makes a case for merging, not deletion. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oldelpaso. Failing that, a master article on ALL notable MUFC supporter organisations could be a good shout. GiantSnowman 19:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per cunard I have discarded the non-policy based keep arguments that leaves the contention that the sourcing here is inadequate for inclusion. I will undelete this if anyone can show me two decent reliable secondary sources. Spartaz Humbug! 03:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi[edit]
- Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very few in-line notations, a lot of un-sourced material. Beeshoney (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a person is notable doesn't mean the article must be kept - they need references. I find it surprising that John seems to ignore this fact considering he is an Administrator. I say delete. Beeshoney (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Nominator does not contest notability, which appears evident, or sufficiency of existing sources, and provides no other rationale for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. With respect, I would state that notability is established. While there is no deadline on providing references in articles, BLPs require at least one reference. This article contains one reference. Article meets criteria for inclusion. Lack of inline references is not a deletion criteria. Cindamuse (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article has no references: She contributes to the National Review, so the source is NOT independent from the subject.Farhikht (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She is an editor of a unique ex-pat Iranian news source. The authorship of the news source is otherwise relatively undocumented, so it is good to have an article on the editor to stand as a reference. Erxnmedia (talk) 22:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know this? The only source of the article says that she is "a native of Iran who writes frequently about events in that country".Farhikht (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , a simple Google search shows good quality hits. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, a Google search in Persian shows only 9 hits. The article has no references and as I searched in English there is no reliable sources.Farhikht (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability is nowhere near established. The GNews hits in English consist of articles she wrote or articles where she is quoted briefly talking about a subject which is not herself. These do not contribute to notability. The hits in Persian like [4] are of a similar nature --- not about her. Nor do I see that Iran Press News (of which she is the English-language editor) is a particularly notable news agency. LA has quite a few Persian newspapers. There's a reason they call it Tehrangeles. A few mainstream newspapers occasionally quote their reports. No one writes about them. cab (call) 09:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. To reply to you and Farhikht, she is notable because Planet-Iran.com is an interesting artifact, under the heading of Blogging in Iran. There aren't that many news-blogs in English about Iran and fewer still that print the kind of incendiary stories that she writes. To say that it has a point of view is an understatement. How does she finance it, what are her politics? Either you delete an article like Blogging in Iran and skip the subject altogether, or you keep the topic and you supply reliable information about the blogs, including financing and point of view and authorship. You can't do that if you go around deleting articles about the authors. Erxnmedia (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that blogging in Iran is a notable topic does not make every blogger who gets quoted by the mainstream media suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This is simply not how WP:BIO works. This is like saying every med student, general practitioner, and pharmacy worker in America is notable because health care in the United States is such a highly contested topic. The idea that she should be included simply because she blogs in English is extremely Anglocentric. If someone has not earned reliable, third-party, in-depth coverage for what they do, it does not matter what language they do it in. cab (call) 09:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ali Baba, I am commenting on articles in English Wikipedia, so you'll have to forgive the anglocentricity. There may be hundreds of similar news service/blogs in Farsi, but I don't know Farsi or Farsi Wikipedia so I won't comment on them. The blog of the noted author appears to be a news service. However, all of the articles are biased one-way. The US, Iran and Israel are presently on a war footing. The language of discourse between these three parties is primarily English. The language of influence for public opinion in the US is English. The noted author's blog/news service has high production values (daily or hourly publication frequency with new stories and appealing graphics). Therefore it is probably expensive. It is certainly intended to produce negative perceptions of the Iranian Government in English-speaking readers. It is reasonable to ask whether this production is authored by someone who is (a) purely independent, self-financing and motivated by personal ex-patriate feelings, or is (b) financed by one or another organization or group of people with a particular point of view, or (c), in the extreme, to wonder if the author herself does not exist and is a fictional entity, with the blog/news service being the production of an organization with a point of view. As an English-speaker whose opinions are easily swayed by appealing graphics and lurid stories, these questions come to mind as I seek to place faith in the source and the reporting in the blog/news service. I look to Wikipedia to tell me more. To that extent, I am happy that some information exists in article form on the author of this particular anglocentric blog/news service, and hence I vote Keep. Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Notability of the person is fine but this article needs improvement. It needs to provide sources on the page so there is no question...Silent Bob (talk) 12:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Notability is barely sufficient as shown, but sources are necessary if we're going to be making all these assertions in a BLP. Let's err on the side of caution and give some time for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chromancer (talk • contribs) 21:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but needs more info. KianTC 06:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The article contains one reference which provides trivial coverage about the subject. It mentions her twice: "Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, a native of Iran who writes frequently about events in that country, estimates that ..." and "Zand-Bonazzi calls Bush’s rhetoric “excellent” and says that “as an individual, he’s gotten it.” This is unacceptable sourcing for a biography of a living person in that it verifies nothing in the Wikipedia article, save for the fact that Zand-Bonazzi was quoted in National Review. A Google News Archive search returns either passing mentions or articles that Zand-Bonazzi herself has written. There is virtually no significant coverage about her.
John (talk · contribs) asserts that notability is established but does not explain why.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) asserts that there are sources that establish notability but has not provided any.
Erxnmedia (talk · contribs)'s argument is not based on the notability guidelines and ignores the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability.
Spada2 (talk · contribs)'s argument violates WP:GOOGLEHITS in that s/he has not pointed to specific sources that establish notability.
SilentBobxy2 (talk · contribs) asserts that the subject is notable but then says that someone "needs to provide sources on the page". I have not been able to find sources, so I find this argument to be unpersuasive.
Chromancer (talk · contribs) writes that "sources are necessary if we're going to be making all these assertions in a BLP", but s/he has not provided any to justify supporting retention.
KianTC (talk · contribs) writes that the article "needs more info", and I do not see how that is a policy-based reason for keeping the article.
Because the subject of this article has not received the necessary coverage in reliable sources to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and because no sources have been provided to demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agata Report[edit]
- Agata Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little notability and advertisement tone. The New Raymie (t • c) 22:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage to establish notability. Mentions like this one are not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage that establishes notablity. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. nomination withdrawn Spartaz Humbug! 03:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David McCarty (born 1987)[edit]
- David McCarty (born 1987) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable athlete. Hasn't made the big leagues yet. May never. If he does, he may become notable. But not yet. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails fundamental notability guidelines. Young player, not even a professional.scope_creep (talk) 23:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a non-drafted, unsigned mini-camp attendee does not meet WP:ATHLETE. --Kinu t/c 07:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a valid argument. Per the lengthy debate leading to its adoption as a guideline, WP:ATH is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. A college athlete who has received non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media meets WP:GNG even if he/she never plays at a professional level.Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree... this player needs more to be here.Silent Bob (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralfor now. There's a possibility that a quantity of more reliable sources may be uncovered in the next few days as we search on the topic. Just reserving judgement a few days...--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to KEEP I figured that a whole bunch of stuff would turn up. Yes, some is just listing of stats, but all-time leading rusher at a Div I school--yeah, that's worth an entry.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A college athlete who has received signficant, non-trivial coverage (i.e., more than passing references in game coverage) meet general notability standards. In this case, McCarty is the all-time rushing leader for Albany, a Division I school. He actually holds three all-time school records: career leader in rushing yards (3,353), all-purpose running yards (3,979) and 100-yard rushing games (19). See Official UA Bio. The formulation of the news search above doesn't pick up the news coverage, but he has received significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, mainstream media outlets. Examples include: (1) McCarty rushes for 167 yards to lead Albany over Robert Morris, Associated Press Archive, November 3, 2007; (2) McCarty gives Danes'offense its punch, The Daily Gazette (Schenectady, NY), August 19, 2009; (3) McCarty key for Danes, The Daily Gazette, August 18, 2009; (4) Albany's McCarty on record romp, The Saratogian, November 14, 2008; (5) Great Danes, McCarthy run past host Red Flash, The Tribune Democrat, October 4, 2009; (6) McCarty, Johnson excel for UAlbany, The Daily Gazette, November 18, 2007; (7) McCarty healthy for UAlbany homecoming, The Record (Troy, NY), October 10, 2009; (8) McCarty can climb another rung, The Daily Gazette, October 25, 2008; (9) David McCarty (LaSalle/UAlbany) Joins NFL's TB Buccaneers, WRGB CBS TV (Albany), April 27, 2010; (10) Inspiring Students: Passion on the Gridiron (feature story on McCarty), University of Albany, August 25, 2008; (11) McCarty's 2 TDs lead Albany to 55-10 win, The Seattle Times (AP story), October 10, 2009; (12) Released McCarty still hopeful of NFL shot, The Troy Record, May 4, 2010, (13) UAlbany's David McCarty, a Gansevoort native, heads to Tampa Bay Buccaneers' camp, The Saratogian, April 28, 2010; (14) McCarty's 2 TDs lead Albany to 55-10 win, Associated Press Archive - October 10, 2009; (15) McCarty's 2 TDs lead Albany past St. Francis 27-6, Associated Press Archive - October 3, 2009; (16) McCarty's 237 yards leads Albany past Duquesne, Associated Press Archive - October 4, 2008; (17) McCarty's OT run leads Albany past Hofstra, Associated Press Archive - September 14, 2008; (18) McCarty rushes for 167 yards to lead Albany over Robert Morris, Associated Press Archive - November 3, 2007; (19) McCarty rushes for 2 TDs to give Albany 58-21 win, Associated Press Archive - October 21, 2007; (20) McCarty Cleared by Doctor, The Times Union, May 18, 2010 (Former University at Albany running back David McCarty said Monday his doctor gave him a clean bill of health after McCarty tested for an irregular heartbeat during a physical with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers last month.); (21) McCarty shot with Bucs put on hold: Test on UAlbany running back shows an irregular heartbeat, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - May 4, 2010 (University at Albany running back David McCarty, who hoped to participate in the Tampa Bay Buccaneers'rookie minicamp over the weekend, never made it on the field after failing a physical. McCarty, a La Salle Institute graduate, said an EKG test administered by the Buccaneers on Friday showed he had an irregular heartbeat. ...); (22) McCarty runs with NFL opportunity: Ex-UAlbany back to take part in Tampa Bay's minicamp, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - April 29, 2010 (23) McCarty, Richards three-peat All-NEC choices, The Daily Gazette, December 5, 2009; (24) McCarty hobbled for Danes'game: Tailback may be limited vs. Central Connecticut, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - October 31, 2009; (25) Injured McCarty might not play: UAlbany tailback may miss battle of unbeatens, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - October 28, 2009; (26) McCarty, Danes trample Dolphins, The Daily Gazette, December 7, 2008; (27) McCarty enjoys classic Classic: Career-best 271 rushing yards, 4 TDs pace UAlbany, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - December 7, 2008; (28) McCarty leads Danes, The Daily Gazette, November 2, 2008; DANES NOT DOGS IF MCCARTY RUNS, The Times Union, The (Albany, NY) - November 2, 2008; (29) UAlbany runs to win: McCarty rushes for 215 yards vs. Sacred Heart, McClatchy-Tribune Regional News (USA) - October 19, 2008; (30) A CONVERSATION WITH UALBANY FOOTBALL PLAYER DAVID MCCARTY, The Times Union, October 19, 2008; (31) McCarty decides to stay the course, The Daily Gazette, November 6, 2007 (feature story on McCarty); (32) McCarty scores three TDs in rout, The Daily Gazette, November 4, 2007; (33) McCarty seeks action: UAlbany running back has plans to join Army, Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News - October 13, 2007; (34) MCCARTY KEY FOR LA SALLE, The Times Union, October 23, 2004; (35) MCCARTY TO CARRY WEIGHT FOR LA SALLE, The Times Union, Sepember 3, 2004; (36) McCarty's record day sparks Cadets, The Daily Gazette (Schenectady, NY) - October 11, 2003. Cbl62 (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a stat line mentioned in an article is technically still trivial coverage. Indeed, most of the articles are not about him, per se, but about the games themselves, with a one or two sentence reference to his achievement (and indeed those of the other players) as details of the team's play. Also, most of the articles are local coverage in the Albany/Schenectady/Troy area (or the newspaper in the area which Albany is playing that weekend); while legitimate sources, looking at WP:ATHLETE#College_athletes, one would expect truly notable players to have references outside of their area (per bullet point 3) and, as the heading indicates, "non-trivial media coverage beyond merely a repeating of their statistics." Similarly, injury updates etc., provide content for the article once notability is established, but don't establish notability themselves. --Kinu t/c 18:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. That's not really accurate. My searches of various newspaper databases turned up over 75 articles in which McCarty was mentioned in the headline of the story. These are not mere stat line entries; they are articles in which McCarty is a principal focus. (Articles with mere references to game results and statistics for McCarty number in the high hundreds.) There are also numerous feature stories on McCarty as the sole focus of the article. See, e.g. Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 12, 13, 30, 31, 33. Remember WP:ATH does not set minimum standards; it identifies characteristics that clearly warrant inclusion. Others with significant, non-trivial coverage still qualify under WP:GNG. I'm not an Albany fan, and I don't advocate "keep" in the case of college football players without truly significant accomplishments, but McCarty is clearly worth saving. Please reconsider your "delete" vote in light of this additional information. Cbl62 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cbl62's research, which I believe is non-trivial coverage. Even if a story is on a game, significant coverage of a single player I believe is non-trivial. Strikehold (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The relevant guideline of WP:ATHLETE that applies here is "Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team." All of the coverage that has been discovered about McCarty is from local New York Capital Region papers. The kind of coverage that might be expected of a hometown sports hero. But there doesn't seem to be any coverage from beyond this region. Also, the fact that Albany is a Division I school is due merely to their size (their Wikipedia article claims over 18,000 students). However, they are not Division I-A (i.e. the division that competes at the national championship level). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mis-applying WP:ATH. It sets inclusionary standards, not exclusionary standards. The argument you are making is precisely the argument I was concerned people would make when WP:ATH was up for consideration as a guideline. I was assured that such an interpretation would not be accepted. Regardless of meeting or not meeting WP:ATH, a college athlete who has received significant, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources qualifies under WP:GNG. WP:ATH does not in any way trump or supersede WP:GNG. A Chicago alderman or state legislator or businessman can qualify under WP:GNG if he/she has received extensive coverage in Chicago area newspapers. There is no requirement that said alderman or state legislator be the subject of "national" news coverage under WP:GNG. We can't and shouldn't enforce subjective value judgments that athletes are less worthy than politicians or businessmen. The GNG requirement is and should be no more onerous for athletes. Finally, the articles cited include several articles from the Associated Press and McClatchy news services. And in any event, the Times Union (Albany) and The Daily Gazette are major metropolitan newspapers, not small town papers. They serve the Albany-Schenectady CSA with a population of 1,118,095 as of 2000, making it the 38th largest CSA in the US with a population larger than 60 entire countries, including Iceland, Bahrain, the Bahamas, Samoa, Cyprus and Guyana. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Cbl62 makes a good point; I was mistaken in applying WP:ATHLETE over the more broad WP:GNG. The article, as currently rewritten, has properly focused on McCarty's college career, with the fact of the Bucaneers' mini-camp being relegated to something of a footnote. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Total Drama (series)#Total Drama Reloaded. pointkess deleting if there will be something for a standalone article later on. Redirect for the moment but this can be undone when the sourcing improves Spartaz Humbug! 03:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total Drama Reloaded[edit]
- Total Drama Reloaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Last AfD ended with a merge to Total Drama Island, we don't have much info on the contestants anyway. Nilocia (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Incubate I see the other series have been covered in articles which might exceed WP:LENGTH recommendations. They many need trimming. Its likely it will be created and forgotten about. I don't think it violates WP:CRYSTAL, since the series has seemingly started. scope_creep (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even as the nominator, I would not mind
Incubation. Nilocia (talk) 11:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it It is just another season of a well known tellie show and it was approved and it will be on tv like the last three and each season has an article already and you could merge this to an series article but why do that when it is just going to be an article again after the first episode and why waste any effort and just leave it alone. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me note to the closing administrator that while he makes a point, as of right now, this has only one reliable source and is not able to be a standalone article. This keep vote is invalidated. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 卍 12:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment author has requested deletion on my talk page. Nilocia (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nilocia (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy G7 declined; there have been way too many contributions to the article beyond the original author, and his rationale for requesting its deletion is weak. Just because he doesn't like other editors modifying his work does not justify a G7 in
thisany situation. --Kinu t/c 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy G7 declined; there have been way too many contributions to the article beyond the original author, and his rationale for requesting its deletion is weak. Just because he doesn't like other editors modifying his work does not justify a G7 in
- Redirect to Total Drama (series)#Total Drama Reloaded. That section of the series article provides all of the referenced information available. The redirect can easily be undone when the series airs and reliable information about the epsiodes can be used to create a standalone article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn; article redirected into DDC-I, Inc., which I will nominate for AfD. みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deos[edit]
- Deos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly not notable. Need to check for further sources; however, the page looks to be more of an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article.
I have tagged it under WP:CSD as A7 (not notable). みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christwire[edit]
- Christwire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although this does link to several instances of a news story where it was taken seriously, I'm not seeing an assertion or evidence of long-term notability. Kansan (talk) 20:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weal Delete - Ehh... iffy article, the sources are reliable enough, but fails the rest of the WP:WEB criteria. Derild4921☼ 23:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I admit that my attention was drawn to this AfD because WP:IHEARDOFIT--the fake "gay husband" article is a meme of the week on a bunch of message boards. But I lean to keep because the cited source from The Atlantic points out that this wasn't the first time Christwire's satire has made it into the mainstream media. For me, that gets them past the hurdle of one-time fame.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I came to WP to find out if the site was genuine - assuming its notoriety continues, further stories/info/background/etc might be added to the article. I think the page currently serves a useful purpose and should be kept for now, pending the development of the site. Joel.Gilmore (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created this article because notable news sources and cable television anchors were citing it as a genuine news source. The Atlantic Monthly pointed out that it was satire, and this article makes it possible for news readers and viewers to fact check their sources easily.Ashwinr (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 01:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah's Island[edit]
- Sarah's Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability problems. One fashion article uses the name in quotation marks. No other sources found for this name, which is not indicated by the Ordnance Survey and the subject appears to lack notability. Information here is/can be included at Camas Uig. Main author has possible conflict of interest. Ben MacDui 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Ben McDui, I found a couple of possible islands matching the description. There are called Eilean Mollach or Tolm. I can't see any Island in Scotland being named after the biblical name Sarah. scope_creep (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable island - presumed to be un-named island on 1:25,000 OS map (at grid reference NB047338) [article coords inland, close to Heritage Centre]. Surrounding beach (Tràigh Uuige) notable as site where Lewis chessmen found. Main author appears to object to the use of Camas Uig for the beach/dunes area (above low water mark). Finavon (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KEEP
- British broadsheet paper reference (The Daily Telegraph) is perfectly credible, topic of article is irrelevant.
- Name of island is known to all residents of Timsgarry (village where island is located) and is due to be included in future ordinance survey map.
- Ben McDui is looking in the wrong place on the map, Sarah's Island is not in Camas Uig, as Camas Uig is a permanent body of water approx 1 mile West. Sarah's Island is located next to the Forsa River on Uig Sands. jamesgollin —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Uig Sands/Traigh Ùige is, I would have thought a part of Uig Bay/Camas Uig, especially at high tide. I don't have this local knowledge but are you saying that "Sarah's Island" is surrounded by the waters of "Uig Sands" at high tide? Interesting if true. It is in any case a possible argument for an article called Traigh Ùige rather than this tiny island. Ben MacDui 08:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am saying that at high tide Sarah's Island is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean. Just because the tide approaches from Camas Uig, the Sands, the gleeb and land that is part of Uig Lodge estate does not by default become part of Camas Uig. jamesgollin jamesgollinSpecial:Contributions/jamesgollin 12:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm usually in favor of keeping geographical features such as this, but it doesn't appear an island with this name in Scotland exists. The ref which is in fact a fashion shoot that state's this is "Sara's Island" (including quotes) is not valid verification. The NG ref doesn't mention the name anywhere. --Oakshade (talk) 01:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Telegraph reference seems tenuous at best; it appears that the one-time use of "Sarah's Island" (quotes theirs) might be a colloquial designation rather than a legitimate geographical descriptor on which to base the article. --Kinu t/c 07:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
House of the Dead 3D (film)[edit]
- House of the Dead 3D (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Complete WP:CRYSTAL NtheP (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL and blatant advertising. scope_creep (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for films and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:NFF. Not even on IMDb: searching for the title redirects to Night of the Living Dead 3D (2006) because House of the Dead 3D was the Argentine title for that film. Only reference in article is a dead link. --Closeapple (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete per sufficient consensus on lacking notability and encyclopedic content. Materialscientist (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cold electricity[edit]
- Cold electricity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy declined. Pseudoscience, inadequately described and visibly nonsense in most parts. A collection of scientific-sounding words in grammatical formation does not prevent this from being patent nonsense. Deep fringe theory; not notable in reliable sources. Original research. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak Delete - it seems to be a real if fringe theory based on the refs, but it's not clear if it's notable as the refs are not from reliable sources or not on the topic. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is yet another "energy from nowhere" concept (in this case, the author seems to think that they can get more energy out of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays than they spend making the particle/antiparticle pairs, via a roundabout method involving photocurrents). If this specific proposal was sufficiently publicized, it might merit an article describing it as a fringe theory (or inclusion in a list of free-energy claims), but the article as-written a) fails to demonstrate that its subject is notable and b) gives undue weight to its subject's claims (presents it as fact rather than bunk). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Can't find anything in google books is relation to science. Whats mentioned is in relation to vedic texts. The first two sources are PDFs, even though it intimates the second is a book. It related to free energy nonense. Charge Clusters in Action can't be identified. I think either WP:HOAX or new age nonsense. scope_creep (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - does not make sense. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails verifiability. Two refs which appear to be self published apparently cover the topic, and the other two more reliable sources apparently do not. Sounds like nonnotable pseudoscience. Makes little sense in general from the standpoint of electrical physics. Edison (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable pseudoscience. Icalanise (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for sound reasons given above. Also, it could be a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. I'm no physicist, but the failure of WP:RS is hard to overcome here. At best this is a fringe theory with a few sources that appear self-published. --Kinu t/c 08:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable WP:FRINGE pseudoscience, with no secondary sources. -- Radagast3 (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Delete Anything reliant in this article should be merged with article on electricity.Silent Bob (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don;t see any reliably sourced and encyclopedic content in the article. See WP:UNDUE. We do not need to include every nonnotable fringe viewpoint in an article about a scientific topic. Edison (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment as per my !vote above if there were reliable sources on it then it could be worthy of its own article, or a mention in another, and usually such will be quickly found during an active AfD. That no-one has recalled or found any such coverage suggests it is entirely non-notable.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete. I'm all in favour of articles on pseudo-science. In particular I see their recording, referenced explanation and clear debunking as having an important educational aspect. However this makes the bar for notability even more critical: there must be a clear audit trail of just what is being claimed, who's claiming it, and how much (or how little) evidence there is to back it up. This article isn't meeting that bar. It's unclear, and it's inadequately cited.
- I'd reverse this view if the article was improved. It would need better references, for a start. The current first is that classic mix of Inappropriate Capitalisation and Tesla. Just throwing some impressive words together (Radiant Energy! Cool, I've a degree in that.) does not make a credible abstract. When I read "dense electronic stringy loops" in the second I found it difficult to read further. No-one as yet understands string theory anywhere near well enough to start using it as an explanation mechanism for an effect like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails verifiability. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as noteable pseudoscience. I predict this ting will resurface anyway. If you have a look with google you will find that it is abundant and already creeps into novice pages. Myself stumbled about this rubbish some time ago, while looking into some home tinkering. I could easily rewrite this article to be scientifically proper. It would list the basic ideas with correct description and wikilinking. The refutation would only list extremely basic facts like W=U*I and "some"<>"enough", which are missed by the referenced side long PDF. That would be bordering on original research, but should be acceptable due to being so basic, physics schoolbooks would be the only additional reference. I would stay away from a deep thorough discussion. A problem would be the history of that crab. There is some Peter A. Lindemann, some Ronald R. Stiffler and some Edwin Gray at least. At least Peter A. Lindemann seems to "earn" money with that by book, video and maybe talk. Maybe somebody has a link to some statistics. Please note me, if the final vote is for keeping. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep but rename to be discussed on article's talk page. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hosie Miller[edit]
- Hosie Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:BLP1E WP:BIO1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. A separate biographical article is not needed for a person who was only notable for a single, isolated event. This article doesn't expand much upon the existing content at Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod. SnottyWong gab 19:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The incident was not isolated in that Miller was not merely a murder victim but one from a milieu that has been a subject of a great deal of interest and study with information about Miller being available from reliable sources. Miller's life is not Sherrod's and, in actual fact, very little of the information in the article is contained in the article Resignation of Shirley Sherrod other than the plain fact that Miller was murdered, with Miller's assailant remaining un-prosecuted.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that the only notable thing you can describe about Hosie Miller was the way in which he died. Therefore, a biographical article on him would be a permastub. His death (and the ensuing aftermath) was indeed notable and therefore should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia. However, a full-blown biographical article on Miller is not feasible. Is there an existing article on the relevant court case, or some other article in which this incident could be discussed? SnottyWong communicate 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A successful merger to somewhere would be an acceptable alternative to a deletion; unfortunatly, Hosie's life is so tangential to the subject of the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, finding an immediate merger target for his perma-stub might prove difficult. Btw, do "Merge, don't Delete" determinations default to Keep?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Merge means merge, not keep. Generally, you're not going to be able to make a Merge !vote without specifying the target for the merge. SnottyWong converse 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A successful merger to somewhere would be an acceptable alternative to a deletion; unfortunatly, Hosie's life is so tangential to the subject of the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, finding an immediate merger target for his perma-stub might prove difficult. Btw, do "Merge, don't Delete" determinations default to Keep?--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that the only notable thing you can describe about Hosie Miller was the way in which he died. Therefore, a biographical article on him would be a permastub. His death (and the ensuing aftermath) was indeed notable and therefore should be discussed somewhere on Wikipedia. However, a full-blown biographical article on Miller is not feasible. Is there an existing article on the relevant court case, or some other article in which this incident could be discussed? SnottyWong communicate 19:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden. They deserve seperate articles. I think some of the types of murders, even though they are single events, get huge coverage across the decades, which clearly makes them notable. This is one. scope_creep (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A fairly clear case of WP:BIO1E, plus the underlying event is not really notable either. Some murders are notable but this one is not. GoogleNews shows no coverage[5] until the Shirley Sherrod controversy. Even during the controversy the coverage is fairly minimal - just a few news-stories[6], within a brief period of time. Not enough to pass WP:N, plus WP:NOT#NEWS applies as well. May deserve a few sentences in Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod, but not more than that. Nsk92 (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its unlikely that Google will have news on anything older than about 15 to 20 years. I think that's what makes it so unreliable for this type of article. I think back in the day it would have been very well known. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Shirley Sherrod.
Checking the references provided, the story of what happened to Hosie Miller is built upon only what has been said by Shirley Sherrod or her family members. There are reports of what Sherrod has said of the event but there are no independent reports of the event itself. With this in mind, the categorization of the article is extremely problematic. For example: Category:Lynching deaths in Georgia (U.S. state) really should be Category:Lynching deaths in Georgia (U.S. state) according to Shirley Sherrod since there are no independent or unbiased sources to report on the circumstances of how he died.Location (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm revising my comment, but not my recommendation, based upon the source added by Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden noted below. I do think the incident should be mentioned in Sherrod's biography since she claims it was instrumental in forming her direction in life, however, I'm not convinced there is enough independent discussion about her father that a stand alone article should be created. I have also re-written the article so that the facts better reflect what the sources have actually reported. I'm certain some may feel this incident was a racially motivated murder, or even a lynching, but it's not really clear from unbiased sources what truly happened - particularly since Miller's wife (and thus Sherrod!) was related to Hall and Hall claimed self-defense. Location (talk) 19:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. FWIW I'm adding more info from the Albany Herald--viz, about Cal A. Hall, Jr., who killed Miller, etc.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The person in question is dead and so the reference to BLP is absurd. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BIO1E provides no argument for deletion as it states "in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident". It is being alive which provides something of a reason to delete in controversial cases so that the name does not show up so readily in searches. Therefore when the person is dead, there is not the slightest reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously going to argue that WP:BIO1E cannot be used as a valid rationale for deletion?? Sorry, but that is ridiculous. Incidentally, a redirect to Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod would be a perfectly fine outcome of this AfD, IMO. Nsk92 (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirection is performed by ordinary editing, not by deletion. The AFD process exists to control the delete function, not to serve as a general discussion forum for anyone with an axe to grind. There is no special problem here requiring deletion contrary to our editing policy and it is frivolous or fraudulent to suggest that there is. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Frivolous or fraudulent"? Really? You know, throwing about such extravagant accusations bordering on WP:NPA is not the way to convince anyone of the validity of your position. As I said in my original comment above, I think this is fundamentally a WP:NOT#NEWS case, which is a valid rationale for deletion. The only coverage that exists is very short term and there is not a great deal of even such coverage either. Nsk92 (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is one of the Colonel's favorite arguments: if the result of an AfD is redirection or merging, then the whole AfD is somehow invalidated because those are normal editing functions. Perhaps the Colonel would have preferred that I just silently blanked the article and redirected it to Shirley Sherrod#Biography of Shirley Sherrod rather than bringing it here for community discussion. Redirection is a form of deletion, and is a perfectly acceptable outcome for an AfD. Also, thanks for pointing out the error in my nomination, I have fixed it. SnottyWong gossip 17:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to Murder of Hosie Miller. Articles on individual lynchings or racially motivated murders are not against policy (see, for example, Lynching of Laura Nelson and her son, which was a recent DYK). Stonemason89 (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody is saying that articles about murders, lynchings or other types of crimes are against policy. Such articles are certainly appropriate, provided the underlying event is notable. That's the question here. In this case the coverage of the murder appears to be short-term (July-August 2010) and only in relation to the Shirley Sherrod resignation controversy. IMO, that makes the story about Hosie Miller's murder a WP:NOT#NEWS case, at least for the time being, that can be mentioned in Resignation of Shirley Sherrod article but which does not deserve a separate article just yet. If there is evidence of significant prior coverage (before the resignation controversy), I'd be in favor of keeping this article, maybe under a new name, as you suggest. otherwise I think one needs to wait and see if there are still instances of significant coverage something like 6-12 months from now. If yes, a separate article about the murder would be appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to Murder of Hosie Miller. The notability is in the event, and so the article should be renamed. Keep as multiple reliable sources refer to this event. Notability does not expire. LK (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not the Self-defense killing of Hosie Miller? Sherrod and her family say it was murder, but are there any unbiased sources saying so. Location (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jordan C Rodway[edit]
- Jordan C Rodway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
15-year-old soccer player. BLP PROD was contested with the addition of a website on Jack Wilshere. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Nom. No notability whatsover.scope_creep (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails to establish notability per WP:NSPORT. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nom. --Gian (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete vanity page from some kid playing local kids football, totally unverifiable. way below any level that misses NSPORTS by a country mile.--ClubOranjeT 01:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, what are we even here for, this was a BLP Prod. Contesting that requires that a source be added - no source was ever added, merely a link to an unrelated website. --ClubOranjeT 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable per WP:ATHLETE. --Kinu t/c 08:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Quickly! Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 07:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ther eis no reason to prefer non-christian media over christian media Spartaz Humbug! 03:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Hughes[edit]
- Tim Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable outside Christian groups. Has had no main stream success, and is signed to minor independent record labels. Andrew Duffell (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND, BP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Here I am to Worship has won a GMA Dove Award, (here) meaning he passes WP:MUSICBIO clause 8. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would hardly describe a Dove award as "a major music award". It is incomparable with the examples given in clause 8.Andrew Duffell (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually the GMA Dove Award is equivalent to the Country Music Awards or other genre-related music category. Cindamuse (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Past precedent is that the GMA dove award is indeed a major music award--there wasn't consensus to add it explicitly to the list of major awards explicitly mentioned, but it's a national genre-specific award, not some local music festival prize. The CMA comparison is apt--even though the Doves are smaller, they're still in the same category. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, although he may be a successful Christian artist with a well-known single, I do not see him as notable. This article seems to have been written along with Ben Cantelon, who also lacks notability. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many of his albums, which also seem un-notable, have articles on wikipedia (Here I Am to Worship, Happy Day (album), Holding Nothing Back, When Silence Falls). Should they also be proposed for deletion? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's wait for the outcome of this XFD first. If it passes, then yes, they probably should be nominated.Andrew Duffell (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment since it won't pass (he's clearly notable, arguments to the contrary notwithstanding), the better question should be whether the albums should be kept separately or merged into the artist. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think his albums should either be kept separate as (all had hit songs) or merged into a discography. I'll probably spend some time between the drives over the next month or so to periodically update his article to make sure that all areas of notability are evident. In my opinion, I think it's clear that the article really doesn't do his career justice. It's a shame this article isn't more thorough. Any thoughts on a discography page? Cindamuse (talk) 06:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Tim Hughes meets every criteria to establish notability within WP:ARTIST, five of the criteria for WP:COMPOSER, at least seven of WP:MUSICBIO, and every criteria listed under the Others section of WP:MUSICBIO. He is an internationally known, award-winning singer, songwriter, worship leader, conference speaker, educator, and author. He has had tremendous international success in the mainstream gospel/worship genre. Survivor Records is an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable worldwide. His music is distributed worldwide by EMI and widely available to the general public throughout the world, including Walmart, B&N, and local Christian bookstores. His songs are used in worship in churches on a global scale. His music is widely covered by other artists, in particular, his Here I Am to Worship (song), which is considered the biggest modern worship anthem ever by CCLI and remained at the top of the most successful (in royalties) and requested songs on the CCLI charts for over two years. The song continues to be listed in the Top 5 most successful songs during each royalty payout series each year. He is regarded as an important figure in the field of worship and is widely (covered) by his peers. He is the head of Worship Central,[7] which is a global school of worship attended by thousands of people each year. He has created and played a major role in a significant, well-known, and collective body of work, that has been the subject of several independent books and of multiple independent periodical (magazine) articles and reviews. The work of Hughes has become a significant monument in the field of worship; has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, as presented through global conferences, festivals, and exhibitions focusing on Christian music, Church administration, and Christian workers conferences; and has won significant critical attention and awards. Do I really need to go further? Please check out the source links above using the search terms "Tim Hughes" and worship. If interested beyond the news, books, scholar, and images link above (which all provide significant sources), view a video of Hughes with Darlene Zschech at [8][9] (YouTube videos not offered to establish notability). Cindamuse (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merge with Holy Trinity Brompton. This is an extremely notable church, but notability is not inherited, so that a staff member will not be notable by working at HTB. It will be necessary to add a new section "staff". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Clearly lacks notability. The sources are very weak - unless something can be found offering a more mainstream perspective (non-Christian press or media?). Otherwise the article will have a very narrow base. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify your argument--are you asserting that Christian press per se cannot be independent RS'es for a Christian artist? How about the Dayton Daily News as a source? Likewise, I see nothing to indicate that The (Augusta) Metro Spirit is inappropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I've missed them but as far as I can see there are no formal references to the Dayton Daily News or the Metro Spirit in the article. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please clarify your argument--are you asserting that Christian press per se cannot be independent RS'es for a Christian artist? How about the Dayton Daily News as a source? Likewise, I see nothing to indicate that The (Augusta) Metro Spirit is inappropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article has been nominated due to a presumed lack of notability. Sources offered in this AfD are presented to counteract that assumption. When the AfD is closed, the article will either be deleted or edited appropriately by adding content and citations within the article itself. Citations can be culled from reliable sources using the following links.[10][11][12] That said, while all editors are welcome to participate in an AfD discussion, Contaldo80's participation and recommendations are questionable, arriving due to my nomination of an article that s/he created. Cindamuse (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks Cindamuse. I suggest we avoid making personal attacks. I am entitled to contribute to articles the same as everyone else. My plea is for consistency without favoritism.Contaldo80 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, maybe Merge to the album article. As Jclemens points out, there is reason to think that the Dove award, given its status as a major award for a genre, is sufficient to meet notability guidelines. The one caveat would be that there is apparently very little independently sourced material on available on the subject. That being the case, at this point, I could see merging with the album article. If he were to win additional major awards, or if there were more substantive biographical material later, then a reseparation might be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Actually, there is an large amount of information and reliable secondary and third-party sources with which to develop a thorough and comprehensive article, which I have committed to working on. This guy is HUGE and has been a vital influence on the Christian world. Not only that, his professional background is quite extensive and varied that I envision this article will mostly end up being a bit lengthy, while remaining within readable prose guidelines. He has made a huge impact in every area of his professional life. Seriously, the current article is an AMAZINGLY inadequate representation of his background and professional career. Merging to an album article would be inappropriate, since Hughes has tremendous notability in several areas outside of his many albums. Cindamuse (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William Gheen[edit]
- William Gheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- OTRS request for deletion from the subject.
- The coverage he has is limited to quotes, soundbites and other bits and bobs when representing his organisation - not one bit illustrates his notability as an individual, nor is coverage enough to pass the "significant" requirement of WP:BIO Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the President position of an organization with 38,000 registered members and frequent use by the media for commentary on the immigration issue William Gheen easily meets notability guidelinesRichardBond (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain why. President of an organisation with 38,000 members = not a claim to notability. Take a read of WP:BIO, and then show how a million soundbites covers "significant". Find me one article with more than a paragraph (or even a paragraph) about him. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject appears frequently in news accounts to give a POV on political matters as president of a political action committee (which itself is barely notable), but I have not seen a single source that is about him. Since he has no notability outside of the PAC, there's no need for a standalone biography. There's no significant content to merge, but the title could be left as a redirect. Will Beback talk 21:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't believe that an article should be removed, censored, or edited based on an OTRS request from the subject, unless there is inaccurate or libelous information in the article. That said, I don't see that the individual is notable. While he may speak about or offer comments pertaining to notable individuals or events, I don't find that the subject himself is notable. Cindamuse (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (G7) by Athaenara. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music venues with pianos[edit]
- Music venues with pianos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Indiscriminate and unmaintainable list. No reason given for deprodding. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per nom. List of states, where is the international venues? scope_creep (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can change the title of the article to "U.S. Music Venues with Pianos" . It's not indiscriminate. No more so than anything else on wikipedia. Don;t Delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.101.59 (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nonsensical article with almost no content and no sourcing. Impossible to salvage. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to all, I guess this doesn't belong here, at least not while I am compiling it. I would truly appreciate it if any of you can recommend another open-source platform that I can use to build this list with others. It's meant to eventually be a resource for piano players booking tours. Currently there are no available lists (that I know of) available that do this. I figured I would start in the US because it takes time to verify that the venues do have pianos. Thanks for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.101.59 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikia is a for-profit website that uses the same software as Wikipedia and accepts input from anyone who wants to start a wiki. However, because they derive their revenue from advertizing, you'll have to tolerate the ads that appear on any wiki you create. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Thanks, Blanchardb. I will try that. [User: Shves] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.101.59 (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the above a G7 speedy at this point? The New Raymie (t • c) 22:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mikołaj Rudnicki[edit]
- Mikołaj Rudnicki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of subject's notability. No apparent publications. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn in light of Msrasnw's findings. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No apparent publications? Hmm Google books shows a number of publications in Polish. They are even listed in the article. Dr. Loosmark 20:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Keep: Google books yields as its first of many entries :Towards a history of linguistics in Poland: from the early beginnings to the end of the twentieth century by E. F. K. Koerner, A. J. Szwedek which has a large number of references and discussion indicating Rudnicki is notable in his field. In Part II: Portraits of Major Polish Linguists there is Chapter 8 Mikołaj Rudnicki’s General Linguistic Conceptions by Jerzy Bańczerowski. The many works in Polish would indicate the same. (Msrasnw (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Toni Gonzaga. Spartaz Humbug! 03:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All Me[edit]
- All Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete The album doesn't seem notable, and the reference doesn't seem reliable. I tried to find it on google, but I couldn't get past imdb and a few lyrics databases. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Toni Gonzaga as article fails notability criteria for albums, but it is a valid search term. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update This is also a redirect to Tony Gonzaga and will also be considered: All Me (song). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Electronic hardcore[edit]
- Electronic hardcore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article seems to be original research with no reliable sources for notability. The words are occasionally used together, probably as a descriptive term but I can't find any in depth article about such a genre. neon white talk 17:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Sources provided are mostly reviews that only acknowledge or briefly mention that the subject mixes hardcore and electronics. Outside of listing bands that play music of that style, the rest of the article is pure original research. Seems like more of a trend than an actual genre to me. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KEEP - Sources are provided in the "Characteristics" section, extensively in the "History" section, and supporting the use of the terms "electronic hardcore", "synthcore", and others, for the fusion genre. True, I find no specific references that apply directly to an explanation of the genre, but the information written IS referenced, nonetheless, and the style is practiced by many groups. The fusion of the genres post-hardcore and electronica apparantly has enough information to construct a well referenced article. I see no clear reason to suggest deletion at all. Possibly an "original research" tag, but I don't suggest that either, because the only hint of OR I see is in the "Notable examples" section, and the talk page addresses that issue.----♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 18:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because sources from what would be most reliable, allmusic and BBC, do not use the term, and the other sources either seem unnotable or borderline promotional, which leads me to conclude that this may be original research. Kansan (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as idiot's contradiction of terms. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion: Redirect Ok, the arguements are very logical pro-deletion. However, I suggest redirecting the aritcle instead. Information on this fusion can be found here, so that is where I suggest the redirect. Thank you :) ----♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 03:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Memories of Murder (television movie)[edit]
- Memories of Murder (television movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable made-for-TV movie. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Article is unreferenced, and no reliable sources which establish notability were found during a quick search. SnottyWong verbalize 17:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for films.Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Delete unless sources, such as full reviews, can be found.This has been released to the home video market (you can buy a VHS from Amazon), but some brief searching failed to find any reviews or other indicia of notability not mentioned in the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Update. With some better searching I found one review.[13]. I suspect somebody with better google-fu or access to full 1990's newspaper archives could dig up a couple more. It gets passing mention as the first example of the now ubiquitous Lifetime original movie genre, but very little substantive coverage. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per additional sources added to article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No difficulty finding sources. Note that it has an alternate title which may help searches. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by the Colonel. Dr. Blofeld 16:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google-fu, hi-yah! There you go, more than enough references. There were more to find and I didn't even try the other name, but I have to get off the internet now, so i'll have to leave it at this. SilverserenC 21:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep per diligent research and improvements made by editors Colonel Warden, Silver seren, and Dr. Blofeld, in showing just how easy it was to fix. Deletion is never the only option, and it always improves the project to try a bit harder to seek those better options. Kudos to them all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on references found. Use Google news search before you nominate something. Search for the name of the film, and if necessary, add in the name of the director or one of the major stars. That allows you easily find any results out there. Dream Focus 21:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No need to get snippy. I did do a search. It's clear from the comments above that other people did a search and didn't find anything initially. It wasn't until someone did a more thorough search (under an alternate title, which was not mentioned in the original version of the AfD'd article) that sources were uncovered. Anyway, if there's anyone you should be getting snippy with, it's the author of the article. The article would never have been nominated if the author had found and added any sources. Fwiw, I withdraw the nomination given the sources that were found and added. SnottyWong comment 22:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't search under the alternate name. All the sources I found for the article were under the main title. SilverserenC 22:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Likewise here. Just Google news search for "Memories of Murder" and you get plenty of results [14], one of the first ones a detailed review in Entertainment Weekly [15]. Snippiness is in fact in order. Dream Focus 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep being the first of the Lifetime movies is a notable, if highly dubious, honour. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially when it seems to have been a really bad movie. :P SilverserenC 00:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It may be rubbish but its notable rubbish.Slatersteven (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Vinokur[edit]
- Jeffrey Vinokur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Twinkle crapped out on another user, and as usual, that leaves me as the ONLY PERSON ON ALL OF WIKIPEDIA who can clean up redlinked AFDs. Open your eyes, people.
Anyway, seems to fail WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw, but since there was no deletion rationale in any edit summary, I waited to see whether the original editor would spot, and fix, xyr own mistake within 24 hours. After all, xe is the one with the motivation to get the article to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. This was my rationale, word-for-word: Not notable. "Best known for his appearance on America's Got Talent" is not qualifying, particularly since he was rejected. The numerous other contestants in America's Got Talent and American Idol do not have articles unless they achieved notability elsewhere or at least made it to the top ten. I noticed Twinkle hadn't created the page, but wanted to give it a day as I have experienced delays from Twinkle before. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Lacks reliable secondary sources necessary to establish notability under WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails notability and biography guidelines and the biographies of living persons policy, and also it seriously lacks reliable sources. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - long overdue deletion, as failing in any even vaguely credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
No notable chart singles. Minimac (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I forgot that this was a dancer and not a singer, but still, I'm not convinced by the sources reliable enough to establish notability. Minimac (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not appear to meet WP:BIO as a dancer or any other way. --Kinu t/c 08:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable, Do Not Delete, I am the original editor of this article. I admit it needs a lot of work, but I do believe the subject person is notable based upon the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines. Vinokur has appeared significantly as the main subject in 3 independent reliable news sources:
Daily Cardinal Newspaper (http://issuu.com/the_daily_cardinal/docs/2009-03-03)
University of Wisconsin News (http://www.news.wisc.edu/17775)
North Jersey Community Life & The Record (http://www.northjersey.com/news/100004489_So_you_think_you_can_do_science_.html).
He has also appeared to a lesser extent in the Badger Herald, the largest independent student newspaper in USA, Wisconsin Week, and also pictured in the Chicago Sun Times. According to the general notability guidelines the above 3 newspapers with links are reliable sources and Vinokur was the main person covered in all three independent sources. I believe this serves as reliable evidence. According to his website, the subject should be appearing on Big Ten Network Television September 10th which will also add to his notability.
I hope you would kindly consider the points above and would appreciate your help greatly in hopefully improving the article. --User:Mikeghersh —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: looking at the sources, I'm not certain WP:RS is met. A college newspaper writing an article about one of its students is nothing new, and does not necessarily guarantee notability. If this were the case, many college athletes, musicians, etc., would automatically be notable by guideline. Likewise, I feel that the North Jersey article is a good start, but ultimately I wonder whether the article exists due to WP:LOCAL bias; that is, without being too speculative, I would surmise the source published the article because it is the small town of Montvale, NJ and it's "something neat" to write about. Local newspapers publish "interest" stories like that all the time, and that type of reporting should not automatically be assumed to convey notability. To wit, WP:GNG states: The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. I don't automatically assume that student-run newspapers have the same editorial oversight as the Washington Post, especially when it comes to stories about their peers. :P Indeed, there's no specific number of sources needed, but to be convinced of notability, I would personally need to see deeper coverage outside of his "home" area. The sources seem to show that he might be of minor celebrity in the his college area and in his hometown, but nothing beyond that. Furthermore, the article asserts that he is "best known" for his appearances on America's Got Talent. Any WP:RS need to support that claim of notability. Other sources could then possibly used to add additional biographical information, but without any sort of WP:RS-based information or commentary about the appearances, the additional information is moot. --Kinu t/c 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the context it doesn't meet the guideline on WP:ANYBIO. Being best known for his appearance on America's Got Talent means that it's a local person, and not a worldwide famous person. Also, I tried to link the award UW-Madison Outstanding Freshman Award but that doesn't have an article either. Minimac (talk) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the author's effort to provide some sources, but as Kinu said, a student-run newspaper does not have the same editorial oversight as the Washington Post, especially when it comes to stories about their peers. Furthermore, this person seems to be a local star, not a worldwide famous person, as the article asserts that he is "best known" for his appearances on America's Got Talent. I'm sorry for Mikeghersh but IMO the page still fails WP:GNG. Joaquin008 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - still doesn't qualify; YouTube views are not a meaningful metric for anything, and the sources are not gonna make it for the reasons already delineated above. If he actually becomes notable (and I don't mean for being briefly on Big Ten Network Television, whatever that is; I was a contestant on a Comedy Central gameshow without becoming notable thereby), a new article can be crafted. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - If you look at WP:ENT, the subject does meet the third point in qualifying for notability: "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. " Vinokur's unique and innovative dance routines combining chemistry demonstrations got him recognized on the top 100 acts of America's Got Talent which is seen by over 10 million people in the USA & Canada. To reply to Orange Mike's comment: Big Ten Network is an American sports television channel that reaches 40 million household worldwide. If you combine the below 4 points I strongly believe you have achieved notability. Please consider.
- Multiple independent newspaper articles that Vinokur is the main subject as per WP:GNG
- Being on NBC's America's Got Talent as documented in the New Jersey article
- Accumulating 5 million worldwide YouTube views and selling videos in Saudi Arabia and Great Britain as reported in the Wisconsin news article.
- The fact that as an entertainer he has made unique and innovative contributions to dance and chemistry demonstrations as per WP:ENT --User:Mikeghersh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.240.35.92 (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Felton Keith[edit]
- James Felton Keith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This author fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:N /W:BIO. There are no unaffiliated reliable sources in the article and I can find none in Google news or elsewhere. In removing the prod I placed on this article, the creator of the article noted this is a "relatively new author". Too new to be notable for Wikipedia purposes, I suggest. Novaseminary (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The lack of reliable secondary sources brings the subject's notability into question. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find reliable source at all. scope_creep (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also cannot find any reliable sources for this individual. Zero hits on Google Scholar for "James Felton Keith". Also note that his only currently published book, Intergrationalism, is self-published. The publisher, Think Enxit Press, is a company founded by Keith.
- Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability. Indeed, there's quite a bit of puffery, for lack of a better term; the article makes it difficult to figure out what the claim of notability even is. --Kinu t/c 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He has, according to the article, published a couple of magazine articles and founded a couple of small companies; that's not enough. And almost none of the article is supportable by reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per David Eppstein. Joaquin008 (talk) 13:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont Delete I've recently looked at other profiles for authors pages and their like Alfie Kohn and Daniel Pink and they dont have reference points without ties to their publishing. Maybe some of the language like academic should be removed, but is current working as a researcher and student. And I dont think that how he paid for his books printing has anything to do with its validity. It is recommended reading in my upcoming Ecology course on People and Environment. This author is young, so how many old recommendations does he need to be deemed valuable enough for a wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.110.180 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not that other stuff exists is ever very compelling, of those two authors, one had a book on the NY Times bestseller list and the other received coverage in major newspapers. For more on how authors become notable, read WP:AUTHOR, and for academics, read WP:ACADEMIC. This author does not even come close to meeting either. (And here is more on how to contribute to a deletion discussion in case you are interested. Novaseminary (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to McDonalds. Spartaz Humbug! 04:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of assets owned by McDonald's[edit]
- List of assets owned by McDonald's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable trivial piece of information that if it has any place at all, should be in the main McDonalds article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
per WP:HOAX. No evidence that McDonald's owns (or has owned) any of these companies.Uncle Dick (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Addendum: I've removed the false businesses leaving only verifiable material. Still endorse deletion based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This info might be appropriate for the McDonald's article, if anywhere. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial and of dubious veracity. Some of those (notably, the sourced ones) are correct, others (particularly Krispy Kreme) seem to be speculation at best. No information worth merging that I can discern. ~ mazca talk 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The problems with the egregiously wrong and unsourced entries has been solved - I'm still not convinced this warrants a separate article, though. I'd suggest we redirect (with history intact) to McDonalds and work any mergeable information into that article - a list with seven or eight entries and no further commentary is hardly a useful article taken independently. ~ mazca talk 08:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete In today's world big corporations buy and sell smaller ones all the time. This list will be constantly changing. I also think it's too much like a directory for WP.Steve Dufour (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources recently added to the article. It'd also be perfectly fine to merge this into McDonald's itself. Jclemens (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't object to that, but I don't really think McDonalds Corp. is notable for owning other companies. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an example of WP:SYNTH. It is true that the individual facts are cited in many reliable sources, but the sources do not suggest that the whole list of assets is notable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable, possibly not. But original synthesis, certainly not. I know because the source that I added to McDonald's#Further reading only a few hours ago discusses these very acquisitions and sales of other companies by McDonald's Corporation. It does so in the context of an overall article on the corporation, of course. It also does so poviding more than a raw list like the one at hand. As I noted at Talk:McDonald's#Expansion, the article requires expansion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I wanted to say wikt:synthesis (which can mean a lot of things), but just stuck WP:SYNTH in there as a convenient WP:WOTTA. I really meant that this is an indiscriminate list; how can we claim to know all of McDonald's assets, without further sourcing? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't you just made another linking error? Surely you mean incomplete, rather than indiscriminate? I agree that without sourcing it's not possible to know whether what has hit the business news reports is a full list. As I said, I think that the expansion upon this belongs in McDonald's, as a discussion of acquisitions and sales with some surrounding historical context as to why some specific transactions are marked, not as a standalone list. (Such sourcing can be had in the source that I mentioned, for starters.) If you look at some of the lists linked-to by lists of corporate assets you'll see several others that have (apparently) been merged with the relevant company articles. I only added the citations to show that this wasn't an outright hoax as claimed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, indiscriminate is indiscriminate, regardless of the present state of the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiscriminacy is a lack of discrimination, not a lack of knowing all of a list. "Assets (once) owned by McDonald's" is highly discriminate. It's finite, specific, and (as noted) not even something that only Wikipedians are interested in enough to write up. Not knowing whether this is all of McDonald's assets is a matter of completeness, not discrimination. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what counts as an asset? Is a napkin on their counter an asset? Sorry this was kind of an extreme example, but what about individual buildings? Mom and pop shops that got bought? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what was written at Talk:Lists of corporate assets back in 2003, and the development of some of the more substantial articles in this family, such as List of assets owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a hierarchy of corporate ownership was what was intended. You do realize that there's a whole family of articles that you can (legitimately, I agree) aim this question at? Content noticeboard? Village Pump? Uncle G (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what counts as an asset? Is a napkin on their counter an asset? Sorry this was kind of an extreme example, but what about individual buildings? Mom and pop shops that got bought? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indiscriminacy is a lack of discrimination, not a lack of knowing all of a list. "Assets (once) owned by McDonald's" is highly discriminate. It's finite, specific, and (as noted) not even something that only Wikipedians are interested in enough to write up. Not knowing whether this is all of McDonald's assets is a matter of completeness, not discrimination. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, indiscriminate is indiscriminate, regardless of the present state of the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't you just made another linking error? Surely you mean incomplete, rather than indiscriminate? I agree that without sourcing it's not possible to know whether what has hit the business news reports is a full list. As I said, I think that the expansion upon this belongs in McDonald's, as a discussion of acquisitions and sales with some surrounding historical context as to why some specific transactions are marked, not as a standalone list. (Such sourcing can be had in the source that I mentioned, for starters.) If you look at some of the lists linked-to by lists of corporate assets you'll see several others that have (apparently) been merged with the relevant company articles. I only added the citations to show that this wasn't an outright hoax as claimed. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I wanted to say wikt:synthesis (which can mean a lot of things), but just stuck WP:SYNTH in there as a convenient WP:WOTTA. I really meant that this is an indiscriminate list; how can we claim to know all of McDonald's assets, without further sourcing? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable, possibly not. But original synthesis, certainly not. I know because the source that I added to McDonald's#Further reading only a few hours ago discusses these very acquisitions and sales of other companies by McDonald's Corporation. It does so in the context of an overall article on the corporation, of course. It also does so poviding more than a raw list like the one at hand. As I noted at Talk:McDonald's#Expansion, the article requires expansion. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Multinational corporations often have various assets. Merge the info if it's important. Carrite (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This might be notable in the context of the McDonald's page itself, but not as a separate list. HubcapD (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep navigation lists do not have to be notable, it is just a (outdated) tool to navigate WP. It could have been a category as well. It is well sourced and there is no reason to delete it otherwise, the subject of the list is notable, it can be merged into the main article of McD. Wikidas© 13:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barabasti[edit]
- Barabasti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't pass WP:GNG. No reliable third-party sources. MickeyNort (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Its accurate. Found a number of villages in Google Earth, in Uttar Pradesh and Barabasti name also seems to exist. Google books has a number of sources describing and linking to the location. The missing articles for India's locations also has an entry for the location. scope_creep (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has no sources, and also content seems like original research. Please add the sources you found so it meets WP:GNG MickeyNort (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Bara basti" means "Large village" in Hindi. (see [16] So it's obvious why user:scope_creep finds lots of sources in Google. There must be a lot of places and villages in the Indian region with this name. For example in Kohima. MickeyNort (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Give us some references - and a geo locating ref - to say which place this is. And reference the 'notable' people from there. Then I'll make up my mind. Peridon (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you search for Barabasti in Google Earth, it takes you to a location in Utter Pradesh. Search for each of the villages, you find that a lot of them are in that same area. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So what? This article is pure original research. It's not based on any reliable source. Unless a reliable source is given, this is deletable material. If this AfD closes as keep or no concensus and no sources will be added, I'll renominate it right thereafter. MickeyNort (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The place is verifiable: The Tribune and All India reporter: Volume 1. By the way, "Bara Basti" here literally means "12 populated places", and most of the Google hits are for another "Bara Basti" (literally "large populated place") in Kohima. utcursch | talk 05:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The place is verifiable. The article just needs some refs. Joaquin008 (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepas a verifiable and inhabited geographic location. There's an alternate translation of the name: Barah Basti (part of the source issue is the translation) and that term gains a few more sources on gbooks. This one shows that it played a significant role in the Indian Rebellion of 1857. —SpacemanSpiff 16:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep withdrawn after improvements to article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paper Aeroplanes[edit]
- Paper Aeroplanes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Request from User:69.181.249.92 to create this AFD. Reason given: Fails WP:BAND "The usual DB-BAND reasons apply - no indication of notability, no reliable secondary sources, etc" Stephen! Coming... 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this was done because a speedy was declined based on the long term existence of the article. Fair enough. All the reasons laid out in WP:CSD A7 would seem to apply, primarily that the article doesn't indicate notability. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Judging the article by its contents when nominated, it looks like a strong deletion candidate, but there is enough coverage around both to establish notability and have a decent article. The BBC has several items on the band: BBC Wales Music article, album review, interview, details of their live session on BBC Radio 2 (bottom of page), live video sessions. In addition there is coverage from The Guardian (interview), South Wales Echo ([17]), South Wales Argus ([18]), and the Milford & West Wales Mercury ([19]. The article clearly doesn't do them justice. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If somebody would integrate those refs and provide accompanying text I would gladly withdraw the nomination. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done.--Michig (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And done. (Somebody
maywill have to clean up this close, given my inexperience with such edits. And a note on the article talk page about this AFD is also a nice touch.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And done. (Somebody
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Renilson[edit]
- Neil Renilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a businessman who, despite having won an award appears entirely non-notable Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I created the article because I thought we had enough sources. There are 13 currently in it, of which four aren't really about him. Of the other nine, we have: two local and two national news stories about his retirement ([20], [21], [22] and one offline from Buses Magazine); two news stories relating to other events, one before and one after ([23] and [24]); a long interview and biography in a local paper ([25]); an interview and retrospective in an industry journal ([26]); and a runner-up position in a national award ([27]). This feels like enough for, among others, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I could be wrong, but it would take a strict interpretation to negate all that coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough sourcing to estabish notability. WP tends to have a prejudice against business people, rather than artists and scholars. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure "sourcing" is really enough. Just because someone has been in the papers doesn't make them notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice it that was really how it worked here. As it is a singer or actor gets an article just because of reviews of their work. Why shouldn't a business person get one for news reporting on his or her business activities?Steve Dufour (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A singer or actor must be notable enough to to get an article, just like a business person. We don't have articles on every minor performer, but we do have articles on Vera Lynn and Elizabeth Taylor. Similarly, we have articles on notable business people like Richard Branson and Bill Gates. I doubt we have many singer/actor articles that are included on the basis of a few stories in small papers and industry publications and the fact that the company they worked for once got an award, which appears to be the basis of the argument for Neil Renilson's notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are many articles on minor artists and bands, or on individual songs by them. These make up a great part of the Afd list every day.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you actually arguing that because some editors create unencyclopedic articles which go unnoticed that this unencyclopedic article should be allowed to remain? Do you really believe that this person is notable enough that one would expect to find an article about him in an encyclopedia? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No new articles about bands and singer go unnoticed - at least not when I am on duty. ;) However, what we do or don't do on other pages is not a criterion fur judging an AfD - we are guided by policy, and even that is not written in stone.--Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there are many articles on minor artists and bands, or on individual songs by them. These make up a great part of the Afd list every day.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A singer or actor must be notable enough to to get an article, just like a business person. We don't have articles on every minor performer, but we do have articles on Vera Lynn and Elizabeth Taylor. Similarly, we have articles on notable business people like Richard Branson and Bill Gates. I doubt we have many singer/actor articles that are included on the basis of a few stories in small papers and industry publications and the fact that the company they worked for once got an award, which appears to be the basis of the argument for Neil Renilson's notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be nice it that was really how it worked here. As it is a singer or actor gets an article just because of reviews of their work. Why shouldn't a business person get one for news reporting on his or her business activities?Steve Dufour (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure "sourcing" is really enough. Just because someone has been in the papers doesn't make them notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject of any biographical article needs to have long term historical notability, especially given our concerns about biographies of living people. This is a businessman who's operated a number of tour bus companies. There is no "bias" against businesses or businesspeople, but we do insist that they have done something that history is going to remember them for. There's no indication in the article that this person meets that standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...apart from all the coverage that he's received in reliable sources. And the award. "Long term historical notability" isn't part of WP:BLP anyway, so shouldn't be used as a criterion for notability in this case anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely there's more to deciding who is and isn't worthy of having an article about them in an encyclopedia than counting how many times they've been mentioned in the papers. There's no doubt he's been successful in his career, but that fact doesn't make him encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's nothing subjective about it; the notability here appears to be clearly established by current Wikipedia policy; there's really nothing much to debate and this AfD is most likely erronious.
- Surely there's more to deciding who is and isn't worthy of having an article about them in an encyclopedia than counting how many times they've been mentioned in the papers. There's no doubt he's been successful in his career, but that fact doesn't make him encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...apart from all the coverage that he's received in reliable sources. And the award. "Long term historical notability" isn't part of WP:BLP anyway, so shouldn't be used as a criterion for notability in this case anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability for anybody, whether they be an entertainer or a business person is established with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The coverage is from more than just community papers, it's the Scotsman and the BBC publishing articles specifically about Neil Renilson's retirement. That indicates that he is noted; the very definition of notability here on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - An exceptionally well written, well researched, and well referenced article. The refs pass WP:RS, and WP:V muster, and their is no doubt whatsoever of the subject meeting the criteria in our policies on notability. A bit longer, and with a few tweaks this article could be a GA. --Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Enough sourcing to estabish notability. Joaquin008 (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable per the numerous citations. And there certainly is a systemic prejudice against business topics on Wikipedia - I see it here regularly. Predictions regarding the long-term are irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 04:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tongue-in-cheek[edit]
- Tongue-in-cheek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is nothing here except a definition, a conjectural etymology, unsourced examples of "tongue-in-cheek fiction", and some usage examples. This is not encyclopedic. Powers T 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - another perfectly good, sourced stub about a concept or proverb. Per WP:OUTCOMES, most such articles have been kept; see Talk:Make a mountain out of a molehill, Talk:Sisu, Talk:House concert, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backroad, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity. You may note that the same nominator was involved in a few of these, and in each case he lost. His continued nomination of such articles suggests an inability to learn his lesson, or a lack of willingness to go along with clear consensus of the community. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Objects visible from space. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC) See as well: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents/Archive#Defining_the_Dict._Def., Talk:Grain of salt, and Talk:Lipstick on a pig. My point is that many, but not all, such idioms are kept, and this is of the same ilk. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck does Objects visible from space have to do with anything? And, yes, when you pick-and-choose the right discussions, it's easy to say "in each case [I] lost". You missed, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prout patet per recordum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bozo (etymology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interweb (second nomination), and many others on which I've commented on the consensus side of things. Powers T 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer you, (1)there is a common saying that "it's so big as to be visible from space", (2) Prout patet per recordum appears to have been re-created, and (3) I never implied that all such discussions ending in a "keep", only that most of them. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) But the article is about the actual objects, not the saying. (2) It was not recreated; the consensus merge was never carried out because the target article requires a great deal of work before the merge can occur. (3) You implied that because I'm always on the wrong side of such discussions, that I should stop nominating these sorts of articles for deletion. That claim is nullified by evidence that I'm sometimes on the consensus side. Powers T 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer you, (1)there is a common saying that "it's so big as to be visible from space", (2) Prout patet per recordum appears to have been re-created, and (3) I never implied that all such discussions ending in a "keep", only that most of them. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cross-wiki Redirect to Wiktionary. Dictionary definition with no encyclopaedic value. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong chatter 20:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, expand and source better --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete by WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is entirely about the expression.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is dictionary material, not encyclopaedic. Icalanise (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Is this article, as it sits, a lame dictionary definition-type article? Yes. Would it be possible for this to become a really good and interesting article if someone talented spent the time? Yes. Therefore, it should stand, because we're not here to hack away imperfect articles which may improve over time... The phrase is prevalent enough and potentially interesting enough that a good article can and ultimately will be written, I think... Carrite (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it Read what Carrite wrote because I agree with her. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not a dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Definition of idiom + origin + examples of usage = dicdef. There's nothing else to be said about this idiom. Deor (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not just a form of words; it is a distinct facial expression. This expression has been studied and written about in sources such as The semantics of facial expressions.... The assertions that there is nothing more to be said about the matter are demonstrably false. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a quotation and a page number for that journal citation? When I search for ""The Semantics of Facial Expressions" +tongue +cheek, I find the author using the expression "tongue in cheek" (in its normal figurative sense) but not discussing a facial expression involving one's tongue in one's cheek. You wouldn't adduce a source you haven't actually seen to justify a "keep" opinion, would you, Colonel? Deor (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP'. Heiro 23:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes WP:GNG etc. Claritas § 09:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article isn't just a definition, but explains this notable expression. Isn't it also a genre? I've seen it used in reviews of shows before as a searchable category. Dream Focus 21:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, highly notable term. Of interest linguistically, psychologically, socially, within literature/the arts... J Milburn (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Noteability now well established due to improvements by the Colonel and Richard Arthur Norton. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand: in its current state I agree it is little more than a dictionary definition, only including the meaning of the phrase, the etymology, and some usage examples; however there is clearly room for the article to become much more encyclopaedic; we delete articles on unencyclopaedic subjects, we improve uncyclopaedic articles. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand: lots of potential for developing the stub for this idiomatic expression. I would like to see it include references to entire works (rather than just single expressions) that are tongue-in-cheek, such as mockumentaries. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. AfD Withdrawn when sources were located. DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terence Clarke (composer)[edit]
- Terence Clarke (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources. I can't find where any of this person's works are in print. He "sounds" noteable, but I'm afraid it may be unverifiable. The article kind of reads like a resume with a bunch of info crammed together, so it's hard to sort out what might be noteable and encyclopedic, and what are just accomplishments during his career. I have asked a previous editor for sources, and he/she directed me to the creator of the article, which apparently is no longer active on Wikipedia. The Eskimo (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources have been added and meets the WP:COMPOSER criteria. Derild4921☼ 00:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
>I can't find where any of this person's works are in print. see http://www.currency.com.au/search.aspx?type=author&author=Nick+Enright+%26+Terence+Clarke see also http://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsC/clarke-terence.html
for Member of the Order of Australia, see http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?breif=false&page=1&search_view=~all~&view=10&search_type=quick and go to "Clarke' 'Terence'
for The Venetian Twins, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Venetian_Twins_(musical_comedy), and other entries
for NSW Premier's Literary Award, see http://www.literaryawards.com.au/nswpremiers.html#past, and go to 'Play Award, then '1983'
for —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozterry1 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Note: I went ahead and added the above provided sources in the appropriate places. Thanks for that! This article still needs some work, but, considering the new sources, I withdraw my support for AFD at this time. The Eskimo (talk) 14:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Monteiro[edit]
- Paul Monteiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Are all government staffers notable? I can't see any actual notability. The-Pope (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable White House staffer. Insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He is mentioned in some high-powered sources like Washington Post (which misspelled his name, ouch!) and CNN, but that's what they are, mentions. There is nothing ABOUT him in reliable independent sources. Besides, a title like "Associate Director in the White House Office of Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs" sounds inherently non-notable, doesn't it? --MelanieN (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted under CSD G7 (One author who has requested deletion). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Valentin Vladescu[edit]
- Valentin Vladescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
That this is an autobiography is unquestionable. What is questionable is the notability of the subject. It does not appear to be significant, and the coverage isn't neutral or reliable enough to make for significant coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 14:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as far as I can tell, no independent sources exist about this man, either in English or in Romanian. He has his own site, LinkedIn and facebook; apparently, he doesn't know Wikipedia has notability standards that those sites don't have. - Biruitorul Talk 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are some matters of notability (see [28] and [29]) out there, just very few yet. The reason for the auto-biography is the mainly disassociating my name of Mr Sebastian Vladescu upon wikipedia query for the surname itself. Talk 14:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, Mr. Vlădescu, you're going to have to read WP:RS, where you'll find that this encyclopedia is based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Then you'll have to read WP:SPS, where you'll learn that "self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable". Then, keeping these criteria in mind, you'll have to find acceptable sources about yourself, should these exist. And no, just because you share a last name with a man who has twice been Finance Minister does not entitle you to a place in this encyclopedia and certainly does not place you on the same level of notability that Sebastian has. Just imagine every O'Neill or every Brown making that argument! - Biruitorul Talk 19:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The two new references provided here (which I have reformatted for accessibility on this discussion page) and the references provided in the article do not assert any special notability. Distinguishing oneself from a person with a similar name on Wikipedia is hardly a valid reason to create a Wikipedia article about oneself. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no sources establishing notability that would justify keeping this autobiography. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can understand plugging oneself on Wikipedia, I just can't comprehend making oneself a vacuous stub... Carrite (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Biruitorul Fair enough, your arguments do stand up! They do, despite the fact that I'm sure any story with negative impact should have been enough to give me the required notoriety not even for an autobiography but for an article written for and by people craving for "sensational". As far as the level of notability that Sebastian has, not for a moment did I claim notoriety even close to him. All I was claiming was what I thought was a rightful place in the "Romanian businesspeople" category! This place may not be entirely earned from your point of view since lacking reliable sources, which is pretty fair considering the value of the community. You should consider however the direction of most of Romanian journalistic endeavors and the fact that's little place for press coverages especially when we're talking about small companies or people doing extraordinary things! @Carrite You sir, however have no right to offend as long as you don't have YOUR OWN argument! From my point of view your attitude brings just no value to this discussion. - Vvladescu (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vvladescu, you have no other edits but this article. AfDs revolve around discussion of policy. Your comments have brought nothing to this discussion, and I don't see where you are offended. It is extremely rare that an autobiographical article created by a user with no other edits gets kept. — Timneu22 · talk 09:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Timneu22, I have properly acknowledged and accepted all valid points. Do I need to Prefix my post with the Delete word in order to have this accepted? am offended by one user calling me a "vacuous stub" without having a valid point other than a personal opinion not about the post itself but about me as a person. Objective judging is very ok in a debate while expressing personal opinions about one of the participant never is. Just delete the article and rest assured I perfectly understood the valid points you have made so far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvladescu (talk • contribs) 10:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The user was referring to a stubbed article. — Timneu22 · talk 11:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'll userfy this on request Spartaz Humbug! 04:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Gender Paradigm[edit]
- The Gender Paradigm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like WP:ESSAY and/or WP:OR. The article arrives at a conclusion. — Timneu22 · talk 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It doesn't belong at Domestic violence, where the same user added the text, nor does it belong as a stand-alone article. Essay-like, no evidence of usage of the title in any of the sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say no evidence of usage. It appears in the title of a paper by Dutton and Nicholls "The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory", who appear to be key figures, along with Archer and Fiebert, in attacking the traditional female as victim, male as perpetrator "feminist" paradigm. The fact of the matter is, these author's views are already included in the main DV article. This is just an extra section of the article, which repeats content found elsewhere, in addition to synthesizing sources, and presenting it in an argument format. The article in question is just a POV fork, has major POV issues (and some OR), and ignores any criticism or opposition to these views. The issue remains, in the words of Stark “how to reconcile gender parity in the use of force by partners with asymmetry in the dynamics and effects of partner abuse”. Perhaps there is an article that could be written about how IPV has been presented over the years, how it has been challenged, and what is the state of affairs now. You know, something that isn't one sided. But the article name is a poor choice, and the content highly problematic. -Andrew c [talk] 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is an interestign essay, and sources could be found, but it would have to be retitled and substantially expanded. Perhaps incubation or merger could work. A lot of work has clearly gone into this, and I feel something useful must be in there. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy non OR and redirect to Domestic violence. Per Gene93k and Andrew c while the article is a POV and Or mess the subject matter seems notable. A google scholar search will (while not necessarily the best way to assess notability) show a series of references to 'the gender paradigm' in relation domestic violence. I sympathize with Gene93k view and would suggest redirecting Gender paradigm to Domestic violence and userfying any non-OR elements - with the hope that with some direction the editors will be able to work constructively on an appropriate article for wikipedia on the subject.
I understand and agree with the nominators and CFred's points that this text doesn't belong in Domestic violence but perhaps a brief properly sourced and duely weighted note about the gender paradigm does?--Cailil talk 20:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. Article may need some tidying up but i think it wrong to dismiss it as POV when in my view much of the domestic violence article as a whole stinks of POV as a product of a feminist POV perspective. Gender paradigm has a fair number of google scholar refs. --Penbat (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe there can never be a critical discussion of the "gender paradigm" without mentioning Dutton, but I thought the google scholar results when you removed Dutton from the mix were interesting [30]. Not many articles related to IPV. At the very least, makes me wonder if the title is a good choice do to possible disambiguation issues.-Andrew c [talk] 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of the Republic of Macedonia[edit]
- Visa policy of the Republic of Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
A few hours ago Basket of Puppies went on a deletion spree suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[31]
Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic.[32] That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.
I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF:[33] bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Basket of Puppies, the article is not very encyclopedic. If this information really has to be in Wikipedia, it could be included in some larger articles, such as the country in question.
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Ukraine[edit]
- Visa policy of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[34]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[35]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [36] [37] bobrayner (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Basket of Puppies, the article is not very encyclopedic. If this information really has to be in Wikipedia, it could be included in some larger articles, such as the country in question.
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Turkey[edit]
- Visa policy of Turkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[38]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[39]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [40] [41] bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, such articles should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY. And yes again, the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional (but nonspammy) information of international interest; [42] [43] Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article refs are under construction. Discussion on the type of counties involved and the type of bilateral agreements Turkey is involved in might probably follow. Furthermore per Bobrayner.... L.tak (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Basket of Puppies, the article is not very encyclopedic. If this information really has to be in Wikipedia, it could be included in some larger articles, such as the country in question.
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Tonga[edit]
- Visa policy of Tonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[44]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[45]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [46] [47] bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Solomon Islands[edit]
- Visa policy of Solomon Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[48]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[49]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [50] [51] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Kansan (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Kiribati[edit]
- Visa policy of Kiribati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[52]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[53]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [54] [55] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Georgia[edit]
- Visa policy of Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[56]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[57]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [58] [59] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Fiji[edit]
- Visa policy of Fiji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[60]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[61]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [62] [63] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]
- Visa policy of Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[64]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[65]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [66] [67] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Belarus[edit]
- Visa policy of Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[68]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[69]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [70] [71] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Montenegro[edit]
- Visa policy of Montenegro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[72]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[73]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [74] [75] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Strong Keep Here is the source you seek:
http://www.gk-montenegro.de/files/UREDBA_O_VIZNOM_REZIMU.pdf
Rave92(talk) 22:58, 27 August 2010 (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 ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Russia[edit]
- Visa policy of Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[76]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[77]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [78] [79] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Serbia[edit]
- Visa policy of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[80]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[81]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [82] [83] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of the Philippines[edit]
- Visa policy of the Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[84]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[85]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [86] [87] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of South Korea[edit]
- Visa policy of South Korea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[88]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[89]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [90] [91] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an extremely bad faith nomination and it's quite obvious that basket of puppies didn't bother to research the topic before nominating it. Visa policy is often discussed in South Korea, especially around E2 teaching visas for English teachers. In fact I show 31 news hits just for "south korea e2 visa policy" [92]. Visas are not just limited to visa free stamps, there is a wealth of information out there about visas and public discussion and media coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per reliable sources that could have been found easily such as this. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. JJ98 (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Jordan[edit]
- Visa policy of Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And also added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[93]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[94]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [95] [96] bobrayner (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Venezuela[edit]
- Visa policy of Venezuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And previously added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[97]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[98]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [99] [100] bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bobrayner, you accused me of abusing the process. This is why I remind you on assuming good faith. Second, do you feel that there should be some sort of pre-AfD process that needs to be incorporated into the procedure? I had no idea that I was required to seek out a group of editors and obtain their consensus if an article can be nominated for deletion or not. What is it that you are suggesting? Basket of Puppies 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Mexico[edit]
- Visa policy of Mexico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And previously added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[101]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[102]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [103] [104] bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as usual, plenty of sources on the subject, not even including what the local spanish media may be discussing.[105], [106], [107], [108].--Crossmr (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. TbhotchTalk C. 23:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of South Africa[edit]
- Visa policy of South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And previously added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[109]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[110]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [111] [112] bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Croatia[edit]
- Visa policy of Croatia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And previously added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[113]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[114]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [115] [116] bobrayner (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Is the article unencyclopedic, or is it its subject? I certainly don't think the subject is unencylopedic, and if it's something wrong with the content, it should be fixed, not deleted. GregorB (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Senegal[edit]
- Visa policy of Senegal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTTRAVEL. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I temporarily struck-out my vote pending a combined single page AfD discussion on possible merge.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place. The rationales for keep are already stated by other users on some of the many places were you rise the issue. Visa policy is substantial part of foreign policy between states. Alinor (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of the Republic of China[edit]
- Visa policy of the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTTRAVEL. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I temporarily struck-out my vote pending a combined single page AfD discussion on possible merge.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place. The rationales for keep are already stated by other users on some of the many places were you rise the issue. Visa policy is substantial part of foreign policy between states. Alinor (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a well-sourced article, which is being improved, and could easily have been worked on before nomination. ROC is the largest country on earth, and its visa policy should have its own article here. Whatever else we decide, this one should be rescued and the AfD closed as a keep. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)My bad, I thought it was PROC. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Namibia[edit]
- Visa policy of Namibia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTTRAVEL, one might want to include the Template:Visa_policy_by_country in this debate. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I temporarily struck-out my vote pending a combined single page AfD discussion on possible merge.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place. The rationales for keep are already stated by other users on some of the many places were you rise the issue. Visa policy is substantial part of foreign policy between states. Alinor (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Hong Kong[edit]
- Visa policy of Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTTRAVEL and NOM. --NortyNort (Holla) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I temporarily struck-out my vote pending a combined single page AfD discussion on possible merge.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place. The rationales for keep are already stated by other users on some of the many places were you rise the issue. Visa policy is substantial part of foreign policy between states. Alinor (talk) 14:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Morocco[edit]
- Visa policy of Morocco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:NOTTRAVEL and NOM. Such information could be in a single page. The Visa policy in the European Union appears to be well-sourced and more detailed.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- If it is to be in another page, then you should propose some merge (where?) and not delete. The fact that some articles are more detailed than others does not mean that we should delete the short ones. Every article could be improve at a later stage. Alinor (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I crossed off my vote for the time being. How about: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy-related"? I agree detail isn't critical, I made additional comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy in the European Union.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a centralised discussion sounds great to me. bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am not mistaking something this Template:AfD_footer_(multiple) should be used for multiple-page-AfD. I will post this to Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, EU and Basket of Puppies discussions. Alinor (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, a centralised discussion sounds great to me. bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I crossed off my vote for the time being. How about: "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy-related"? I agree detail isn't critical, I made additional comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy in the European Union.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This meta-discussion, relating not to the article at hand but to the deletion discussion processes, is currently occurring in broken form across three AFD discussions. Please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Visa article flood of AFD nominations, where I suggest that we learn from history. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to be in another page, then you should propose some merge (where?) and not delete. The fact that some articles are more detailed than others does not mean that we should delete the short ones. Every article could be improve at a later stage. Alinor (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Japan[edit]
- Visa policy of Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't really apply here, as the topic at hand is quite notable. Currently, the article lacks information; it barely has any prose, it's just a just of countries, etc. I think WP:SOFIXIT applies here - it would be much better to fix the Ryugyong Hotel rather than to knock it down because it has faults. Rather than deleting the article, time would be better spent expanding it. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep what appears to be another nomination that didn't properly go through WP:BEFORE. [117] plenty of independent material on the subject including things like why certain changes were made, who pressured the government to look into visa changes, social concerns with visa changes, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Mali[edit]
- Visa policy of Mali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Kyrgyzstan[edit]
- Visa policy of Kyrgyzstan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you oppose the AfD process? What is the rationale for your keep opinion? Basket of Puppies 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place.
The rationales for keep are already stated by other users on some of the many places were you rise the issue.
Visa policy is substantial part of foreign policy between states. Alinor (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So now you are accusing me of abuse? Alinor, please remember to assume good faith. Any attempt to disrupt Wikipedia policy and the AfD process may not be viewed kindly by admins. Alright? Foreign policy between states is important for them, but it's not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume good faith, that's why I am not accusing you, but this is really a general issue, not a particular page issue, so it should be discussed in a single place. You should have raised the issue at visa policy/passport/wikiproject international relations/similar place and not put so much proposed deletions/AfD templates - also, if I remember correctly there is a special "multiple pages AfD procedure". Alinor (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If foreign policy is not encyclopedic should we expect AfD on all foreign policy pages? I don't agree - foreign policy is important and notable. Alinor (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I am not mistaking something this Template:AfD_footer_(multiple) should be used for multiple-page-AfD. I will post this to Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, EU and Basket of Puppies discussions. Alinor (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So now you are accusing me of abuse? Alinor, please remember to assume good faith. Any attempt to disrupt Wikipedia policy and the AfD process may not be viewed kindly by admins. Alright? Foreign policy between states is important for them, but it's not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose abusing the process with so many analogous requests. If needed the issue should be discussed in a single place.
- This meta-discussion, relating not to the article at hand but to the deletion discussion processes, is currently occurring in broken form across three AFD discussions. Please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Visa article flood of AFD nominations, where I suggest that we learn from history. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you oppose the AfD process? What is the rationale for your keep opinion? Basket of Puppies 13:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
A few hours ago Basket of Puppies went on a deletion spree suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[118]
Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic.[119] That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.
I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF:[120] bobrayner (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep along with the others. encyclopedia content includes most of what would go into an almanac, and this is in that category DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Algeria[edit]
- Visa policy of Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of the People's Republic of China[edit]
- Visa policy of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep as a well-sourced article, which is being improved, and could easily have been worked on before nomination. China is the largest country on earth, and its visa policy should have its own article here. Whatever else we decide, this one should be rescued and the AfD closed as a keep. Bearian (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep substantial article, can be sourced --Errant [tmorton166] (chat!) 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Canada[edit]
- Visa policy of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Another failure of WP:BEFORE news articles show plenty of discussion both by Canadian media and other countries over Canada's visa policies, including criticisms.[121] an interested editor would have no trouble writing an encyclopedic article about the history of various visa policies, how decisions came about, etc. For example [hhttp://www.globalvisas.com/news/report_calls_for_review_of_canadian_temporary_work_visa_policy1440.html], [122], etc--Crossmr (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for the same reasons described in previous visa policy AFD's. I also strongly agree with Crossmr's point on Canadian visa policies in particular. I would be willing to put some time into expanding this article. ◈ithinkhelikesit 23:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Brazil[edit]
- Visa policy of Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And previously added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[123]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[124]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [125] [126] bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy in the European Union[edit]
- Visa policy in the European Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Strong Keep: This article is about rather important government policy. Government policy is an encyclopedic topic.Ciprian.Enache (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see there is A LOT of these AfDs and won't vote on all. I agree with you that all should be on the same page for voting. If these articles offered a historical perspective of visa requirements or more insight, they would be encyclopedic IMO. Right now, they just appear to be a one-stop shop for one to find out what countries they can get into which fails WP:NOTTRAVEL.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- About the historical perspective - with some of my edits on the EU visa page I tried to show the changes over time/historical perspective, but after some big overhaul of the layout the content was not put in the new version (haven't got time yet to put it back). And this is my point - at first these pages may be "weak", but hopefully over time editors will contribute and enrich them (for example diving deeper in history - that is possible for the EU at least up to the beginning of Schengen as its decisions are publicly accessible from the EU site). Alinor (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it's government policy about who can get into which country with which piece of paper, I think that counts as encyclopaedic. Per the text of WP:NOTTRAVEL, if the article advertised a hotel or suggested the best place in Venice to get a coffee, I would agree that it failed WP:NOTTRAVEL, but I doubt that is the case here; it's a significant point of verifiable information. We wouldn't delete Mannekin Pis even though that is overwhelmingly a tourist destination!
Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that these AfDs should be dealt with individually, rather than centrally; and since I don't want any more hints of failing to AGF, I've been trying to humour that. bobrayner (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If I am not mistaking something this Template:AfD_footer_(multiple) should be used for multiple-page-AfD. I will post this to Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, EU and Basket of Puppies discussions. Alinor (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This meta-discussion, relating not to the article at hand but to the deletion discussion processes, is currently occurring in broken form across three AFD discussions. Please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Visa article flood of AFD nominations, where I suggest that we learn from history. Uncle G (talk) 15:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment centralised discussion would be a plus. There is a risk that if we delete all the "visa requirements for" articles the information will work its way back to the passport articles. In any event this article is, strictly speaking a "visa policy of" article which details the visa policies of EU member states. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting info, historical content can be an improvement (already present at "visa reciprocity section") but this page needs to mature; wikipedia is large enough for this type of content... This article clearly is much more than a list and well referenced... L.tak (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily keep bad faith nomination, passes WP:N for miles, "this topic is not encyclopedic" I really doubt about this comment. TbhotchTalk C. 00:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles[edit]
- Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies rapidly pasted a deletion template on many visa-related articles suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. (And previously added a header to the Visa policy by country template, on the basis that all the articles it linked to were assumed to be wrong). Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree. Basket of Puppies seems to have been in such a hurry to delete so many articles, without actually reading them, that a duplicate delete was created.[127]
- Basket of Puppies now seems to argue that foreign policy between states is unencyclopaedic. That is different from their previous reasons for deletion but, I think, no more believable.[128]
- I think it would be better to deal with this centrally, but Basket of Puppies has repeatedly said that it must be done on an article-by-article basis. It is unfortunate that people who disagree with Basket of Puppies are warned about their failure to AGF. [129] [130] bobrayner (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described in previous visa AFD's. scope_creep (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Bhutan[edit]
- Visa policy of Bhutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this topic is not encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: as per the other AfDs keeps, proposed deletions and AfD-proposing-user talk pages. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It might be better to set up a Request for Comment somewhere, rather than bulk nominations of all of these visa policy articles on apparently identical grounds. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Israel Sports Radio[edit]
- Israel Sports Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced non-notable web-only "radio station", article restored after prod deletion with an uncited claim that station will begin broadcast operations in October. Without references, notability can't be proven and without citation for the claim of becoming a broadcast radio station it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Dravecky (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB. If the claimed future notability ever materialises, it can be re-discussed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom: I Prod-2'd this at its recent WP:Proposed deletion. Plutonium27 (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The links given in the article are not cited inline and are 2) a PDF of 16 June edition of The National Jewish Post & Opinion magazine which has an interview with the co-hosts by a fellow web broadcaster (on p13, not p10 as stated) and 1) is a link to the news page of the Israeli Ice Skating Federation (given presumably because the hosts mention they'd interviewed skater Tamar Katz). According to the interviewees, the month-old web radio broadcasts for 2 hours on Wednesday evenings. What they say they'll be doing in October has no bearing on establishing notability for the purposes of this article. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adesso Platform[edit]
- Adesso Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product. Proposed deletion denied by article's author with the explanation: "Adesso Platform is notable software because it was one of the first occasionally connected software packages. Additional information / references added." However, there is no indication that it was one of the first "occasionally connected software packages" or that such an achievement is, in itself, notable. No independent sources can be found; the references given are either to the company's own site, or to a company press release (note the similarity of this reference to this press release), or to a minor mention in passing in an article about a mobile computer hardware platform. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is essentially an advertisement for this software and the business that makes it. Google news finds only press releases and similar coverage. Scholar finds only a patent application. Books has not heard of it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Anwyl of Tywyn Family. Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Evan Vaughan Anwyl[edit]
- Evan Vaughan Anwyl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability by our criteria. I'm not even convinced it's worth a mention in House of Aberffraw which needs some trimming to meet our criteria at WP:NOT which says "Genealogical entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of these is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line)." Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also mentioned in Anwyl of Tywyn Family which probably needs trimming also. Dougweller (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I was going to say keep, but there are no notability established outside the family and so can easily be merged into the main Anwyl of Tywyn Family article. The family article is one of these cases when it might be worth deleting the article and starting again. A few days ago I thought the general application of this WP principle (don't know its name) was hugely wasteful, but in this instance, certainly. I suspect the family article will prove too big for trimming, wikify and clean up. scope_creep (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would say merge but I would not trust Doug Weller to fairly merge the two articles without destroying them, intentionally. I fear that certain people are looking to eradicate entirely the information contained in this wiki (and its related Anwyl of Tywyn Family wiki) because they do not suit their own personal historical paradigms. I and other editors have been bullied and harassed by Doug Weller for years and I say once again that he is quite unfit to be a moderator. I consider the Anwyl of Tywyn wiki to be important and well researched in relation to the royal history of Gwynedd. I concede that Evan Vaughan Anwyl is relatively unknown (apart from Burkes Peerage) but the family from which he descends, the Anwyl of Tywyn, has been extensively documented over centuries and is of real interest to anyone studying Welsh royalty James Frankcom (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited. Most of the 7 GBooks hits are from Books LLC, which are copies of Wikipedia articles. Of the 2 actual sources, one has no preview and the other just mentions his name and birth year. Edward321 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep For the same reasons explained by James Frankcom. In addition, it is nonsense to even suggest that these articles are not notable. So how many references are required? Burke's isn't sufficient? They are "The definitive guide to the genealogical history of the major royal, aristocratic and historical families of the United Kingdom, Ireland and the United States of America". As reference, the Family Record states: ANWYL of Tywyn, EVAN VAUGHAN ANWYL ; born 9 Dec 1943; educated Tywyn GS and U of Wales Aberystwyth (BSc 1967, DipEd 1968) Lineage: MORRIS ap JOHN ap MAREDUDD, of Rhiwaedog; see BLGW 2006 JONES-LLOYD formerly of Moelygarnedd. Why is the history of Wales, this family, and this man not notable? Please explain in detail as to why not. ~Geaugagrrl talk 03:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-article is only tangentially about subject, mostly about family and history of family. Non notable on own. Heiro 07:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge would prolly be a better option, per arguments below. Heiro 00:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was notable enough to be DYK, so why is it not notable now? ~Geaugagrrl talk 10:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 7 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Evan Vaughan Anwyl, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
- Comment DYK nominations are not checked for notability. I have not said that the family is not notable, and I've certainly not said the history of Wales is not notable, that's a ridiculous accusation. A record of the existence of the subject of this article does not meet our criteria at WP:BIO. Frankcom, your attack on me is inexcusable, particularly as it is your second public attack on me this year. Either retract it or take your complaint to WP:ANI if you think I'm unfit to be an Administrator (we don't have moderators). I have not harassed you or bullied you, although I have disagreed at times with your sources and with what I (and you know it's not just me) see as original research on your part. That should be a matter for civil discussion, not personal attack here. And your !vote should be based on our policies and guidelines, not your opinion of an editor. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted to FrankCom's talk page, hopefully we can sort this out amicably. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shame, instead of doing that, he's canvassed and referred to me (although not by name) as an "anti-Celt" which is just nonsense. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted to FrankCom's talk page, hopefully we can sort this out amicably. Dougweller (talk) 12:28, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - James Frankcom has been asking for some people to come here and vote to keep the article. [131] and [132] and to an IP here [133] BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If not then merge, clearly lacks notability. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability test is surely about minor pop stars, one time television presenters, etc who have often been behind the making of their own wikipedia entry to increase their own visibility. I don't think that policy was conceived to be used in a case like this which is about the head of a dynasty who represents, almost certainly, the only surviving male heir of any of the descendants of Rhodri Mawr. He and his family are recorded in Burke's Peerage and have been written about over many years by numerous authors (most of whom are listed in the references of that article). There are also DOZENS if not HUNDREDS of articles that show someone's full ancestry, and in this case, to go back to Owain Gwynedd is crucial in establishing the Anwyl ancestry. I have been forced to ask for help from editing colleagues because I have little or no confidence in the fairness of this procedure. It's already a done deal. Doug go on mate have your own way again and just delete whatever you want. I am just about through...James Frankcom (talk) 10:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you have canvassed several editors to get them to come here and vote your way, now you are voting twice? sigh BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am just exasperated and utterly fed up with the way this website has become. I wasn't aware my every activity was being monitored. This article did not need to be targeted. It is persecution. I don't stand a chance... James Frankcom (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep James, everyone's activities on Wikipedia can be monitored by anyone else. I suspect you are taking this as a personal campaign or as anti-Welsh when it really isn't - it's about the accurate implementation of Wikipedia's policies. I've studied the article carefully, as well as the sources. It is true that Evan Anwyl is in Burke's and bases his claim on a late medieval geneaology. We could get into the trustworthiness of such documents - they were frequently, let us say kindly, fluid with the facts to suit the purchaser's motives and lots and lots of them are highly dubious. That said, others do say he is a person of "noble rank" and there are lots of similar articles in Wikipedia. Doug is not completely wrong and this article (it's not a "wiki" by the way, it's an "article" in Wikipedia) is not really of itself completely notable. The problem with all these things is that a chap who hasn't done anything that we class as notable but has a claim to be of royal descent might or might not be included - generally, this should be current royalty and senior nobility. I don't go for delete because there are quite a lot of relatively minor nobility of an English persuasion (see as just one of hundreds of examples Lord Richard Cavendish (1752–1781)) hanging around undeleted. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Anwyl of Tywyn Family - it is the family which is more notable in this case, not the individual. I certainly oppose straight deletion - there is some historical notability in the family which justifies retention of the material. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge per Ghmyrtle. The family may be notable as a line, but the article presented does not include enough reason to assume notability of the subject directly.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge looks good here. None of the cited sources are directly about him, and most of the article's text is about the family, so there's no point keeping it separate. On the other hand, it's all verifiable and could be useful for the family's article as they really do look notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The article makes no claim of notability for the subject (other than the connection with the family, however notability is not inherited). Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spam. Tolerable with barbeque sauce. Not good on Wikipedia. Courcelles 01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CyberVision[edit]
- CyberVision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Do we really want to keep this article full of advertising? I cannot find anything notable about this company. Nageh (talk) 11:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete reads like a brochure, full of marketing-speak like "RIA guarantees a lush user experiences through intuitive interaction with the application and a visually rich GUI interface." No, seriously, that's an actual quote! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - advertising, might pass under G11 for CSD though pretty iffy. Derild4921☼ 13:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Speedy delete. Not iffy at all: a full-cycle custom software development and IT consulting company.... provides custom technology and business inspired solutions.... uses a CMMi level 5 based "Delivery-Vision" methodology which addresses certain specifics related to managing offshore software development projects. After reading that, do you really have a clear picture of the kind of software they make? If not, this article is also patent nonsense as well as blatant advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although it is written quite a bit like an advertisement, that could be fixed by editing. However, I see no evidence that this company meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:CORP). References are not-independent of the subject. Peacock (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have removed the most blatantly promotional section as it appeared to be a copyright infringement. What is left is promotional-ish, but salvageable, as far as that goes. However, there is no evidence at all of notability. No source is cited except the company's own website, and searches fail to produce any significant independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails the relevant notability guidelines despite being on the books of a top level club. Mkativerata (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Hurst (footballer)[edit]
- James Hurst (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously contested PROD. Footballer who has only played in the Icelandic league, which is not fully professional so fails WP:NSPORTS. Youth caps do not infer notability. BigDom 10:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has signed professional terms with a Premier League club today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.11.94 (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 07:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Web Application Penetration Testing Techniques[edit]
- Web Application Penetration Testing Techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research / essay / how-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination. Seems to be offering instruction in malicious cracking techniques. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom Nolelover 01:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is a clear consensus that this society is not notable because of insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UCL Conservative Society[edit]
- UCL Conservative Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This university club, all be it affiliated to a political party, is not in and of it's self notable. No GNews hits and the first page of GHits is mainly links to club sites. None of the ref's demonstrate significant coverage. Fails WP:CLUB and should be Deleted. Codf1977 (talk) 10:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Codf1977 that this society is not by itself notable. I've searched for sources before, and again today, but have not found any to show that it meets the general notability guideline. Smartse (talk) 11:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Oxford University CA has a lengthy article as does CUCA. Secondly, by googling UCL Conservatives its quite clear that its as active and as large as the other two institutions. News coverage of the society stretches across international press - Article 1 et c. Don't delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.123.137 (talk) 15:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC) — 92.3.123.137 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yes, other stuff exists but we're here to debate this article on its own merits. The article is a trivial mention and not enough to satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Smartse (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick glance also shows that OUCS and CUCS have been discussed significantly whereas UCLA does not seem to have been. Smartse (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would cite the following as demonstrating national reach of organisation to the extent required by notability Article 1Article 2 Article 3 Article 4 It is perhaps true that the article is far too long and needs to be dramatically reduced however the fact that apparently notability is derived in OUCA and CUCA's case by merely attracting press attention it is clear that this article should equally be held to the same standards and kept —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.123.137 (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2010(UTC)
- A quick glance also shows that OUCS and CUCS have been discussed significantly whereas UCLA does not seem to have been. Smartse (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, other stuff exists but we're here to debate this article on its own merits. The article is a trivial mention and not enough to satisfy the requirements of the general notability guideline. Smartse (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant news coverage to establish notability. Of the articles provided by user:92.3.123.137, most of them are actually about the Oxford and Cambridge clubs rather than this one (thus, ironically, establishing that those clubs ARE notable). The only article actually about this club is from the UCL college newspaper, which is not an "independent reliable source" as required for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect per WP:SNOWBALL -- The Anome (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial pseudosciences[edit]
- Controversial pseudosciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete The whole article is written to promote a point of view, and a fringe point of view at that. It is a personal essay and "original research", or at least original. There are no reliable sources supporting this view. There are plenty of "references" in the article, but they are links to web sites promoting fringe views. The topics described in the article are not regarded as "pseudoscience" by any reliable source. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As clear cut a case of POV as I've ever seen. Doesn't contain any information that isn't already covered better in existing articles. Really, no redeeming features. - OldManNeptune ⚓ 08:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The very premise of the article violates both WP:SYN and WP:OR right off the bat. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. the article is so far from being acceptable: it would basically need at minimum a book published under this title, listing all these ideas and the author's belief they are pseudoscience, and getting massive attention from any and all "sides". we are not there by any means.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can be speedied. Blatant and obviously intentional violation of our neutral point of view policy. Creator should be blocked for disruption. --Lambiam 12:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect creator to Conservapedia. While unintentionally funny, there is no way this article could ever comply with the NPOV policy. -Atmoz (talk) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I took a quick look at the first ten references in the article, and I don't think a single one passes muster as a reliable source. Furthermore, the article is written in a way that seems to say, "I DARE you to tell me I'm wrong!" Even if this could be made an NPOV article with reliable sources, I doubt the creator of this page would allow it to happen. HubcapD (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pseudoscience. The nomination's claim that "The topics described in the article are not regarded as "pseudoscience" by any reliable source." is quite false. For example,Stephen Hawking states that cosmology has been considered a pseudoscience and the phrase Big Bang was first created to lampoon this theory by its notable critic, Fred Hoyle. Even now, necessary elements of that theory such as inflation and dark energy are ad hoc fudges. Other supposed sciences like psychoanalysis, economics and computer science have feet of clay and have been described as pseudosciences too. There is therefore good scope for an article of this kind but this article is not a good start upon it. And, of course, its editing would require endless wrangling of the sort that we already see at Pseudoscience. The matter therefore belongs there to keep the aggravation in one place. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete Mkativerata (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tesa Arcilla[edit]
- Tesa Arcilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable journalist. Insufficient coverage about her for inclusion in Wikipedia. Deleted by WP:PROD and then recreated three hours later by Elementalkarl (talk · contribs). One of a very large number of articles created about non-notable TVB personnel by groups of accounts with very similar editing habits. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Fok and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Lin. cab (call) 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as PROD deleter. No indication of notability for a BLP. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 04:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I haven't done much research but there's a very good chance that this article is a copyright violation. The text can be found here but I didn't investigate as to which came first. OlYellerTalktome 15:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. JohnCD (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Staring at the Sun (Smile song)[edit]
- Staring at the Sun (Smile song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see any indication of notability. and I suspect there's a huge copyright violation here. On that note, I have a poem about it:
- The tone's highly suggestive that the author's not objective
- The band was too fellowey, too bassey
- Rosa was devastated, but Fletcher was motivated
- So somebody made an article one night, but the copyright wasn't right
Shadowjams (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article fails WP:NSONG, and also per WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYPASTE. JJ98 (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement of OC Weekly article. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Columbia University Institute for Comparative Literature and Society[edit]
- Columbia University Institute for Comparative Literature and Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable scholastic organization. Shadowjams (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete barring a rewrite and notable sources. The description is plagiarized from the source nearly word for word.173.8.11.157 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing to suggest that this relatively young Institute should have its own article; at best it rates a sentence at the Columbia University article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KarlMontague: This is a significant institute under Columbia University similar to all academic departments, which legitimately have their own pages under Columbia University. I perfectly accept that most of the information are borrowed from the website but I do not believe that it should be deleted.
From Wikipedia on MESAAS (an article that I wrote for the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies at Columbia: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Columbia University, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Columbia University on Wikipedia." So, if there is a project to improve the coverage of CU on Wiki, ICLS is definitely a notable institute and deserves to remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlmontague (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, academic departments do NOT generally have their own pages at most universities, although I see they mostly do at Columbia. Wonder how you all slid that by? It is not the case for other comparable universities, such as Yale and Stanford. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Education: "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field (e.g., University of Chicago Department of Economics), or produced a number of notable graduates (USC School of Cinematic Arts, Oxford PPE)." In any case, the institute would need to demonstrate its notability through significant coverage in reliable sources, and this one doesn't come close. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Wikipedia allows for Columbia University's Wikiproject, which appears that it does as cited above (from the entry for MESAAS) then ICLS should not be marked for deletion as one of the major institutes under Columbia. Otherwise, if there is a deletion policy for academic departments, MESAAS, Columbia University Engineering, Columbia University Department of Philosophy, and so on should be marked for deletion as well.KM (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom[edit]
- List of LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Following a discussion at WP:BLP/N, the page was tagged for speedy deletion. I do not feel the page qualifies for speedy, so am listing it for discussion instead. Issues brought up at the include lack of sources and quality of sources. WP:BLP of course requires high-quality sourcing for contentious information about living people. On the other hand, if the page can be cleaned up to meet standards it should not be deleted. Count me as neutral. decltype
(talk) 05:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the merit at the very least in very substantial revision. Much of the article is unsourced (despite the author's best efforts). I do not doubt that a lot of work has gone into the page, but I wonder whether it is either useful or encylopaedic in particular to list an MP as "bisexual" unless he or she has specifically identified themselves as such. There are no transgender / transexual politicians listed (as far as I can see) and so the label LGBT is particularly meaningless here. It might serve some purpose as an article if it were to list MPs who have either identified themselves as gay or lesbian or who as a result of sourced historical record can be defined as such.Informed Owl (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Informed Owl[reply]
- I would like to echo Informed Owl's comments. In fact, I think that it is strongly advisable that any unsourced content be removed from the article post haste. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This list serves a very important function in motivating and mobilising members of the LGBT community to run for office in a country where until very recently this has been a major taboo. It provides an excellent resource of inspirational figures who have held office in the past and reinforces impressions that election to Parliament is not impossible for members of the LGBT community. An accurate page is indeed of utmost importance, but it would be a great shame to lose this reference instead of simply maintaining it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.127.65 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this list duplicates the function of categories. Because of the eyes on the actual article of the subject, the categories will always be under observation and thus will be more accurately maintained. This list violates our rules requiring self-identification for religious, political and sexual orientation. There should never be a listing of a "not out" sexual orientation of a living person. Yworo (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Refocus to remove/dissuade BLP violations (eg by renaming List of "out" LGBT politicians from the United Kingdom or Delistify (turn into a Category) or Merge into a putative History of LGBT rights in United Kingdom or similar. Gay politicians are part of that story. Rd232 talk 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - List has all the uncited and unwatched problems as usually associated with such articles, little to no value, convert to a category (if there is not already one) where the details are supported in the subjects article. If the list is not deleted after seven days I suggest the removal of all uncited claims to the talkpage.Off2riorob (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep remove all unsourced material however. This clearly serves a purpose different than a category as it provides summary information about each person. But it all must be sourced either in this article or (less ideally) in the article on the person. I'm especially worried about any living person being listed as not being "out" and would want amazingly good sources for such a claim. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Yworo and Off2riorob. --Frederico1234 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep provided someone has the time to remove all the unsourced material. Some of this material is encyclopaedic, but the rest is a lawsuit waiting to happen. If no-one has the time to do this, then delete because, as it stands, the BLP violations outweigh the factual material. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:BLP issues galore in this largely unsourced article. Most of this information is potentially libelous and should be removed immediately until reliable sourcing is established. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is an aura of indecency and disrespect inherent to this list. It should be salted...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete LGBT or not is only a notable issue in a notable person's biography page - not in itself. The people on this list are notable for being politicians, not their sexuality. Therefore this list have no purpose or inherent notability and should be deleted. isfutile:P (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to be kept it needs to be impeccably sourced due to the BLP issues involved. Other than that, I can see it as a list, as a category, or deleted entirely due to potential BLP problems. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is there a reliable secondary source with an analysis of the significance of LGBT issues to politicians from the United Kingdom? If not, why should Wikipedia declare that it is notable that X is gay? The list is not appropriate here unless multiple secondary sources have considered that those politicians who are LGBT is worthy of comment. Further, the list is a WP:BLP problem because it should not be an editor who chooses to record what is believed to be the sexual preference of some politician. Johnuniq (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2010 David Laws affair demonstrates that being openly gay is still an issue even today. Am I the only one who thinks this is a topic worth covering in an encyclopedia? For instance, On the fringe: gays and lesbians in politics has an entire chapter on Chris Smith, and says "A member of Parliament such as Chris Smith, who so clearly represents a cause simply by virtue of being openly gay..." page 78 (Cornell University Press). From 1977 (34%) to 1994 (38%) a substantial number of voters would still hold it against an MP if he was gay.[134] Or, going back slightly, the issue of the accusations of homosexuality against James I page 9 are part of the same topic. I agree a list is not the way to handle the topic, but no-one seems interested in talking about the topic - which this list could contribute to. Rd232 talk 10:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peoples individual sexuality is not an issue at all, Laws had his own personal reason to not want to tell people his sexual preferences, those individual personal reasons are not part of the gay resistance history, you are talking about a homosexual history article not a list of the sexual preferences of some outed, rumoured, some uncited and some self declared politicians. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had proposed moving the list to "List of "out" ..." Please address my overall argument - I'm clearly not defending a list of uncited and rumoured claims, which I had no part in creating. Rd232 talk 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, a rename, its better, politicians that have stated a preference for homosexual relationships. Personally I don't support that as encyclopedic but this is wikipedia(2). I don't know about the bigger picture as regards, the consequences and responses to self declared homosexual sexual preference in various fields of employment and sport and such like and perhaps this AFD is not the correct place for that discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had proposed moving the list to "List of "out" ..." Please address my overall argument - I'm clearly not defending a list of uncited and rumoured claims, which I had no part in creating. Rd232 talk 10:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is an interesting topic and there are further aspects (see [135] for example) but, for me, this list is absolutely not an appropriate way to deal with the matter. If people put in the effort there could be a featured article. I think that if the severe pruning continues the list could become within policy and guidelines and so should not be deleted. However, I shall not cry if it simply gets deleted anyway. Thincat (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peoples individual sexuality is not an issue at all, Laws had his own personal reason to not want to tell people his sexual preferences, those individual personal reasons are not part of the gay resistance history, you are talking about a homosexual history article not a list of the sexual preferences of some outed, rumoured, some uncited and some self declared politicians. Off2riorob (talk) 10:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There should be an prose article about LGBT politians within the UK but this list serves no useful purpose and could be better managed via categories. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Yworo, Off2riorob, and Cameron Scott. The subject is interesting and notable, but would be better covered by an appropriate category and an article on GLBT politicians in the United Kingdom or some such - focus of the latter should be on providing history and big picture rather than trying to list every last one. --GenericBob (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Comment If page stays, consider aligning title with content - the title says "politicians" but the list criteria includes some Lords who may not have been politically active, and excludes noteworthy candidates who didn't get elected. --GenericBob (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GenericBob's rationale. An article on this topic would be interesting, and a category can be used for those politicians who identity as gay, etc., as established by reliable sources in their individual articles, but there is no need for a list. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for some of the reasons above. Although i must say its rather ironic we are having this debate when about an hour ago another British MP just outed themselves lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Page Creator)
- I felt that a page that listed the LGBT politicians with some context was more useful and of greater interest than merely an alphabetical list. This page (as opposed to the category page) tells you when the people were in office (important in terms of changing values), which party they are in (relevant in terms of assessing which parties are most accepting to LGBT MPs) which house they served in, what legal relationships they are/were in (of interest to many including the media and relevant to their sexuality) and other notes such as being the first gay MP or being PM. A simple category cannot present this information in one place. If you're doing a project on LGBT politicians or UK attitudes to LGBT people etc. a clear list of who did what, when they served, which party they were with etc. is surely very useful.
- I can very much understand the need for careful sourcing, and have just gone through and readded unsourced people, with sources. I am too uncomfortable with the idea that the list will become a place to put the latest rumoured gay historical figure on. I intended it to have a more contempory relevance. I am happy to have currently unsourced people removed, I'd be willing to put in the work to find sources for those legitimate members who are removed.
- Here btw is a set of references showing that "multiple secondary sources have considered that those politicians who are LGBT is worthy of comment", also disputing that "this list serves no useful purpose" and that "LGBT or not is only a notable issue in a notable person's biography page - not in itself. The people on this list are notable for being politicians, not their sexuality. Therefore this list have no purpose or inherent notability and should be deleted":
- Politican party websites (Conservatives)[1] (Labour)[2], Public Interest in whether MPs are gay[3], List of powerful LGBTs (UKBlackout.com)[4] (PinkNews)[5], 'Newsworthy 'comings out' (Simon Hughes)[6] (Clive Betts, The Sun)[7] (Alan Duncan, Guardian)[8] (Crispin Blunt, BBC) [9] (David Borrow)[10] (Gordon Marsden, The Bury Times)[11] (Gregory Barker, The Mirror)[12] (David Laws, Newstatesman) [13]
- I could go on. Surely this shows that the media consider whether and which MPs are LGBT is worthy of comment. I might add that most of these links were already on the List page.
- As page creator and major content provider obviously I feel strongly about the page's existence but I genuinely feel that wikipedia is an appropriate space for it as specified above and as I myself have often wanted such a source of information. Obviously adding people to the list needs to be done with care with regard to Wikipedia BLP Policy. I would however be interested in seeing whether the list information could be but into some sort of History page, but I think even on such a page this sort of list would have a place.Philoyonder (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AFD is not WP:CLEANUP. If the list lacks sources, either add sources or delete unsourced items from it. That simple act should address any WP:BLP concerns. The people listed are all notable and in the public eye, so BLP1E doesn't apply. JulesH (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per JulesH. Malick78 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIR. We don't have arbitrary cross-categorizations, and I honestly don't think that someone's sexuality is of any relation political offices held. Claritas § 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally coverage in RSes about the overlap is the evidence we look for when figuring out if it is an arbitrary cross-categorization. Philoyonder supplied a number of sources which show quite significant coverage. And ignoring the UK part, the number of sources total is massive (we in the states seem obsessed some days). I will say however this is the best, and maybe only, policy-based argument I've seen for deletion in this discussion... Hobit (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KingQueen[edit]
- KingQueen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not quite meet WP:N, up-and-maybe-coming-but-not-there-yet, COI Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet notability criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Lacks reliable secondary sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Article needs a lot of cleanup and good sources, but deleting is a tad harsh. Nolelover 01:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermarket Headlight[edit]
- Aftermarket Headlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, the article simply explains the fact that aftermarket headlights exist. There's really nothing to say about them that warrants an article. Sable232 (talk) 04:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; nominated article still reads like advertising and is redundant with the Aftermarket (automotive) article. PleaseStand (talk) 05:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and PleaseStand. This topic is just Aftermarket (automotive) plus Headlight. It doesn't need to be a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were sourced I'd say merge and redirect to headlight, but it's not. RJFJR (talk) 17:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to FNCC Awards. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FNCC Award for Best Film[edit]
- FNCC Award for Best Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed by article creator without explanation. No indication that this specific award has notability independent of FNCC Awards, and this doesn't look like a plausible search term. —KuyaBriBriTalk 04:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reason:
- FNCC Award for Best Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Actor- Male (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Actor- Female (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Male Debut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Comment - There are now several other new articles that should be listed here. Check the creators contribution history for a full listing. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above comment I am bundling these into this AfD:
- FNCC Award for Best Actor- Male Supporting Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Actor- Female Supporting Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Actor in a Comic Role (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Music Director (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Screenplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- FNCC Award for Best Cinematography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Again, none of these have notability independent of the parent subject, which itself is questionable but that should be a separate AfD discussion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the individual awards are not notable enough to have separate articles.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redirect all back to FNCC Awards, as each does not merit an stand-alone, but are worth inclusion in the parent article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All Not notable. KuwarOnline Talk 06:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propheteer[edit]
- Propheteer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find a single reliable source that shows this particular usage of the word "propheteer". A notice on the article requesting sources since July 2008 has drawn no response. First Light (talk) 03:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No WP:RS and fails WP:GNG. Derild4921☼ 13:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked, and obtained the same result. I can find sources that discuss Max Apple's novel The Propheteers, sources that talk about Propheteering (AfD discussion) (albeit that quite a few of the latter state explicitly that they are making up a nonce name, and they don't all agree on what is being named), and one source that is simply using a nonce word as an eye-catching title and is actually, in its body, discussing the growth in popularity of prediction. I can find no sources at all documenting this claimed type of activity. This is unverifiable. Delete and make way for Propheteer (disambiguation). Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. provisional keep pending m,ass nomination/discussion as discussed at ani Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa requirements for Russian citizens[edit]
- Visa requirements for Russian citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Not encyclopedic at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is exactly what this article is. Basket of Puppies 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedykeep. First of all, this request for deletion goes against the consensus which was established in Talk:Passport/Archive 3. Second, a list of visa requirements for citizens of a given nation is not an indiscriminate collection of information; other list-type articles (see Category:Geography-related lists for hundreds of examples) are considered encyclopedic by the community. Third, visa requirements are notable and frequently make the news in Russia ([136], [137], [138], and [139] are some typical examples). — Tetromino (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I looked at the archive, but could see nothing relating to consensus for these articles. However, there is a clearly forming consensus here for deletion of these articles for the above listed WP:NOT reasons. As well, the appropriate place to discuss deletion of articles is on an AfD, not on the article talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That AfD isn't even closed yet, how do you see a consensus? --Sulmues (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said there exist a consensus. I said it is forming. Basket of Puppies 04:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain precisely which parts of WP:NOT this article violates. And I am talking about the detailed clauses in the actual text of the guideline, not the pithy all-caps redirects. — Tetromino (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 6, generally. Basket of Puppies 04:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which part? Do you feel the article is a sales catalog or a yellow pages-style directory? Wikipedia generally allows standalone list-type articles, provided they are not too broad, too specific, or too trivial. — Tetromino (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion that this is a speedy keep is ridiculous. "Consensus" is not found in archived talk page discussions on tangentially related articles. That's just gamesmanship. This article may or may not meet the criteria, but reference to a debate that doesn't have wide-spread exposure and was a while back isn't particularly compelling. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the speedy keep criteria.
That said, I might be inclined to agree with your position, but it gives me significant pause when you overstate the case like this. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize, I did not know that the English Wikipedia has a formal definition of "speedy keep". I'm crossing out the word "speedy" per your suggestion. As for the "tangentially related article": if you read the discussion archive, you will see that Talk:Passport emerged as the central place for discussing the suitability of visa requirements information for Wikipedia. This is because (1) there are over a hundred articles listing visa requirements, and it's obviously silly to discuss each one individually when the arguments for and against keeping visa information in Wikipedia were (and still are) to a large degree independent of the nation involved; and (2) the visa requirements information was originally included in articles about various countries' passports (e.g. see the old version of the Russian passport article), making Talk:Passport a natural central forum for the editors of passport and visa articles. — Tetromino (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion that this is a speedy keep is ridiculous. "Consensus" is not found in archived talk page discussions on tangentially related articles. That's just gamesmanship. This article may or may not meet the criteria, but reference to a debate that doesn't have wide-spread exposure and was a while back isn't particularly compelling. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with the speedy keep criteria.
- Which part? Do you feel the article is a sales catalog or a yellow pages-style directory? Wikipedia generally allows standalone list-type articles, provided they are not too broad, too specific, or too trivial. — Tetromino (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Number 6, generally. Basket of Puppies 04:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That AfD isn't even closed yet, how do you see a consensus? --Sulmues (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the archive, but could see nothing relating to consensus for these articles. However, there is a clearly forming consensus here for deletion of these articles for the above listed WP:NOT reasons. As well, the appropriate place to discuss deletion of articles is on an AfD, not on the article talk page. Basket of Puppies 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, there actually WAS such a consensus which was established in Talk:Passport page. I do remember that, too. "Keep or delete", "encyclopedic or non-encyclopedic", has been discussed countless times here. Thanks. Best Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got plenty of consensus on Aren't cat's cute too, only it's not widespread enough to satisfy WP:N. Like I said above I might think this merits a Keep, but you've got to make an argument; references to esoteric talk pages aren't enough. Shadowjams (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I should have noticed this is at ANI now. Shadowjams (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: as per keeps above. There are too much analogous visa-policy-related-AfDs currently and I think if there is a need for a new discussion (as there were such before) it should be on a single page. Alinor (talk) 13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep for reasons described below. scope_creep (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are a lot of sources and they're varied. I think this kind of material borders on directory style but I'm going to err on the side of keep. Shadowjams (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Per ANI can we have a single discussion somewhere? Spartaz Humbug! 04:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visa policy of Albania[edit]
- Visa policy of Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Not encyclopedic at all. Not a notable topic, at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which is exactly what this article is. Basket of Puppies 02:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Could you please be more specific at what you claim to not be encyclopedic? There are several articles of this nature in Wikipedia and they are in good standing. --Sulmues (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An indiscriminate collection of information is not encyclopedic. Stating the visa agreements between random countries is not encyclopedic in the least as it literally is a random collection of information. Basket of Puppies 03:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: If you want to make a notability issue, that's one question, the policy you bring has nothing to do with the article. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information, rather it's a notable issue that affects many people. We may make an elaborate research on what an encyclopedia is and isn't, but in WikiPedia things work with notability. The subject is notable, there is an article on it. Please contribute rather than tear down articles: I have seen that you are bringing for deletion dozens of such articles. --Sulmues (talk) 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: It's notable. It's information that affects a lot of people. It's sourced. I do not understand why Basket of Puppies is so keen to delete so many visa-related pages, nor do I understand which part of WP:NOT they violate.bobrayner (talk) 06:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: as per keeps above. Alinor (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut from erroneously created 2nd nom:
Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while this article is not at all encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, accurate, sourced information of international interest.
- A few hours ago Basket of Puppies went on a deletion spree suggesting that many of these articles were factually inaccurate. Since it was pointed out that many of the articles are directly based on reliable sources, Basket of Puppies has rephrased their reason for deletion, and pasted that across many articles instead, despite a number of objections in various locations. I think it would have been appropriate for Basket of Puppies to seek consensus, or address concerns, before going on another deletion spree.
- bobrayner (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per editors above. Cheers. — Kedaditalk 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge Definately encyclopedic and useful for people but I can't help thinking that in some case the information would best be represented in a list/table or something to avoid redunduncies. Dr. Blofeld 17:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Good solid factual and useful information, which is encyclopedic. It is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per various of the above editors. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Johns[edit]
- Stephen Johns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Pparazorback (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Meets neither the GNG nor WP:NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the sports criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he ever plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per earlier comments, very non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Young player who hasn't lived to achieve notability.scope_creep (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Wey[edit]
- Patrick Wey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Pparazorback (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Meets neither the GNG nor WP:NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 04:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the hockey criteria per above. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet both GNG and NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he ever plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pittsburgh Hornets (amateur)[edit]
- Pittsburgh Hornets (amateur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-Notable club team Pparazorback (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Pparazorback (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable local youth hockey team that does not meet notability requirements. -DJSasso (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails the criteria, not very notable topic. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, not a professional or semi-professional club. --Kinu t/c 08:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, nonnotable webcontent. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SKWACK!![edit]
- SKWACK!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable comic strip. Only Google result found was a Facebook page. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not completely sure it even exists. Definite Delete
- Speedy Delete. No sources, and no assertion of notability. Only result, as nom said, is Facebook page. --khfan93 (t) (c) 01:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IT IS OUTRAGEOUS THAT YOU WOULD DELETE THIS. 71.178.8.174 (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barzan Qalay Xaluz[edit]
- Barzan Qalay Xaluz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources in order to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. Searching his name in English and in Kurdish, بئرزان قالای خئلوز, found nothing but Wiki-mirrors. This unsourced WP:BLP does not appeat to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. J04n(talk page) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced and nothing under either English or Kurdish names as given in the article on Google News/Scholar/Books. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Ealdgyth has pointed out, nothing under either the English or the Kurdish names can be found at reliable independent sites - and absolutely nothing at GNews/Scholar/Books under either language -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Wylie (critic)[edit]
- Alex Wylie (critic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject in order to verify the contents of the article and establish notability. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:V and WP:N JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not noteworthy. Rob (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find any sources that are reliable or independent - most of the hits I get are to mirrors of this article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already speedily deleted (again). Chris (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wallables[edit]
- Wallables (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable toy, no sources cited to show notability. Contested prod. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11, obvious advertising, as well as lack of notability and sources. --khfan93 (t) (c)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CitySquares[edit]
- CitySquares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self promotion. It's Monday night, time for Headlines (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unambiguous advertising, no apparent media coverage. --khfan93 (t) (c) 01:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's pretty clearly advertising, and what's more their primary claim to notability is untrue (or no longer true): the article claims "in the top 1000 of U.S. Internet web sites" but the link cited actually says #4958, and Alexa currently says #10,713 in the US (or 34,916 total). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant self-promotion, possibly a speedy candidate. --Kinu t/c 08:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sources have been found and added to the article during the course of the discussion. There is now a clear consensus that the sources are sufficient to establish notability. Because of those sources and the support they have had in the keep !votes, it is quite clear that the community supports the retention of this article on grounds other than just the Gmaps reason, which was (quite reasonably) called into question during the AfD. Two delete !voters question the significance of the coverage found in the sources, but the consensus is to the contrary. Mkativerata (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soto Street[edit]
- Soto Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot seem to find any reliable sources on this street to establish notability. The article is entirely unsourced, and the search I did brought up maps, directories, real estate listings, and the like. Whose Your Guy (talk) 02:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak kKeep.A case might be made forSoto Streetasis a historically important artery in East L.A. Sourcing is hard, though. As a starter, here's a 2000 L.A.Times article entitled "Heart of the Eastside: Corner of Cesar Chavez and Soto--a Landmark in History of 2 Cultures" [140] Soto also has a somewhat notable bridge over the L.A. River[141] and the immense Los Angeles County – USC Medical Center as a landmark. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since notability is not inherited, having landmarks on the street doesn't make the street itself notable. It has to stand on its own, and I just don't see that with the sources I looked at. Whose Your Guy (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(Changing to Keep, see below) The article doesn't even claim notability, much less demonstrate it. I went looking at Google and Google Books, because it does seem like it is a significant street in Los Angeles, but I could find nothing to establish it as historic or notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2010 (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) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Indicated in yellow in GMaps, as more significant than the ordinary street (I note that this applies to only about 1% of the streeets in the area. Top 1% is a reasonable standard. [142] DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting standard! Does being "indicated in yellow" satisfy WP:GNG? Is GMaps a reliable source? I wish I had thought of that argument when I was fighting to save the listings of some notable, historic streets in my town! The consensus of the folks from the streets and highways projects seemed to be a lot stricter than that. I wish we could find some sources for it being historic, that would be a far more valid argument for "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, would this and this and this give it some historic clout? They are articles from the Los Angeles Times, from 1927 for heavens sake, announcing the city council's decision to pave Soto Street as an "artery". Seems to have been big news back then. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another possible source found at Google Books: Los Angeles's Boyle Heights, with authorship credited to the Japanese American National Museum, ISBN 9780738530154. (The acknowledgements page says this book is directly adapted from a 2002-2003 exhibition at the museum.) It has a number of references to Soto Street, documenting its evolution as the population of Boyle Heights shifted from Midwesterners to Jews to Latinos.[143] Also, in addition to the L.A. Times article I mentioned above, there are plenty of other sources documenting the particular importance of the Soto & Brooklyn intersection (now Soto & Cesar Chavez Avenue) as the heart of East L.A. Finally, at the risk of having someone cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I'd argue that Soto is at least as significant as many other Los Angeles streets that have articles, and that this article is an integral part of the existing, well-documented encyclopedic treatment of Los Angeles' famous street system. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, would this and this and this give it some historic clout? They are articles from the Los Angeles Times, from 1927 for heavens sake, announcing the city council's decision to pave Soto Street as an "artery". Seems to have been big news back then. --MelanieN (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an interesting standard! Does being "indicated in yellow" satisfy WP:GNG? Is GMaps a reliable source? I wish I had thought of that argument when I was fighting to save the listings of some notable, historic streets in my town! The consensus of the folks from the streets and highways projects seemed to be a lot stricter than that. I wish we could find some sources for it being historic, that would be a far more valid argument for "keep". --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There're no citations in the article which is telling. A pretty quick, book search doesn't reveal anything particularly compelling to suggest this street is anything more important than most major thoroughfares in most major cities. We need some WP:RS, which seems to be solely lacking. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's telling, sadly, is that source citations were directly above you when you wrote that rationale. You ignored them. How much weight should the closing administrator give to such a rationale when it doesn't even address the preceding discussion, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timestamps matter. I'll quote myself. At 6:31 [144] "there're no citations in the article". "A pretty quick book search doesn't reveal anything particularly compelling." [145]. I'm not sure if you think it's clever that you "caught me" because somebody put some, again, not very compelling links above, or it's clever that somebody added the citations to the article after the fact, but in both cases my original opinion's still relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above sources were cited at 04:50 and 05:33. You ignored them. And now you're trying to squirm out of this with the excuse that they "weren't in the article", when instead they were right in front of you in the very discussion you were editing. You're not even addressing them yet. Again, what weight should a closing administrator give to such continued failure to address things presented directly in front of one, even when that's been pointed out, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if I quote myself a third time if you'll actually read what I wrote. If I'm "squirming" then I'm clairvoyant too because I had the presence of mind to "squirm" before you leveled your first remark. But here, I'll do the insane line-by-line you want: 2000 LA times article isn't about the street and mentions it once; the 3 articles from 1927 are behind a paywall but both of those talk about a new road going in and it being paved; I can find any local newspaper that discusses most new roads going in. Because they're behind a paywall, did you actually read those? What weight should a closing administrator give in that case? The artery line's the best hope in there, but that's weak. The book link barely mentions the street, and has photos taken on it. Ironically that book quotes the 2000 LA times article, so same reason there.
So, next time you want to repeat a ridiculous rhetorical question a few times to make a point, consider that I actually investigated more than you thought, and that I still don't see enough. I'm not the only one either. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if I quote myself a third time if you'll actually read what I wrote. If I'm "squirming" then I'm clairvoyant too because I had the presence of mind to "squirm" before you leveled your first remark. But here, I'll do the insane line-by-line you want: 2000 LA times article isn't about the street and mentions it once; the 3 articles from 1927 are behind a paywall but both of those talk about a new road going in and it being paved; I can find any local newspaper that discusses most new roads going in. Because they're behind a paywall, did you actually read those? What weight should a closing administrator give in that case? The artery line's the best hope in there, but that's weak. The book link barely mentions the street, and has photos taken on it. Ironically that book quotes the 2000 LA times article, so same reason there.
- The above sources were cited at 04:50 and 05:33. You ignored them. And now you're trying to squirm out of this with the excuse that they "weren't in the article", when instead they were right in front of you in the very discussion you were editing. You're not even addressing them yet. Again, what weight should a closing administrator give to such continued failure to address things presented directly in front of one, even when that's been pointed out, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timestamps matter. I'll quote myself. At 6:31 [144] "there're no citations in the article". "A pretty quick book search doesn't reveal anything particularly compelling." [145]. I'm not sure if you think it's clever that you "caught me" because somebody put some, again, not very compelling links above, or it's clever that somebody added the citations to the article after the fact, but in both cases my original opinion's still relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's telling, sadly, is that source citations were directly above you when you wrote that rationale. You ignored them. How much weight should the closing administrator give to such a rationale when it doesn't even address the preceding discussion, do you think? Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added some of the sources mentioned in this AfD to the article.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it because being in yellow on a google map is not an good arguement to keep it. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'It's yellow on the map' has to rank up there among the most absurd reasons to keep anything I've heard yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, how much weight should the closing administrator give to a rationale that addresses another rationale some way up the AFD discussion, but not all of the meaty points in between that rationale and this one, that point to sources to be evaluated and discussed? Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I absolutely support attempts to find sources as much more useful than making downright silly comments like what colour it is on a map. But it being repaved in 1929(!) and crossing a potentially major intersection just isn't enough for me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, how much weight should the closing administrator give to a rationale that addresses another rationale some way up the AFD discussion, but not all of the meaty points in between that rationale and this one, that point to sources to be evaluated and discussed? Uncle G (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to Keep based on the additional material added by Arxiloxos, which clearly indicates the street's historic importance and notability. Thanks, Arxiloxos; I had a feeling this street was significant in the history of Los Angeles, and the article now proves it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep if it is similar to manner to Brick Lane in that it hosted a number of different ethnic groups through the ages, then will be noteworthy.
scope_creep (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Yes, i consider G Maps a RS, including their classification of roads. Might be worth a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It may have been discussed already; see Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways)#Invalid criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per the reliable citations added by Arxiloxos. This is a very notable street in the Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles. Stretching from one side of the city to Huntington Park, it is a major artery that parallels I-110 (CA) and Interstate 710 and is the most likely the most traveled thoroughfare that links the same communities served by those freeways. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Counting the Days (song)[edit]
- Counting the Days (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The unsourced announcement that a song will be released as single (one with no release date) is not enough to make the song notable. Fails WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the source of the information. The video is uploaded by the band through their official YouTube page and the description of the video states that it is a single off of the upcomming album. Anthonyd3ca (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have removed that source, because "GChomevideos" does not seem to be the official band YouTube channel. I believe their official channel is called "GoodCharlotteVEVO". As you can see at Wikipedia:Youtube#Linking to user-submitted video sites, videos like those pose a copyright problem and should be avoided. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The account "GChomevideos" is in fact the bands official youtube channel. "GoodCharlotteVEVO" is not controlled by the band. Its controlled by vevo.com Anthonyd3ca (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being announced as a single does not make the song notable enough for its own article. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The account "GChomevideos" is in fact the bands official youtube channel. "GoodCharlotteVEVO" is not controlled by the band. Its controlled by vevo.com Anthonyd3ca (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have removed that source, because "GChomevideos" does not seem to be the official band YouTube channel. I believe their official channel is called "GoodCharlotteVEVO". As you can see at Wikipedia:Youtube#Linking to user-submitted video sites, videos like those pose a copyright problem and should be avoided. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete; Deference to WP:NSONG, 3rd Paragraph; in short, most songs will not be notable, unless they rank high on the charts or get covered by bands that themselves meet WP:N, WP:MUSIC, and so on. It cannot be said that any of this will happen. If it does happen, I would be on board with the article being created. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Matthews (singer/songwriter)[edit]
- Jason Matthews (singer/songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Asserts notability as co-writer of three songs that have articles, one of which went to #1. However, a Google News and Google Books search turn up nothing other than "[Patrick] Jason Matthews co-wrote song X." I also can't verify the claim that BDS cited the Billy Currington song as the most-played, but it doesn't matter; this is a pretty clear-cut case of WP:NOTINHERITED in that he wrote notable songs but he himself isn't notable as no third-party sources have given him any mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete he definitely wrote a hit song, but as a person there seems to be next to nothing to say about him besides that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nom withdrawn - Article was BOLDly merged by author.. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Carfax 400 broadcasters[edit]
- List of Carfax 400 broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded with no reason given. Article is bare list of stats, per NOTDIR, NOTSTATS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters. It's not actually sourced, either (one of the links needs registration and is a forum anyway, and the other one doesn't source anything in the article) but that's the least of its problems. Normally I would suggest a merge into the article on the race but this huge chunk of trivial stats doesn't belong there either. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons already given at previous deletion noted above. --Jayron32 07:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Partially-sourced article concerning a major NASCAR event. The article lists which cable channels aired the event, and the source provided verifies that data. I'm not sure which tenet of WP:NOTDIR this is supposed to violate: it's not indiscriminate (in fact, it's quite specific), it's not a genealogical entry, an electronic programming guide, a sales catalog, a cross-categorization, or a complete exposition of all possible details: it's just a list of the television channels which aired the event each year, not that different from List of Super Bowl broadcasters to my mind. Seems like a valid list to me. More importantly, someone who is looking for this information will be able to find it here... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except it's not really a list of broadcasters, is it? It's a list of commentators, which is trivia (and isn't sourced either). A list of broadcasters would consist of three things and could be included in the main article in one sentence ("The event was broadcast by CBS in 1976, TNT from 2001-2006, and ESPN from 1982-2000 and from 2007-present"). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say it is a list of broadcasters, just as its title suggests. It also includes the announcers each year... which doesn't seem unreasonable to me: books on, say, television history or historic television series (I'm thinking specifically of Alex McNeil's Total Television, or Tim Brooks' and Earle Marsh's Complete Directory to Prime time Network TV Shows, 1946-Present) quite often list which announcers/hosts appeared during which years, which is exactly what people who look up such information are looking for. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. scope_creep's claims are unsourced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alix Capper Murdoch[edit]
- Alix Capper Murdoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a TV presenter with no coverage in reliable sources about her. There are some blog posts and whatnot related to her as the only female driving instructor in the UAE. As such notability is not established. Whpq (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changed from delete to keep. Seems to be the first female driving instructor and first female DJ in Dubai, a muslim country. I think that confers notabily. There may be a problem of sources though, since the 2,3 sources provided are nonsense. scope_creep (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she could also claim to be the first female astronaut, but unless sources are available and included to verify the information, and notability is established, the article needs to be deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverified and non-notable. Google News provides nothing independent. This item [146] says she is the only female RACING instructor (not driving instructor) in the UAE, but it does not appear to be independent of the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yogi Maharaj[edit]
- Yogi Maharaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about an individual who styles himself as a yoga guru. I can find no significant coverage about him in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons stated above. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- BLP with no sources. Above arguments are enough on their own, but add in the BLP concerns. Shadowjams (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO at a fundamental level. scope_creep (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a promotional article with no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:BIO, no reliable sources, possibly promotional. --Kinu t/c 08:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A talk page discussion on redirecting or merging the content to Heaven & Earth (Phil Wickham album) is highly encouraged. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Safe (Phil Wickham song)[edit]
- Safe (Phil Wickham song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable song. Existing article on the album which contains this song is more than sufficient. Fails WP:NSONG. SnottyWong confabulate 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep About the reason of deletion "Non-notable song". This song "Safe" by Phil Wickham has done a huge impact and success on Billboard Christian Chart and has received overwhelmingly positive reviews from most critics.
About "Existing article on the album which contains this song is more than sufficient". In this artical, I added pretty sufficient and reliable resources and made the contains pretty clear and understandable, including (Background, Collaboration, Critical response, Chart performance), I believe that the artical met the Wikipedia's standards and those contains could satisfy peoplo who want to know what the song is about, what's the meanings behind this song... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai5924677 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Heaven & Earth (Phil Wickham album). Charting single is notable per WP:NSONG, however, I'm not sure there's enough information to warrant an article separate from the album. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:43, 25 August 2010 (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) 00:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to the album. Deletion is inappropriate for a notable song - even if it was non-notable WP:NSONGS guidelines state redirect to the album. As this song does meet notability, keeping may be appropriate as well; however, I am concerned that none of the information in the article (other than its chart position) can be sourced to an independent source. It would not take much to get me to switch to keep, but it's not there yet. Rlendog (talk) 01:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough. Otherwise, merge and redirect. Nolelover 01:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Heaven & Earth (Phil Wickham album). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cielo (Phil Wickham Song)[edit]
- Cielo (Phil Wickham Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable song. Existing article on the album which contains this song is more than sufficient. Fails WP:NSONG. SnottyWong speak 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-charting single fails to establish notability per WP:NSONG. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2010 (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) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Heaven & Earth (Phil Wickham album), per WP:NSONGS treatment of non-notable songs. Rlendog (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avalyn Hunter[edit]
- Avalyn Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author of non-notable books. I was going to PROD the article, but then noticed that it had been previously prodded so I changed it to this AfD. Fages (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Well I found this which looks like she's gotten some notice... not sure if it's enough though. BE——Critical__Talk 18:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet any of the notability criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:36, 25 August 2010 (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) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I relisted this by accident. It can probably be closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bit of a curio really and I think WP would be enriched with it present. The books are not going to sell in the stratospheric numbers, by their very nature, but their are a fair number of ghits. I think it is worth keeping and expanding. scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it because that dick above said to and I agree with him. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Integrated IT Methodology[edit]
- Integrated IT Methodology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article author (who also happens to be the self-identified president of the business who has developed this methodology) removed the prod tag without providing sources, so here we are. Sources currently in the article are all from 'emagazines' or blogs, and all seem to have been written by the wiki article's author.
I've looked, and topic seems to have no reliable sources available, so it does not satisfy the General notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No 3rd party sources, so this indicates it is madeup. I haven't found anything to suggest that this term is used by the software industry. Mattg82 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of 3rd party sources is enough here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete An advert written by Qaiassist for a Qaiassist IT delivery method. Its generic IT delivery and not a standard nor notable. scope_creep (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Advertising, per WP:SOAP. Tangurena (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant advertising, possibly also original research. --Kinu t/c 08:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kenny "K-Strass" Strasser[edit]
- Kenny "K-Strass" Strasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. The page text is a one to one copy from the personal website linked. Tossrock (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyvio was added by another user. I reverted to a non-copyvio version. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. The references are shaky at best. The videos appear to have been picked up by the blogosphere here and there, but nothing substantive about the subject to indicate notability. --Kinu t/c 08:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Non admin closure – Redirected to Paul Collins Shadowjams (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Beat Army[edit]
- The Beat Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for a website/business which fails both WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Reliable, secondary sources which talk about the website in a non-trivial way are not forthcoming. SnottyWong speak 18:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paul Collins, and add a line or two to that article. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I redirected it. Shadowjams (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remedy (film)[edit]
- Remedy (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. All references are IMDb (not a reliable source) or primary. No other reliable, secondary sources which discuss the film in a non-trivial way can be found. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. SnottyWong prattle 19:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per WP:ATD, all IMDB uses as references have been removed, and the article cleaned up in preparation for proper sources, such as The New York Times. However, and due to the film's rather common name of "remedy", searches for additional sources will be hampered. It's gonna take some work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No, this doesn't need any work, Schmidt. It's not notable. It is possible for a subject to be utterly non-notable. In this case, there is no notability. If this one actually gets kept, then I might as well create articles about the films I've appeared in that don't have articles yet, because they have actual notable press coverage in comparison with some of the articles Schmidt works so hard to keep. Something must be done about this ultra-inclusionist behaviour. Laval (talk) 08:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I state a keep? Why do you attack me personally, rather than discuss the article? Your continued rancour at my suggestion that certain articles might benefit the project by their being improved is wearing quite thin... specially when I am just as willing to opine a delete when actually merited. If you have an opinion per guideline, fine. But please stop making arguments toward me. THAT is not per policy nor guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:39, 20 August 2010 (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) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the NYTimes review and the fact there are notable actors in it. But cool out you two above. The fact he's commenting on your trends Schmidt is not a reason to backfire. The comment includes you but I don't think it's focused on you. Let's discuss the individual case. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That actors are fairly notable, and I think most film articles should be included. Its madness that some future historian, can't come along and create a full timeline of what specific actors acted in which films, or indeed your average reader. scope_creep (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nom withdrawn - article was BOLDly merged by author.. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Southern 500 (1950–2004) broadcasters[edit]
- List of Southern 500 (1950–2004) broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is bare list of stats, per NOTDIR, NOTSTATS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Auto Club 500 broadcasters. It's not actually a list of broadcasters, it's a list of commentators, which is trivia. A list of broadcasters could be dealt with in the main article in a sentence or two. It's not actually sourced, either (the links needs registration and is a forum anyway) but that's the least of its problems. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (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) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bresser[edit]
- Bresser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 August 2010 (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) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus Internet Helpline[edit]
- Cyprus Internet Helpline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third-party reliable sources to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2010 (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) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: non-notable organization. Mattg82 (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Privrednik. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Privrednik Junior[edit]
- Privrednik Junior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No third-party reliable sources exist to establish notability. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2010 (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) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- Privrednik seems to be a very old organization, dating to 1897. From their website, with a garbage Google translation: Serbian Privrednik is an organization aiming at creating and increasing economic opportunities in rural areas where Serbs live mainly in the Republic of Croatia, as well as development potential and professional skills of the individual. SPD merchant activities focused on scholarships for students who have demonstrated knowledge, effort and talent and whose education because of poor financial situation more difficult or impossible. Is the youth section significant? Dunno, but I'd err on the side of caution... Carrite (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Privrednik. Well, if we kept Barbara Radulović... :P --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ http://www.lgbtory.co.uk/elected
- ^ http://www.lgbtlabour.org.uk/ppcs
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/211443.stm
- ^ http://www.ukblackout.com/news-mainmenu-84/latest-uk-news/1014-the-50-most-powerful-gay-lesbian-and-bisexual-people-in-british-politics-.html
- ^ http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-6416.html/
- ^ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I+am+gay,+says+LibDem+hopeful+Simon+Hughes-a0141314237
- ^ http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article156117.ece
- ^ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/jul/29/conservatives.alanduncan
- ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11115182
- ^ http://www.thefreelibrary.com/I%27m+gay+too+says+a+sixth+Labour+MP.-a0109837922
- ^ http://archive.burytimes.co.uk/1998/6/11/799186.html
- ^ http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_headline=it-s-such-a-shock---but-men-think-they-can-get-away-with-it-these-days---mother-in-law-georgina-&method=full&objectid=17992356&siteid=115875-name_page.html
- ^ http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/06/gay-paper-cabinet-sun