Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 17
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Negative DYK hooks and the BLP policy
- 2024 RfA review, phase II
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flight School (Mixtape)[edit]
- Flight School (Mixtape) (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 mixtape with little media coverage of substance. Apparently highly rated by 2 non-notable websites (hiptics.com + datpiff.com); the only review I could find was on rapreviews.com. Prod removed without comment. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails Wp:NALBUMS pretty handily. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 18 February 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) 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Dreams[edit]
- Mike Dreams (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 appears to be quite questionable Eeekster (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there is one new interview in the "alternative weekly newspaper" City Pages that might make this worth reconsidering, but one interview in a local industry tabloid is still far from enough to make this artist pass WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. And I for one am having enough with this continued blatant promotion. Once this topic gains encyclopedic notability, let someone else start the article, please. Amalthea 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete – There's almost enough to consider it notable, but right now it still doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. The AV club reference is pretty misleading, actually. Actual coverage there would probably make it notable, but that's just a show announcement and most of those are just handed to publications by the artist's management. No indication that the content on there was actually written by Onion staff. XXX antiuser eh? 01:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some additional internal references have been added and things I believe could be considered as "promotion" has been removed. (Minnesotamusic (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Has anyone had a chance to review some of the cleaning up and revisions of the new? (Minnesotamusic (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.72.10 (talk) [reply]
- Those additional sources are either unreliable or only trivially mention the topic, if at all. Amalthea 19:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Has anyone had a chance to review some of the cleaning up and revisions of the new? (Minnesotamusic (talk) 13:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.72.10 (talk) [reply]
- Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC. --Quartet 19:44, 22 February 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. Black Kite 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John_Kokal[edit]
- John_Kokal (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 deleted, non-notable. Bevinbell 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the sources are both blogs and there is lots of commentary that is not cited. I can't find the archive of the previous deletion discussion, if anyone can and post a link would be appreciated. Bevinbell 23:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second time I have attempted to put an entry for John Kokal up on Wikipedia. The last entry was deleted because it was identified as not applicable to Wikipedia, although I was not told the precise reason why.
While this issue is very personal to me, I have tried to write the entry in the Wikipedia form.
Since 2003, most of the articles regarding John Kokal has disappeared from the Internet. Most of the articles that are left are of a conspiratorial nature, which talk about John Kokal and in the same breath talk about how the 9/11 Attacks were done by the US Government itself. For many people it is hard to tell if John Kokal's suicide is the product of a bunch of conspiracy nuts or is a valid subject for being chronicled in a historical medium such as Wikipedia.
I would like at this time to admit that I worked with John Kokal at the Department of State. I have tried to keep original research about him to a minimum in my article. Additionally, and unfortunately, I actually was leaving work about 5 minutes after he jumped off the building. I saw the body down in the stairwell as Diplomatic Security rushed to contain the scene. I continue to have nightmares about it to this day.
To this day, no one has satisfactorily explained to me why he committed suicide. We were quite grief stricken in the weeks after his death as well as very busy because of what was happening in the Middle East. Eventually, John Kokal became an unperson who none of us talked about.
I would very much like this entry to stay in place. I would hope that other people who have facts or information concerning the events surrounding John Kokal's suicide could post them on this Wikipedia Entry, perhaps on the talk page like I have done.
Why is remembering John Kokal so important? When it comes to events such as the the shootings at Columbine and Virginia Tech there is a huge amount of information concerning why these events took place. If John Kokal's suicide was due to mental illness and/or stress at work, I think this information should be made public so that future employes can learn from this horrible experience. Also, if his suicide was due to mental illness, I think it might be important to know what type of illness it was so that people who have that specific illness think twice about applying for a job in the Intelligence Community or perhaps any position in the Department of State.
My fear is that there is a large file in the depths of Diplomatic Security that has all the facts concerning what happened. Yet, for some reason, it has not been released.
Again, I hope that the entry will be kept as a testament to John Kokal, who was a good man.Bf20204 (talk) 04:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (Redacted) I must also add that Bevinbell just belittled me on my own talk page, telling me to "not attempt to out me, use sockpuppets, or do other odd things as folks will be watching your edits to make sure this stays an encyclopedia." I never outted Bevinbell in the first place and in light of my history with the Department of State I think that the using "sockpuppets" remark and the "other odd things" remark is demeaning and discriminatory. I sincerely hope that people of a higher level in Wikipedia than Bevinbell keep the John Kokal entry up on wikipedia and watch Bevinbell closely.Bf20204 (talk) 04:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject is not notable. No Ghits in any category. Reference cited in the article is not reliable, apparently focused on conspiracy theories. Kokal's death, while tragic, is not in itself noteworthy nor is Wikipedia for memorials of friends and loved ones. (GregJackP (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- CommentI just wanted to add an update that I found a reputable news source that did a story on John Kokal, TF1, which is French. I think the slam dunk for keeping the John Kokal entry in Wikipedia would be the Washington Post Obituary. I'm going to attempt to look for it and may actually spend my own funds to get it from the Washington Post's archives. The references that I made to DS calling John Kokal "The HST Jumper" comes from some documents that I received from a FOIA Request. I don't know how I can site them on Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated.Bf20204 (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GregJackP, according to your thesis for deletion, shouldn't wikipedia also delete Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, the Binghamton shootings, J. Clifford Baxter, and David Kelly (weapons expert)? Actually, I think the David Kelly comparison is the most applicable as John Kokal and David Kelly both worked on the same topic. David Kelly, who worked for the UK'sMinistry of Defence, committed suicide because he worked on Iraqi War Intelligence Issues. Why is the David Kelly wikipedia entry allowed to stay on Wikipedia while John Kokal's is not? Bf20204 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My dad had an obit in a major paper also, but he wasn't notable enough to rate a Wiki article. An obit does not grant one notability. It may support it, but not notable by itself. We are also not evaluating the Columbine shooters, or the V-Tech shooter, et al, we are evaluating Kokal. If you don't think the others should be kept, Prod or AfD them - but I won't change my mind over what other entries are out there. Look at the standards. That's what I'm looking at. Posting the FOIA request could be in violation of WP:NOR by using primary sources to draw your conclusions. You have stated that this is very personal to you - both here and in the article's talk page. Take a deep breath and step back. There is one brief mention in TFI - do you have anything else? Show me something. As it is currently, I don't believe he's notable, but I would be happy to be proved wrong. (GregJackP (talk) 09:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- CommentAlso, why is it ok to keep the Jason Altom entry while deleting the John Kokal entry? Or what about the R. Budd Dwyer entry, the Dawn-Marie Wesley suicide entry, the Suicide of Ryan Halligan entry, and the Hanadi Jaradat entry? If the John Kokal entry is deleted, I can't help but feel that it would be an affirmation to a double standard on wikipedia and a Pro-U.S. Government Bias. I also hope that the person that decides whether or not to keep the John Kokal entry has not in any way ever worked for the United States Government. Bf20204 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if Wikipedia accepts the BBC television news taken from the Internet as gospel, then it can accord the French TFI with the same frespect. There's your reference. There seems to be an almost inescapable fact that a massive media clean up has nevertheless been undertaken regarding this incident, making the search for further citations extremely difficult. The incident is important. The irony is, that this very lack of sources makes this article a common sense exception to the rule that verifiability not truth proves notability - and almost every Wikipedia guidline or pilicy concludes with saying that it's not written in stone.--Kudpung (talk)
Another issue which is of a tertiary nature is that I'm pretty sure that John Kokal and Kendall Myers worked with each other at some point. If Kendall Myers had figured out that John Kokal had some sort of mental problem, he might have related it to the Cubans who then might have related it to God knows who. I worked on the same floor but in a different area as both of them, as I didn't work in INR.Bf20204 (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Stay on track: Please remember that this is a debate about the eligibility of the the article on Wikipedia and is neither a discussion about the subject matter nor a discussion about other other articles that may have been kept or deleted. Please remember also to use correct AfD page format when adding keeps, deletes, or comments. Thank you.--Kudpung (talk) 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sorry for getting a little bit too emotional on this page. This is something that I have been privately dealing with for many years. I think I've said everything that I need to say regarding this entry. I would hope that advocates on wikipedia that are in favor of free speech will take up the fight to keep this entry active. Thank you. Bf20204 (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article does not meet the guidelines for inclusion. Sad though his death may be, simply dying does not make a person notable. The stated aims of Bf20204 - to help people with mental illness or stress at work - are noble aims, but do not fit within an encyclopedia. Notability has not been demonstrated. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sympathy to the author, but Wikipedia is not a memorial site. He died, his death was briefly reported, there are mutterings on conspiracy-theory blogs - this simply does not meet our notability requirements. The argument about keeping it to warn people against applying for jobs in intelligence really does not stand up, nor do the What about article X ones. JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 24 February 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) 03:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Krishna AchutaRao[edit]
- Krishna AchutaRao (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 can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use a bit of initiative and check Krishna Achuta Rao? Opbeith (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. You can't have tried very hard because GS gives cites of 172, 155, 65,34, 10.. h index = 5. Still not enough for WP:Prof #1 though. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
CommentDelete. We don't need to try really hard, because he conveniently lists all his publications. A claim to notability would probably be based on his top three papers "Penetration of human-induced warming into the world's oceans" (172 cites, but he was not lead author), "An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project" (155 cites, but he was not lead author), and "ENSO simulation in coupled ocean-atmosphere models: are the current models better?" (65 cites), if these have received news coverage. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on the lack of significant coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 06:35, 21 February 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) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
40 Pra (song)[edit]
- 40 Pra (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)
Delete because as per WP:NM, songs in albums are generally not notable in themselves. I first PRODed this article; an anonymous editor deprodded it two days later, leaving no edit summary or talk page message. The article only has primary sources (official website and MySpace), and I can find no reliable source that demonstrates the notability of this song (checked the top 100 Google results). (I will be leaving a message for the IP that contested the PROD.) PleaseStand (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no notability, unlikely redirect term due to (song) at end. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication that this song meets WP:NSONGS, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 16:04, 21 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kristin Nelson[edit]
- Kristin Nelson (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 as an actor or painter. A simple Google search comes up with many trivial sources, but I have been unable to find even one reliable secondary source that does more than mention her name in the context of discussing something else. She has, it appeared, appeared in a number of TV shows. There are no sources that would indicate that as an actor she meets the notability criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER - her acting roles do not appear to be significant, she does not appear to have a "cult following" and there is nothing to suggest that she has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". As a painter, which is actually the main focus of the article, is no evidence that she is notable enough under the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE. It does not appear that her work has won awards, been widely written about or "is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per notability under WP:CREATIVE RobertMel (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain I've known and followed Kristin Nelson's career since the 1960s and am quite surprised to find any discussion about this. She may not be particularly notable for her current life, but my recollection is that an awful lot of people knew who she was in the 1960s and 1970s. Her family connections are not enough by themselves, but add supporting weight. Monkeyzpop (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I had never heard of her, but when I first started looking online, my first impression was that there should be enouugh to meet the notability requirements. but, despite an extensive serach, i really couldn't find any valid sources... Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Google News Archive and Google Books. Some material is behind pay walls etc, but I didn't have any problem finding sources to add to the article (and there are more as yet unused). Ty 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I had never heard of her, but when I first started looking online, my first impression was that there should be enouugh to meet the notability requirements. but, despite an extensive serach, i really couldn't find any valid sources... Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In addition to what the nom has written, subject fails the most basic general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how that can be the case. There are numerous mentions in Google News Archive and Google Books. Ty 16:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Monkeyzpop added some references to the article. I have linked these to URLs, where I could find such links. In my opinion, they don't provide the weight of evidence needed to establish notability - the name of the unlinked newspaper article might be helpful. Wikipeterproject (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable person who interacted with notable people throughout her life. Sourced, referenced, I don't see a problem...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous sources testifying to notability far in excess of WP:N requirements. Ty 16:12, 24 February 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 WP:NACD CTJF83 GoUSA 22:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pearl necklace (sexuality)[edit]
- Pearl necklace (sexuality) (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. We all know what this is, but that doesn't necessarily make it an encyclopedic topic. The photograph of semen dripping down a girl's neck (of unknown age) is also not particularly helpful to this project or the reader. JBsupreme (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Substantively, this might be a close call, not because of the sexual content, but because the article does border on a simple dictionary definition. However, this issue was thoroughly debated in an AfD last year and the decision was made to keep. Now, the same nominator has initiated yet another AfD. I'm not sure anything significant in the topic or Wikipedia standards has changed since then, so I would rely on the recently reached consensus and keep this article. Dlduncan2 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) — Dlduncan2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Facial (sex act) of which this seems a special case. The term is notable but there is simply not enough content available to make a fully fledged article. TerriersFan (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect as per TerriersFan above. ViridaeTalk 02:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep could probably be expanded and better sourced, but is a fairly notable term for an obviously common phenomenon. is there a clinical/sexological term for ejaculating outside the body on the partners skin? cum shot is the generic slang, for an act that doesnt seem to have a "proper" term for it. thus, while this too is a "slangy" word, its also the only word specifying this particular act, so it may deserve an article based on that. i would not be opposed to alternately merging this with facial, but there is a bit of difference. it does no harm to keep this as an article, as i see it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is redundant. We already have Facial (sex act) as an article. JBsupreme (talk) 05:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Meets the gng. Could use some expansion and more sourcing, but in no way is it non-notable or deserving of deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-Per Dlduncan2 above. Seems to be discussed once a year, and each time an overwhelming number of people support keeping it, and a few people who seem to be offended by it try to delete it. Atom (talk) 04:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per last AfD outcome.--Milowent (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Nominator asserts: "We all know what this is, but that doesn't necessarily make it an encyclopedic topic." That is only half-right. We shouldn't keep any article that is based solely on what someone thinks they know, or what they think everyone knows. We expect articles to have authoritative reliable, verifiable sources. And what if we have an article that does neutrally dite good authoritative reliable, verifiable sources -- should we ever delete that article becasue someone thinks the topic is "obvious"? Nothing should be considered too "obvious" to be covered here.
- Several years ago there was a discussion over the deletion of the article on the famous phrase, "There is a sucker born every minute". Proponents of merge and deletion kept insisting the article should be deleted, or merged to PT Barnum, because it was "common knowledge" that PT Barnum coined that term. It is a weakness of common knowledge -- it is often dead wrong. This was an instance when the deletion and merge fans were dead wrong. I spent some time with google, seeing how this widely used phrase was used. I found about half the time the writers who used the phrase never mentioned PT Barnum. And I found that while about half of the articles that did mention PT Barnum unambiguously asserted PT Barnum said it, the rest of the writers who mentioned Barnum were more careful, and merely said something qualified, like, "widely attributed to PT Barnum". In my personal opinion the authors who were lazy, or careless, or unimaginative -- who simply asserted as if it were an established fact that PT Barnum coined the phrase had written weak articles that were filled with bad reasoning and other questionable assumptions.
- In this particular case I strongly suspect our nominator is wrong that everyone already knows enough about this particular phrase. I am like the girl mentioned in the article, who had never heard of the phrase before it was introduced to me through the Sex and the City episode covered in the article.
- I remind our nominator that what is "common knowledge" is culturally relative. Any brit who moves to America will experience instances when they don't know something that is considered common knowledge in the USA. That brit will find things they think is common knowledge in the UK, that yanks are ignorant of. And vice versa. There are lots of English speakers, or people who have learned English as a second language, who don't know what our nominator has asserted "everyone knows".
- I remind our nominator of what Will Rogers said about "common knowledge". He said: "It is not what we don't know that gets us in trouble. It is what we know that just ain't so."
- Providing good references for things sometimes regarded as "common knowledge" is an excellent thing for an encyclopedia to do. What is "common knowledge" is mutable. What is "common knowledge" is mutable.
- I remind our nominator that many of the English wikipedia's readers are not native speakers of English. Censoring our coverage of important idiomatic phrases, our of simple prudery is a terrible disservice to our readers who are not native speakers of English.
- I remind our nominator that the wikipedia is not censored.Geo Swan (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have split feelings about this. Perhaps the depiction of the semen could be disturbing for some readers, on the other hand, the text seems to be fairly correct and objective. Because of its open nature, Wikipedia censorship is self-regulated, coming only from the community. Under this reality, we certainly take the risk of the relativism. For a religious man or woman, or ever for a father of family, who wants to protect his or her sons from this kind of sexual depiction, this could be quite negative and disgusting. For a secular man, or a rationalist, this article is a mere expression of the society itself, hence it should not be removed by moral concerns because "the good and the evil" is just "a matter of personal taste". Having said that, my personal position in this matter is that sexual depiction like this one is inadequate for our children and sensible persons. Perhaps a password-based or proof-of-age barrier can be implemented to protect children and persons concerned about pornography and indecent content in this facility. Please forgive my english, I'm from Argentina. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wild tango (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per previous AfDs, comments above, etc. This may not interest all our readers but few articles do. The topic remains notable, and I easily found 600+ searchable online books and hundreds of Google Scholar Ghits so sources are certainly available. That the right editor(s) haven't already written this into a good article is not a reason for deletion. There really isn't one IMHO. And the image has been wikibattled over already many times resulting in keeping it. Images are used on Wikipedia because they have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject. An image helps illustrate a subject more efficiently than any amount of words could. Images should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, images should be used in a similar spirit. Wikipedia is not censored and previous discussions have supported that the current image isn't pornographic and is pretty much what one would expect in a photograph of this activity. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure a quality article, and complete coverage of its subject matter. It is placed where the lede image is placed at the top of the article. Efforts to move or otherwise mask this image have been rejected by the community although individual users can modify their own web browsers to mask images that they wish. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. -- Banjeboi 23:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I already commented in the last AfD. I said how the expression appeared in a university press book in a study about prostitutes in New Zealand. I also pointed at a source saying that its appeareance in "sex and the city" had made the expression reach mainstream sex. The google books search above contains lots of false positives, so I'll point directly to a few more books:
- appearance at a novel from Cynthia Heimel [1]
- listed in a reference guide for pornography[2] (the author is Joseph W. Slade, I'm not sure if he is famous but he published another book on pornography on John Hopkins University Press [3], the book itself was reviewed very favorably in the Journal of Sex Research [4] "Slade's work is a major contribution to the study of pornography, and it marks the arrival of pornography studies as a legitimate field of scholarship.").
- appearing in the quoted testimonial of a female teen, in a chapter about how teens learn sex from TV from series like sex and the city, in a book that divulgues what teens really think about sex, written by journalist Sabrina Weill [5]
- Wendy Chapkis, Professor of Women & Gender Studies and Sociology in University of Southern Maine[6] lists it as one of the safe sex techniques used by prostitutes around the world[7].
- A few more source can most probably be found. It would be very strange if wikipedia didn't have an article on this expression. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Only arguments for deletion are Wikipedia:I just don't like it. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Banjeboi found plenty of books mentioning this. Keep next year, and the year after that too, since anything that's been nominated four times already, is sure to keep getting nominated. Dream Focus 21:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep notable, has sources, and as mentioned the only argument against seems to be that it is of an objectionable topic. And as this is the 4th try at deleting can we put some sort of block on it being nominated again in the future? Surely the first two tries were enough.Camelbinky (talk) 21:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is not censored. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or (2nd choice) Merge to facial (sex act) or mammary intercourse, but do not delete. I'm not convinced that a whole lot more can be said about this topic, but I could be wrong. There are certainly some reliable sources out there, so it may be expanded, but at any rate there's enough there in my opinion to justify an article and to demonstrate it's more than a dictionary definition. It presumably can be independent of either facial (sex act) or mammary intercourse, so it'd be better in it's own article than merged. The picture is something that I don't want to look at every day, and would not want children to see, BUT it certainly is helpful to the reader in understanding the topic, and Wikipedia is not censored. If the nominator has serious concerns that the subject of the photo is under age, this isn't the place to bring them.--BelovedFreak 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge
somewhereto Facial (sex act). I don't think the nom is all that convincing. My own reasoning, though, is that this article is little more than a WP:DICDEF. If there were some significant expansion that showed the historical significance of this particular act, or something, that'd be different. As it stands there's just not enough here to warrant a separate article. As for those saying the article could be expanded, I say in the meantime it should be merged until the content is expanded thusly. It can always be split off again once there's adequate material to warrant a separate article. Equazcion (talk) 19:53, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Carrerow[edit]
- Jack Carrerow (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. No reliable sources given or found to establish notability. There's no doubt he exists, has written for shows and perhaps a few magazines, and has an AM radio show in a small market. However, nothing showing Carreow meets WP:BIO. tedder (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. No doubt his career may be notable, but if there's no third part sources, it's a no-go, and that goes double for a BLP. Steven Walling 21:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 22:59, 17 February 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) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vinicio De Bortoli[edit]
- Vinicio De Bortoli (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)
Claims to have priority on technology used in various devices (e.g. Mindball game). I couldn't find anything out there besides a patent filing (cited in article) and his own extensive self-promotion. The article itself is a verbatum google-translation of the Italian Wikipedia article. Mangoe (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources found to establish notability of individual or his claims. Italian WP article is also tagged as unsourced. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Independent sources not forthcoming. These are required per WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only source is a patent application, and that's not close to enough. Looie496 (talk) 00:48, 19 February 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) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proximion[edit]
- Proximion (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. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found this: "Proximion Honored as Global 100 Award Winner by Red Herring" ([8]). Not enough but might contribute to notability. PanchoS (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Red Herring awards does not have an article. A non-notable company gets a non-notable award? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Note that this is a business that makes filtering optical fibers. "Top 100" lists generally do not confer notability; by definition each such list contains 99 other businesses that may not otherwise be notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 18 February 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) 00:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mountain Wrestling Association[edit]
- Mountain Wrestling 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)
Contested prod. I tried finding sources for this but failed. I got a total of around 150 google hits and not all of them are about this group. Ridernyc (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
The MWA is the oldest running (40 years) and most prestigious wrestling promotion in the state of Kentucky, with many legends having worked there through the years. The MWA is a part of Kentucky heritage and its history. The source links for the company are as follow:
Also, the MWA is a member of the Kentuckiana Wrestling Promoters Alliance at the following link:
Also, Spike TV's TNA Wrestling stars Chris Harris and Abyss are former MWA Heavy Weight Champions.
I also did an Advanced Search for Mountain Wrestling Association on Google and pulled up over 3,700 hits. While not all were in relation to the MWA, many were, including references to the MWA on Fox TV. Here is a link the original news coverage footage: [Fox TV Coverage]
I feel the page should be left up, as that I will work more on the page as you require. Any help is appreciated. I have seen other promotions with less references and not nearly as much rich history here on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time.
KEEP
--Myrik Justiciar (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not an argument make. Second, the MWA does not inherit notability from notable former champions, see WP:ORG. The sources besides Fox are not mainstream sources and do not otherwise clearly establish themselves as reliable WP:SOURCES. Lack of mainstream news results indicates non-notability. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Contested prod? Ugh, what a broken system prod is, in every which way. Yes, delete this, burn it with fire. It lacks anything in the way of notability, failing GNG due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:ORG from what I can tell. Nikki♥311 22:15, 18 February 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 Pullin Television. Kevin (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Pullin[edit]
- Stephen Pullin (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 was tagged for speedy deletion. There seems to be some notability for this person, however is it enough? Taking to AFD for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As one of the head creative minds behind the Pinks franchise on the Speed (TV channel), Stephen Pullin deserves to be included in Wikipedia, especially because of his recent partnership with the NHRA to create the new nationwide racing enterprise NHRA Unleashed[1] debuting this year. Shorester (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / redirect to Pullin Television where the individual has his notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. I can't see any decent sources about this person, just the show and network. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 18 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vereniging MARTIJN[edit]
- Vereniging MARTIJN (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 organization's claim to notability seems to derive from a single incident, in which they were briefly in the news while being sued for the removal of pictures of the Royal family's children. While the organization exists for pro-pedophilia advocacy, there is no real independent evidence of their significance outside of primary sources like their website. I have not found any major profiles of them in the news or scholarly papers. Dominic·t 11:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough coverage to meet WP:N. Will Beback talk 16:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepVeren. Martijn is a long established institution that may now be the only existing remnant of the above-ground legal (non-lawbreaking) paedophile movement/community that flourished in northwest Europe in the 1970s and early 80s. It's an exceptional case of a community that is handled with an unusual degree of silence. The question is whether Wikipedia wants to emulate this politically motivated silence. A true encyclopedia should be unbiased enough to deal with objects that are subjected to sociopolitical silencing campaigns. The silence is two-sided - mainstream journalism mostly does not want to publicize a legal paedophile organization, and the members of the organization for the most part only survive in their communities by maintaining a low profile. An encyclopedia should as much as possible not take part in the political exertions peculiar to its time in history, and should recognize when silence is artificial. There is sufficient documentation to show that this organization exists and has the status claimed for it. It is always a mystery to me why such motions for deletion in Wikipedia are so often put forward by editors ignoring the content of the pages in other languages. "I have not found any major profiles of them in the news" - what about the article at http://www.nieuwsblad.be/Article/Detail.aspx?ref=hv&articleID=G3LEB5K9 cited in the Dutch article? This is an article of 1218 words - sufficiently major? True, some of the links in the Dutch article are for web news stories that are now deleted - does this qualify as lack of sourcing or are the articles retrievable in a web archive? Some work needs to be done to bring this information forward again, but deletion of the existing English article is a step in the wrong direction. Kristoforchristiaan (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Dutch article appears to have more information, and from what I can tell, there's enough notability to the incident that it could be renamed and refocused if necessary, but not deleted outright. I'm adding an expansion/translation request to the page. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In particular this source from the Dutch page gives pretty substantial coverage and is nothing to do with the royal family incident. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is one of very few pro-pedophilia organizations in the world and has been covered by the media at least all over Europe, not even restricted to this single affair, which already constitutes notability. PanchoS (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Was very widely covered in the media here in The Netherlands. The article seems pretty balanced and well-sourced as well for a low-traffic article. Smocking (talk) 21:58, 18 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Black sitcom[edit]
- Black sitcom (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 going with delete it on the grounds of WTF? AmericanGuru (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (I don't know what I'm doing with the procedure to go about this...so bear with me...but it needed to be said.)[reply]
- Fixed the discussion page. Keep but delete the example farm. The term does seem to be used widely in the media. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo the WTF; but have a question: is this an accepted industry term for a genre of deliberately-targeted programming? pablohablo. 20:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep': Before asking WTF? it might have been worth checking the outside world - this is a socially significant genre which is a subject of extensive discussion and references are easy to find: [9][10][11][12], not to mention checking Wikipedia for Black sitcoms, an existing Wikipedia category. Opbeith (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the items in the Category:Black_sitcoms also included in the List of sitcoms. Sounds to me like a case of Overcategorization. Hmmm I can see several obvious ones that would be missing, Category:Mexican_sitcoms,Category:French-Canadian_sitcoms etc etc etcExit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just demolished the article and started from scratch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or rename; the concept has been noted by established authors, and the topic merits discussion. If the article was retitled African-Americans on television (or something) more genres where blacks made inroads on TV could be covered, which would be a good thing (I am thinking specifically of The Hazel Scott Show on DuMont and The Nat King Cole Show on NBC, which doesn't even have its own article, sadly). Firsfron of Ronchester 03:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Indeed. Including Hazel Scott, which I linked to above. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps those could be separate articles. The term "black sitcom" seems widely used enough that it could cover just the sitcoms, and still serve as a companion to an article on the role of blacks on TV in general. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, separate articles. Opbeith (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who is up for writing an article on blacks on U.S. TV in general? Firsfron of Ronchester 13:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Keep: Its a well known genre, is the "WTF?" because it recognizes race?--Milowent (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Difficult to understand otherwise. There are real worlds out there. Opbeith (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WTF no. 2 (mine) was because this is a term I have never heard used, nor had I read it before happening upon this article. However I recognise that I only inhabit a small part of the English-speaking world, and am not fluent in TV jargon, hence my question. pablohablo. 10:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- pablo, that's understandable, but this is why it's important for Wikipedia editors to have an awareness and understanding of the real world in which other people are living and using the articles. This isn't a hermetic, abstract universe. Opbeith (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having difficulty understanding what exactly it was in my posts to this page that would lead you to believe that I had no "awareness and understanding of the real world". pablohablo. 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not being aware that there may be grounds for concern when someone says "I'm going with delete it on the grounds of WTF?" in relation to an article with the title "Black sitcom" is a starting point - and then remarking "I echo the WTF". Assuming this was said innocently it still suggests you're not too familiar with some significant social issues in the US. I don't live in the US yet I'm aware that the black sitcom is a subject associated with social and political controversy. Opbeith (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for clearing that up. You are, of course, free to assume whatever you like. What I am "not too familiar with" is the US television industry, which is why I asked the question that I did, which then apparently led you to assume any number of things. Now if you could restrict yourself to the article in question rather than speculating about my state of social consciousness, I'd appreciate it. pablohablo. 20:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, as long as you're happy to refrain from using the expression abbreviated to WTF in a context where that expression conveys insensitive disrespect. Opbeith (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Insensitive disrespect"? Is that what it conveys to you? If you want to continue this bizarre analysis I suggest you do it at my talk page rather than here. It is becoming a distraction to other editors who may read it and themselves think (however respectfully or sensitively), "WTF?" pablohablo. 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, not being aware that there may be grounds for concern when someone says "I'm going with delete it on the grounds of WTF?" in relation to an article with the title "Black sitcom" is a starting point - and then remarking "I echo the WTF". Assuming this was said innocently it still suggests you're not too familiar with some significant social issues in the US. I don't live in the US yet I'm aware that the black sitcom is a subject associated with social and political controversy. Opbeith (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some more sources and expanded slightly, there was more coverage than I even realized when I !voted keep before.--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having difficulty understanding what exactly it was in my posts to this page that would lead you to believe that I had no "awareness and understanding of the real world". pablohablo. 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- pablo, that's understandable, but this is why it's important for Wikipedia editors to have an awareness and understanding of the real world in which other people are living and using the articles. This isn't a hermetic, abstract universe. Opbeith (talk) 10:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & redir to Sitcom. It is a sub-genre of that topic. It is (currently) not excessively long to merge with the parent and would explain better the parent topic when shown allong side any other sub-genres that gets a stub (Thats what this article currently is, really). It would also start to provide the Parent Article with References (of which it has none). Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating Keep:I have expanded with specific reference to the significant features of the black sitcom as a genre/scoial phenomenon. I am not American and I am not black, so my expansion could do with being checked and probably reformulated by someone who is both of those and so has a closer understanding of the genre. Opbeith (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep And I mean keep the original version [14] before someone decided to hit it with a ten pound hammer. Everything on the list links to a Wikipedia article. No sense having a separate article for the list, when it fits fine in this article. Dream Focus 13:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added back in the List of all notable Black sitcoms. [15] There can be discussion on the talk page if anyone believes that should be split into its own article. I think it looks fine just there. Dream Focus 13:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoops. Forgot to mention the reason it should be kept. Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [16] See how many news sources call it a Black sitcom? Google book search and Google scholar search have results also. Dream Focus 13:24, 18 February 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) 03:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unmistakable (Jo Dee Messina album)[edit]
- Unmistakable (Jo Dee Messina album) (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)
Still too soon, methinks. No tracks confirmed; the latest single still hasn't even charted. This album has been on the shelf for a very long time, and has gotten pushed back several times.
It was kept via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmistakable in October 2007 because "I'm Done" was still on the charts, but the song fell from the charts a couple weeks later and the album got pushed back. Then, it was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmistakable (2nd nomination) only three months later after I found a reliable source stating that the album was canceled entirely due to issues with the label.
The only sources I can find now mention only the slated release date and almost nothing else; source 3 in the article is a particularly questionable blog citation. What little information there is can easily be placed in "That's God," which has received enough attention for a decent-sized article despite being highly unlikely to chart. Country Standard Time said that she's working with Paul Worley. This article from the same site gives the release date and talks some about "That's God," but it focuses more on the song than the album.
Given that this album has been in the hopper since mid-2007 and still not released, and that one source from 2008 said it was canceled, I have every reason to believe that Unmistakable will never be released, and therefore, will never be notable enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Way too soon and judging by Curb's history with this album, it may never see release date. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amy Dalley approves. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Detete WP:CRYSTAL; it's too soon for an article. Eric444 (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete ^^^ same as Eric444. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 21:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Its too early, Jo Dee even tweeted recently (last week I think) that her career was on hold again, because the person in charge of radio promotion for Curb Records left. I doubt "That's God" will chart at all now, and if it does, not successful enough to get this album out. I do disagree however, that this will never be released, because unlike Amy Dalley they have a reason to keep Jo Dee around. Jo Dee was a prominent front-runner from about 1998 to 2002, and "My Give a Damn's Busted" proved that with the right song she could re-establish herself at radio after an absence. So, I think Curb is going to hold onto her. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:00, 19 February 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. Sandstein 07:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PHOSFOS[edit]
- PHOSFOS (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 research and development project. Being funded by the European Commission does not make it automatically notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another crystal-gazing and largely unreadable article about a research project funded by the European government. There is an offsite project dedicated to injecting articles about these projects. When any results come from this research, it may become notable, but more likely will still belong in an article about the technology developed rather than the project itself. And until that technology actually exists.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The technology may be a long way away, but the project exists today, and the article is about the project. And references are available to establish notability. See this search. This resource may also be helpful. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There seems to be lack of third party RS establishing notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Optics.org appears to be independent of the project, and has conducted an interview with the lead researcher on this, but it's all at WP:CRYSTAL level right now. Pcap ping 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and restore when (if ever) project succeeds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak Keep, per WP:NOTPAPER, with removal or alteration of WP:CRYSTAL content. Under ideal conditions it would be merged with a more comprehensive article on touch sensors or on use of embedded fibers to sense material stresses (as they aren't the only ones using this approach), but finding a merge target would require more time than I'm able to put in at the moment. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Even if it's not at the Pikachu level of notability it's a seven letter subject starting with P. Seriously this is a high-tech collaborative R&D project which is part of the Seventh Framework Programme - ie already identified as a key EU industrial R&D programme. It has a budget over three years of 2,475,569 eurosfields)[17] - not massive but reasonably substantial. It involves various prominent European universities and other institutions in research with a mutliplicity of potentially important applications in civil engineering and medicine (not to mention other more frivolous [[18][19]. Industry newsletter cover includes http://www.fos-s.be/projectsadv/be-en/1/detail/item/604/cat/19/ http://rdmag.com/News/2008/10/Optical-foils-could--be-basis-for-artificial-skin/ http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=36120 http://www.opticalfibersensors.org/news/be-en/143/detail/item/1305/ http://www.ist-world.org/ProjectDetails.aspx?ProjectId=5959e74fdec54b57859fe30988c9add5&SourceDatabaseId=9900e74f1158484985c6bf0d2aa3cc2a http://optics.org/cws/article/research/34671 Is it really being said that anyone who wants to find out about PHOSFOS should find out that it's not good enough for Wikipedia? Does Wikipedia inhabit the real world? Opbeith (talk) 22:45, 17 February 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 West Lancashire (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2010s. with no prejudice to recreation if he wins the election —SpacemanSpiff 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damon Noone[edit]
- Damon Noone (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 singer and politician. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:POLITICIAN Pontificalibus (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. The articles subject has only 2 claims to notability, one as a parliamentary candidate, this however fails WP:POLITICIAN. Secondly as the brother of a famous musician, this also fails as notability is NOT INHERITED. With currently no other claim to notability this really has to be a straight delete. - Galloglass 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of notability. RobertMel (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Firstly, members of the public wishing to make an informed opinion about the candidates in this constituency need thefacts about different candidates to ensure a fair election. If we only have articles (free promotion) about Incumbent politicians, then Wikipedia is showing bias, which I thought we were against. As the election is very close, the subject could soon be an MP and so definitely worthy of inclusion, plus I believe he is going to be releasing a new musical endeavour soon which will also make him more notable. If deletion is the final decision, can some elements of the article be included into the Peter noone article? Wordforge —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Non notable as musician. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails them all. JBsupreme (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:POLITICIAN, redirect to West Lancashire (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2010s. RayTalk 18:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. No notability asserted. Being a PPC does not make one notable. Martin451 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep until he has lost the election; if not redirect as suggested, so that he article can eaily be revived in the unlikely event of his winning. We will get a lot of these sort of articles in the lection run-up. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 21 February 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 GoUSA 21:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Volkan Canalioğlu[edit]
- Volkan Canalioğlu (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)
Claims notability as mayor of Turkish city of Trazbon. I could be wrong, but per WP:POLITICIAN, specifically item 2, he does not met WP:N. I have found no press coverage of him, although someone who knows Turkish may be able to find some refs. No other outstanding claims to fame. -Zeus-u|c 19:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The city in question is Trabzon. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If even "members of the [...] council of a major metropolitan city" are "likely to meet this criterion" by receiving significant press coverage (WP:POLITICIAN, 2) the standards can't be exceptionally high. Google News shows several articles in probably local newspapers Günebakış and Taka, others may find out more. PanchoS (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm surprised that the nominator found no press coverage, because all that you have to do is click on "news" in the search linked above to find 1,770 press articles. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 as a major local political figure who has received significant press coverage. These sources include major national publications such as Hürriyet, Zaman and Milliyet. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 19 February 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 Ethics of technology. —SpacemanSpiff 23:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technology Misuse in Schools[edit]
- Technology Misuse in Schools (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)
Essay-style article Supertouch (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge (redirect) with Academic dishonesty. There should be small things in here that could be merged into that article. but seems to be a branch of that pre-existing article anyway. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition if this is the route consensus decides, whatever was merged should be backed up with reliable sources, this article in its state is not backed up for verifiability. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be preferable if the article had anything solid to offer, but because it began essentially as an essay it is a collection of unreferenced opinions. However, if you think it would serve well as a simple redirect go for it.--Supertouch (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the key information is already in Academic dishonesty. A redirect would probably be the way to go. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be preferable if the article had anything solid to offer, but because it began essentially as an essay it is a collection of unreferenced opinions. However, if you think it would serve well as a simple redirect go for it.--Supertouch (talk) 20:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition if this is the route consensus decides, whatever was merged should be backed up with reliable sources, this article in its state is not backed up for verifiability. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to
Academic dishonestyEthics of technology.--Supertouch (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ethics of technology, no merge needed as there isn't much worth adding to the target article RadioFan (talk) 16:29, 21 February 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) 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sabastian roberts[edit]
- Sabastian roberts (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)
Claims to have released one album, failing WP:MUSIC. No WP:RS found. NOTE: if kept, will need to be moved + dabed to avoid conflict with Sebastien Roberts. -Zeus-u|c 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article reads as a promo piece, doesn't seem to be listed in allmusic at all, not finding evidence of significant coverage via Google; does not appear to pass notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Rlendog. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It-Is-What-It-Is was released in 2009 written by Thomas Heath (Tommy Tutone) and is available on itunes, Amazon, Napster, and other digital release. The new album will be released in the next few weeks, hense the importance of having this entry on wikipedia. We wanted users to be able to identify who Sabastian Roberts is as opposed to SEbastian Roberts when being googled. Please check itunes for independant artists when varifying claim for album release IT-IS-WHAT-IT-IS songs such as Burnin Hot Tonight, Chicken Fried Mistake, Reach Out and Touch Her, It-Is-What-It-Is by Sabastain Roberts (artist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboysangel (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Please check out Tunecore at http://www.emusic.com/album/SABASTIAN-ROBERTS-Dress-For-The-Rain-feat-Lorrie-Morgan-MP3-Download/11815320.html see also: Shark Records Sabastian Roberts is a Nashville recording artist that has recorded his new full length album 'It-Is-What-It-Is' in Nashville with the famous Tommy TuTone. ... www.sharkrecords.com/sr.htm - Cached FIRST SONG RELEASED ALREAD FROM UNWANTED MAN ON ITUNES at http://itunes.apple.com/gb/artist/sabastian-roberts/id326513261 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowboysangel (talk • contribs) 20:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Difficult to read, but "The new album will be released in the next few weeks, hense the importance of having this entry on wikipedia." falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL and indicates that this article is here purely for promotion. Wikipedia is NOT here for advertising your forthcoming album. An album by someone of note may - repeat, may - be of note before issue, but must be supported be reliable references. An album by someone of no particular note is not. Peridon (talk) 22:03, 18 February 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) 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Iz Sotelo Ramirez[edit]
- Iz Sotelo Ramirez (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)
Claims notability as single children's book author, but fails WP:AUTHOR. -Zeus-u|c 19:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found only this personal (self-written) profile and a short mention about his book, which is insufficient to demonstrate notability. The book (Bob the Lizard) was apparently reviewed in the Native Peoples Magazine, however, I can't find the review. In my opinion, Iz Sotelo Ramirez (or Iz Ramirez) fails WP:AUTHOR. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:29, 18 February 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 will be happy to undelete and incubate if anyone can find sources to improve it. JohnCD (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Jakowenko[edit]
- Adam Jakowenko (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 eligible for A7 as it claims significance. A web search turns up no WP:RS, and even if we did find sources to corroborate the claims, I don't think he would meet WP:N in any case. -Zeus-u|c 18:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with nom that this does not meet A7 but the article nonetheless shows no indication of rising to notability. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment note that nominator tagged this for A7 before I declined the speedy. Will look into more general notability issues. DES (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- neutral More sources are needed, although I had added a few. But if every assertion in the current article were supported by a published reliable source, i would consider this notable. I suspect that offline sources may exit, but can't prove it. Perhaps a case for incubation? DES (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to seem harsh, but isn't that like saying "If this person was written up in the NYT, they would be notable"? Of course they would. The thing is that he hasn't... -Zeus-u|c 21:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. I rather suspect that all these assertions are in fact true, and that most of them were probably covered in off-line sources. Not the NY times, but still reliable sources. Incubation would allow time for the article creator, or others in a position to find such sources, to do so with less time pressure than an AfD brings. Of course, it is well within policy for any admin, on request, to userfy even a deleted article if the creator or another interested editor intends to try to improv it to deal with the reasons for deletion. This is particularly true when the issue is notability. I am in effect suggesting doing that in advance. DES (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Meets A7, notwithstanding the WP:PUFF. THF (talk) 13:56, 24 February 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. NW (Talk) 20:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Sparnon[edit]
- Mark Sparnon (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 unsourced biography was prodded by User:Peripitus with the comment, "Unreferenced biographical article that makes a single assertion of notability that I cannot back up with a reliable source. Appears to be no sources discussing Mr Sparnon."
Prod was seconded by User:Graeme Bartlett, who added, "I cannot find any online sources either."
Prod was contested by User:DGG, who suggests, "What is asserted is sufficiently notable that a check for print sources would be required; Wikipedia is not limited to online."
I have therefore searched Proquest, LexisNexis Academic, and EBSCO Newspaper Source for print sources. I can find no recent (i.e. since 1985) news coverage for an engineer named Mark Sparnon. I do find several articles published between 2000-2003 on an Australian rower by that name. The rower, however, was 23 years old in 2003, while the subject of this article is said to have graduated from Adelaide University in 1979. Cnilep (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When notability is incomplete, you must delete. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-I have added a citation, a person who was cheif designer on the super airbus is imo wiki notable, looking around there was little to find but perhaps an expert on the subject could expand, or perhaps redirect or merge with the airbus article, seems strange that our notability guidelines support a porn actor that has been awarded a minor promotional award and yet the person who was chief designer on a massive project is on dodgy ground. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Several Google hits (e.g., [20]) give his position as "Chief of Design" which is not necessarily "Chief Designer." The U of Illinois Study Abroad brochure cited in the article seems to be the only one that is trumpeting him as "designer of the Airbus A380." With the lack of other corroborating citations I suspect he was "a" designer, probably in an administrative capacity since the Airbus380 article itself talks about 4 teams of designers. I also double checked Cnilep's research and got the same (non) results. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to lack significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, thus failing to show notability. I do not agree that working on some particular notable product, even as chief designer, automatically grants notability, which is not inherited. Edison (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- if he is the sole or main designer, but not if he is merely a member of a large team. Unfortunately the article Airbus A380 makes no reference to him, so that his role is unclear to me. However, I assume that the description "designer" implies that he is the main one, in which case he must be notable. I suspect that the relevant sources will be in the aviation trade press, and possibly only in French. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: According to Airbus A380, the plane was designed by four teams, and the early design work was by a group headed by Jean Roeder. The book cited as source at Airbus A380 (Norris and Wagner 2005) suggests that Roeder was the group's lead engineer; it does not seem to mention Sparnon by name. Cnilep (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, article exists since mid 2007, surely sources shold have been added by now. No sources, no notability, regardless how important the assertion sounds... WildHorsesPulled (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete clearly not notable with one ref everything else on the web is a mirror of the article, possible self promotion with a bit of imagination. If he had been chief of design his name would be well known, Robert Lafontan who as Senior Vice President Engineering is pretty close to being the chief engineer and he has won awards for it[21]. No mention of Sparnon. MilborneOne (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Although he may have been a designer, (not THE designer) the article still fails the WP:BIO due to not having material on the topic published by multiple independent reliable sources. One involved source does not establish notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- clearly fails our notability requirements. Reyk YO! 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the present discussion is the reason i deprodded--subjects with backgrounds of this sort need the wider exposure of an Afd, rather than the chance of someone looking at prods. I look forward to the remainder of the discussion--something has already been found, and something more might be. A few of the comments above, though, are quite unrealistic: "articles has existed for a while & someone would have found sources" is nor true, except for someone actually famous--our problem with BLPs is that the great majority of them do not get such attention. " When notability is incomplete, you must delete" is actually exactly the opposite--the balance of evidence to delete must be that the person is not notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of notability. Unsourced material can and should be challenged, and it is up to the people who add or defend the material to justify why it should be here. Reyk YO! 01:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to fail notability. Orderinchaos 19:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one source on him, a college website which he graduated from. It had links to others, but not him.Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources found mirror what I saw as well. All we have is an indication that he graduated and was somehow involved in the A380 design (Chief designer of which bit ? ). Robert Lafontan appears far more likely to have that title (see Spiegel Online). There are insufficient references to even determine if the sole sourced assertion is true - Peripitus (Talk) 02:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Norris and Wagner (2005) call Lafontan "A380 Senior Vice President for engineering". They call Roeder "Senior Vice President of product development and technology" and also "chief engineer", and they call Charles Champion "Senior Vice President of the A380 program". Each of these men seems to have a stronger claim of notability than Sparnon does. Cnilep (talk) 15:26, 19 February 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. Sorry, but neither being a candidate nor expectations of becoming notable are enough. Campaign manager, please read WP:BESTCOI. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Billy McCue[edit]
- Billy McCue (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)
Appears to fail WP:BIO, sources found are 1 and 2 and 3, none of which actually establish notability VernoWhitney (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, fails WP BIO and or N. No reliable sources listed. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails being significantly notable. Note that the creator has only one edit, and it was to create this page. -RobertMel (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, it's a WP:SPA with a WP:COI. I just tend to approach articles from a notability angle. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hi, I am David Dennis, Mr McCue's campaign manager. He is running for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, with a campaign web site at [1].
We recognize from a careful reading of your guidelines that political candidates get no special treatment on Wikipedia, just by being candidates.
We also recognize that at this point Mr McCue's situation does not satisfy notability guidelines because there are few impartial articles about his candidacy. However, he is linked to by sites listing current candidates for Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania. See for example [2] and [3].
Because of the nature of his embryonic campaign, we would like to request a stay of execution for a couple of weeks, if possible, because we believe he will rapidly satisfy your criteria of two outside references. He is already scheduled for an interview by the staff of pa2010.com, and we anticipate that more will follow. Assuming the stay of execution is granted, and nobody else beats us to it, we will monitor the press and add citations to his entry as needed. If the present article is deleted, we will start a new one when we can satisfy your criteria.
Assuming you are not planning an immediate deletion of the article, we will improve it as a basis for further editing by the community.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
David Dennis (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yet to become notability is no rational to keep an article. Also, please read WP:COI, given your statue as the campaign manager of Billy McCue I was under the impression from what you wrote that you are attempting to build a notability on the individuals behalf so that the existance of such an article is justified. -RobertMel (talk) 18:16, 18 February 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. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan McAllister[edit]
- Bryan McAllister (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)
Musician who may have recorded with 2 bands of questionable notability on Mediaskare Records. So far, I'm unable to find reliable sources to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Wine Guy~Talk 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:41, 17 February 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. —SpacemanSpiff 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English radical alliance[edit]
- English radical alliance (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 political party isn't notable. There's no mention of it in any reliable sources, it only gets mentioned on blogs and forums. (A prod was removed without explanation). Fences&Windows 17:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 17:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-existant WP:RS, fails WP:N. I am the initial prodder. -Zeus-u|c 17:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero coverage in independent reliable sources. At a push, might warrant a mention in the article on the Campaign for an English Parliament. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- This is clearly a fringe group. I expect we will find they are putting up a candidate or two at the election. If so, I think we will have to keep it until the General Election is over. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? You reckon they might stand in the general election, so we have to keep the article? See WP:CRYSTAL. And standing in elections, even if they do, does not confer automatic notability. Fences&Windows 00:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as the above comment, if they get as far as standing in the general election then they may be notable, but now that amounts to WP:CRYSTAL. No news ghits as you'd expect for any notable political party (especially given the right leaning press here).--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:47, 24 February 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. Black Kite 01:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naoman Alam[edit]
- Naoman Alam (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 has already been multiply created and deleted at Noman Alam. Now that page has been protected, it is popping up at this alternative spelling. All sources are primary, and there is no indication of notability. See google results for this alternative spelling: [22]. Combining the presumed primary with the spelling of a book doesn't help: [23]. I believe this may be a vanity piece, as the two individuals creating it (see User talk:Umanskaya and User talk:Alam82) are almost certainly the same person, given edit histories. An AfD gives the contributor the opportunity to verify notability. If WP:BIO cannot be verified by reliable sources, I think this should be deleted and salted as well. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find authoritative third party notability sources. Concur with salting as well if, indeed, this is a repeat attempt to include this biography. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability. Salt if necessary to prevent re-creation. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mundell music[edit]
- Mundell music (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)
My prod removed by an editor in his/her first edit, the prod rationale having been: "I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what 'Mundell Music' is; it seems to be some sort of one-man music promotion or music booking agency. In any event, Web searching turns up some evidence that the inn in which the performances take place may be notable, but I'm not seeing the independent secondary sources that would satisfy WP:CORP with regard to Mundell Music itself." I've searched the Web about as well as I can, and although I've found passing mentions and press releases (some of which have been picked up by local newspapers), I'm not seeing enough substantive and independent information about Mundell Music or David Mundell (this one, not the MP) to convince me that WP:CORP or WP:N are satisfied. Deor (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a mile away from passing WP:CORP, and very nearly a speedy candidate. The (extremely weak) claims of notability in the article are all by vague association only. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still confused about the query (I am not a regular wiki user thus your guidance would be welcomed).
David Mundell was owner and music organiser of The Famous Bein Inn in Perthshire - under his guidance from 1999 to 2008 The following awards were achieved.
Winner - Music Pub of The Year for Scotland 2003 Finalist - Music Pub of The Year for the UK 2005 Finalist - Music Pub of The Year for Scotland 2007[1] Shortlisted - UK Music Pub of The Year 2008 An article re The Famous Bein Inn around 2004 - http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20040222/ai_n12586976/
The original site used was www.beininnmusic.com - an archive site from 2004 lists artists who played - http://web.archive.org/web/20040805215257/www.beininnmusic.com/gig_archive/index.asp. Mundell Music was formed mid 2000's?
I don't know which part of the world you are based in but the level of artists appearing was/is of the world's highest calibre. A temporary move in 2008 from March resulted in Mundell Music moving to the Glenfarg Hotel in Glenfarg - http://www.glenfarghotel.co.uk/music.htm
The final move for Mundell Music was to The Inn at Lathones in July 2008 where there is a fair amount of web info (Let me know and I will post)
At The Inn at Lathones awards were as follows:-
- Winner - Music Pub of the Year for the UK 2009[4]
- Finalist - Scottish Music Pub of the Year 2009 (SLTN Awards)
- Just announced - Finalist UK Music Pub of the Year 2010 - Publican Awards
Next Major events:-
- Fifestock Music Festival (At the Inn at Lathones and 3 other Anstruther venues) Mid Feb for 26 days with Mick Taylor (ex- Rolling Stones, Graham Gouldman (10cc), Carlene Carter (stepdaughter Johnny Cash), Henry McCullough Band (Ex Joe Cocker & Sir Paul McCartney's Wings) etc
- Nashville's Bluebird Cafe will be forming a liaison in April and Oct 2010 and sending artists to Scotland to be judged by Benny Gallagher (Gallagher & Lyle) and Iain Matthews (Fairport Convention/Matthews Southern Comfort)
- Again I can supply links re Fifestock and The Bluebird Cafe tie-up.
- The Inn at Lathones co-exists with Mundell Music - http:www.theinn.co.uk
Gfpete (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 05:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suspect that this article was created because there was already a David Mundell article on an MP. Abductive (reasoning) 05:42, 10 February 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) 17:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These Music Pub of the Year awards seem important and frequent enough to qualify for notability. Normally I would argue for a merge into the pub that got the award, but as Mundell music has moved pubs and the awards have moved with him, I think we can accept this as independent notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:13, 20 February 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 per Graeme Bartlett (my thanks to you) NW (Talk) 22:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Gleave[edit]
- Lisa Gleave (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, partially negative biography of a living person. Currently fails WP:BLP and WP:V, and could be deleted per {{db-g10}} Please close out this nomination if someone add reliable sources to the page. NW (Talk) 17:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sourced by close, otherwise neutral.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Lisa Gleave is a very accomplished, well-known and sought after model. She holds a celebrity status in the industry. She is far more important and well known than many other models that have Wikipedia pages. I see nothing "partially negative" in this article. Deleting her Wikipedia profile makes no sense what-so-ever.
Glenn Francis (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for substantially the same reasons as set out in its first AfD. I don't see the basis for the claim of partial negativity; but perhaps that has already been addressed since this AfD was opened. If no sources are forthcoming, it should be stubbed. But that's an issue of content, not of notability. TJRC (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am finding sources now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:40, 19 February 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 g11, blatant advertising even if the book does exist. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A.D.D.ict[edit]
- A.D.D.ict (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)
Quick search turns up nothing about the book, doesn't seem to exist. -Zeus-u|c 16:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Blatantly nonexistant. (Note: This was apparently tagged for prod and afd at the same time due to a hiccup. I removed the prod.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Blatantly nonexistent, as above.Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please leave me a talkback template. 17:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, I looked some more and found nothing, and he has added a similar line to the article Rome, Georgia. -Zeus-u|c 17:05, 17 February 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) 03:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aldo Kapi[edit]
- Aldo Kapi (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 reliable sources found anywhere. Article is terribly written and unsourced, orphaned since 10/08. Someone else tried to AFD it but left only a red link, and once again, NOBODY FREAKING NOTICED, LEAVING ME THE ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI WHO CAN TAKE CARE OF REDLINK AFDs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to see that contributing to the encyclopedia isn't causing you too much distress. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible spoof - check reference to 1923 electronic Vako Orchestron and http://www.okapi.it/ Opbeith (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of reliable sources, per failure of verifiability and potential spoof. I'm curious: how does one go about finding redlink AfDs other than stumbling for some other reason across an article that has one? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete. It does say in the second line of the article that the subject is a fictitious creation. How odd that the nominator did not notice this. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Fictitious character. -- Radagast3 (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:V; possible hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 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 Hugh de Audley, 1st Earl of Gloucester. Black Kite 01:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh I de Audley[edit]
- Hugh I de Audley (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 doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. He appears in various genealogies, etc, because his son was an earl, perhaps. See wp:n for more on notability and sources to back it up. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited, and Wikipedia is not a genealogy site like Ancestry.com. Edison (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Edison. - RobertMel (talk) 23:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense when dealing with that period of history is not to assume non-notability but the opposite - non-notables didn't tend to be recorded. Wikipedia is not a genealogy site, but removing blinkers might open other lines of approach/thought. If confronted with a name with "de" at this period it's worth checking the equivalent name with "of" ie Hugh of Audley. Bear in mind multiple alternative spellings - spelling hadn't standardised so H of A's wife can be Iseulde, Isolt, Isolte Mortimer. If H of A was married to a Mortimer and the father of a son ennobled as Duke of Gloucester at this period he can prima facie be assumed to have been significantly involved in the politics of the time. Check dates to confirm which H of A is being referred to in any instance. Notability may well be better confirmed from books than internet. Deletion should be left to someone with a bit of historical competence rather than amateurs. Opbeith (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to address this in my nomination. I think it's pretty clear that his name is going to show up in genealogies and the like just because of his relatives. see Audley-Stanley_family - I'm not suggesting we remove his name from that page, and I'm not questioning the notability of the Audley family. I get your point about assuming notability; but in this case we have an obvious explanation for why a non-notable individual is recorded. Additionally, wp guidelines are pretty clear that we do not assume notability unless there is evidence - in other words, even if I _know_ something is notable, I must have secondary sources in order to have a page on the subject. So I think it is best to follow WP:GNG despite the antiquity of the subject. I can't agree with your "rather than amateurs" remark: there are tools and standards we can use to have this discussion, and I am not interested in recusing myself from areas that I don't have degrees/etc in. This is Wikipedia, "anyone can edit." :) ErikHaugen (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into his son's article. (GregJackP (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep in the hope that some one can find something more on him. The Audleys were (I think) a significnat gentry family in the area. All we have at present is a genealogical stub, from which notability is not clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 21 February 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) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Skoien[edit]
- Gary Skoien (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 political commitee menmber. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For politicians, it takes more than passing references in newspapers to be WP:N. Even unsuccessful party nominees for Congress are not necessarily notable despite much press. I do not really see the encyclopedic value for the international reader for this subject.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:11, 18 February 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, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sudeshna Mitra[edit]
- Sudeshna Mitra (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)
Autobiographical, non-notable. Wiki is not the place for personal profiles. Hiroe (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether it is an autobiography or not. Delete if no references show up. Alexius08 (talk) 16:43, 17 February 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. Black Kite 01:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. William Holden[edit]
- Dr. William Holden (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)
Only slightly notable reference is from the Liverpool Daily Post, which doesn't seem to be a huge WP:RS in terms of inclusion. Other refs are either from his own site or blogs. -Zeus-u|c 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree the article has many issues. Sources are present and have a bit of standard verification to them (though not ideal). Is it just me or can anyone access the sewells site thats listed in the refs? Alot in here is self promoting i find. Personally Im seeing the book more notable than the individual here based on whats provided. Ill look further into this as wellOttawa4ever (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - in its present state I see nothing more than the official site of the firm he is head of, plugs for his book and other non-RSs to plus one minor local newspaper to "verify" his notability from. Which is sort of inevitable for this kind of person, to be fair. If any one can cite from more RS(s) I'll switch the other way but how strong that vote would be depends on how notable the source(s) seem(s) to suggest he is. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Per my rationale above, and mostly lack of reliable sourcing. I am sitting on deletion at this time.Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:34, 24 February 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) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rennicks[edit]
- Rennicks (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)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by HighKing (talk · contribs) but a prod on this article was contested in September June 2008, thereby making the article ineligible for prod. Prod rationale this time around was "No additions have been made since last prod in June 2008. No indication of notability. Many claims unreferenced"
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as proxied nominator. --HighKing (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is the major part of Fitzwilton. Or merge it into the FW page.Red Hurley (talk) 11:52, 18 February 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) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George F. Engel[edit]
- George F. Engel (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)
Procedural nomination. Article was prodded but is ineligible due to a previous prod being removed in September 2009. Prod rationale this time around was "Non notable per WP:MILPEOPLE, see recent AFDs, such as those for Henry Blomberg and Daniel Martin. No other information found in a Google/Google books search"
I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thank you Kuyabribri, I hadn't realized that it was prodded before. However, I still think that the subject is non-notable per my rationale for the prod. Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG, WP:MILPEOPLE and precedent established in previous AfDs, such as those mentioned above. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per the precedent set in the two AFDs mentioned above in the nomination and the various policies cited. — AustralianRupert (talk) 12:47, 18 February 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) 03:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rainbowatarian[edit]
- Rainbowatarian (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; reason was "Unsourced neologism". This term lacks reliable third-party sources to establish notability, and an earlier version of the article states the term was invented in February 2010 at a University. Rodhullandemu 15:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability, and as a Neologism. If the term gains notariety over time, perhaps an article would be appropriate. But if it's just been made up, not so much. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:NEO, WP:NFT. The Google results say it all. — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: the article for this relatively-new word was created too soon. Alexius08 (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnotable neologism. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the reasons given PanchoS (talk) 02:35, 18 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Spanish words of Italic origin[edit]
- List of Spanish words of Italic origin (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)
Indiscriminate list of words that may have been borrowed from Italian, or may have entered both languages from Latin. The page has no footnotes and a single source (a dictionary). The page is not a glossary per WP:LIST, since it does not present "a small working vocabulary and definitions for important or frequently encountered concepts... useful in a subject area." There is no discussion of language contact or other potentially encyclopedic content; contrary to the lead section, there are no Oscan words in the list.
I am also nominating List of Spanish words of African origin. It also does not meet the definition of a glossary per LIST and does not provide encyclopedic discussion. It cites the same dictionary as a lone source, and also contains no footnotes.
- List of Spanish words of African origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cnilep (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin Polarpanda (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, these open the door to potentially categorizing all words of every language by origin, via lists. Such lists aren't what Wikipedia is for. In addition, no encyclopedic discussion, in contrast to Arabic influence on the Spanish language. -Mairi (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Polarpanda raises a good point: what about all of the lists found at Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin? Why is it that those are encyclopedic, but the Spanish ones are not? When I created both of those pages, all of the entries came from the Diccionario breve that is cited. I don't know what's happened to them in the past 3-4 years, however. Personally, I think the genetics of a language's vocabulary is definitely encyclopedic. If you have doubts about the origins of some of the words on the list, you can deal with those on a word-by-word basis. Deletion is not the answer. The English lists have been on Wikipedia as long as I can remember. I can think of no relevant reason why the Spanish lists should be treated any differently. -- Hraefen Talk 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wiktionary, it looks like a wiktionary appendix already, so it should reside there. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both articles. List of Spanish words of African origin is more developed, but both articles are fine. If you wanted to see a list of words that came from a certain source, this would be helpful. Certainly something an encyclopedia should have. Dream Focus 13:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both; appropriate for an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. DGG ( talk ) 03:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. This is dictionary information and excessively trivial as a subarticle of Spanish language. As for Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin, they ought to be deleted too. Powers T 16:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The scholarship is suspect. Spanish is an Italic language, since Spanish descends from Vulgar Latin, which is also the parent of Italian. One would have to show that these words are from after the split of Spanish and Italian. But Oscan split off from Latin a thousand years before the Roman Empire. So claiming Italic origin is weird. WP:Synthesis applies here. Abductive (reasoning) 07:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list has no external source to validate it in accordance with WP:List source. If it is not possible to verify the list's content, or understand how it is defined, then chances are it is original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep both, but rename the first to List of Spanish words of Italian origin. – EdvardMunch (talk) 06:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that this should be renamed as suggested by Ed Munch. It's a legitimate enough topic, but needs to be sourced and have more context for each entry. I get the concept-- words that got their start in Italian (as opposed to Latin, from which the Romance languages evolved) and then became part of Spanish vocabulary, like "espagueti" (spaghetti). I'm sure that "Italic origin" is probably a linguistic term, but like "Sino-American relations", it's about as timely as a horse-drawn carriage. Most of us think of something else when it comes to "italic" Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Were it a list of Spanish words of Italian origin, it might mean something. But all of the core vocabulary of Spanish is of "Italic origin", because Spanish, being a Romance language derived from Latin, is itself an Italic language. If kept, move it to a less implausible title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Default to keep and stop relisting to force a deletion. 7 days is enough time to discuss. Lugnuts (talk)
- DeleteList of Spanish words of Italic origin. Random short list of words claimed to be of "Italic" origin. Isn't Spanish derived from Latin, making most of its words eligible for the list (except those borrowed from African, Indian, Asian, Hebrew, etc?) original research and a hopelessly incomplete list until it becomes a listing of many thousands of words. A listing of Spanish words borrowed from modern Italian would be quite a different article and might as well be started from scratch. "Other stuff exists" is not a reason to keep this article. Let other wordlist article have their own day at AFD. Delete the list of Spanish words from Africa, because they mostly came by way of Greek or Latin, and not directly from an African language. Edison (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC) [[[User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while I would not keep every list of such borrowed words, these seem to be notable and can be sourced better. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per abductive reasoning. i really doubt that after removing all words which have a common origin within italic languages, you'd have an article with much in it. and, this would need real scholarship to be justified, as you could not tell from looking at the words whether they were recent borrows or not. if it was borrowed words from, say, chinese, it would be more obvious and thus could fly without references (though it would still eventually need them, of course). Im ok with the african article, though its not great. shouldnt these have separate afd's?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:02, 18 February 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 WP:NACD CTJF83 GoUSA 22:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Galerie Vallois[edit]
- Galerie Vallois (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 appear in any English WP:RS, but makes claim of WP:N by saying it is a "leading contemporary art gallery". -Zeus-u|c 15:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found this article in Le Monde, another one in The New York Times (this is rather a passing mention), another in Le Figaro etc. See also Google News Archive result. This is easily expandable and verifiable. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a link to the NYT ref? Thanks for your time, as I don't know French I couldn't really tell. -Zeus-u|c 15:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at this link for possible references both in French and in English language. I can't speak French as well, I'm using imperfect Google translator. This gallery seems to be well known in the art scene. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Figaro article from Nov 2009 (referenced in the article) presents this as one of the 21 leading galleries in Paris which should be enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Galerie Vallois is also exhibiting at The Armory Show, NYC (US Leading Art Fair) see this page, and FIAC (International Contemporary Art Fair) check here. Flytox (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's been shown that reliable sources exist and they don't have to be in English. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 19 February 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. unanimous opinion that it meets WP:NSONGS, even by the nominator (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Thought I Lost You (song)[edit]
- I Thought I Lost You (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)
This song does not warrant an article. It does pass WP:NSONGS because it was nominated for a Golden Globe Award but nothing else gives it enough third party notability for an article of its own. ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The nomination acknowledges that it meets the notability requirement per WP:NSONGS. The article also references a few independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By the paradoxical arguement of the nominator! It's notable, it has an article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The article meets WP:NSONGS, but not for the reason the nominator mentions. WP:NSONGS confers notabilty only on songs which have charted or those that have won major awards, not just nominated. This song is notable because it has received sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 16:11, 21 February 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) 00:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dream, Dream, Dream[edit]
- Dream, Dream, Dream (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)
"Dream, Dream, Dream" in no way passes WP:NSONGS. It has not charted on a notable chart per WP:CHARTS or received a nomination for an award. It was later covered by Miley Cyrus and was used in Hannah Montana: The Movie but that does not warrant an article. The article, overall, is complete WP:FANCRUFT. ipodnano05 * leave@message 01:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability per WP:NSONGS. Didn't chart, didn't win notable awards. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Appears to meet the WP:NSONGS criteria of having "been performed independently by several notable artists". That said, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage of the song. Since the Miley Cyrus version appears to use a different title anyway, redirect to the Blue Skies album appears to the appropriate solution per NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 20:06, 17 February 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) 00:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Broombeck[edit]
- Broombeck (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 DJ. Promotional tone cannot be rewritten as there are no reliable sources to draw from. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:20, 17 February 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. —SpacemanSpiff 23:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trijit[edit]
- Trijit (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/advertising page for apparent nn company, recreated after being speedied last year. Article creator appears to be company founder. No independent or verifiable third party sources. Google search on "Trijit Technologies" brings up only seven entries. Delete MikeWazowski (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Everything about the article seems to be promotional. Article has been created and largely edited by three single purpose accounts, at least one of which appears to belong to someone who works for the company. One of these three editors has posted on the article's talk page "Many companies outside India want to get the information about IT Company which provides the training servcices. As NIIT and its competitors information is there in wikipedia. Its relevant to provide the information about Trijit". The article gives no independent sources. This looks to me like a statement that the purpose is to use the article for publicity purposes. I have searched and found no evidence of notability. Of teh 7 Google hits for "Trijit Technologies", three are to Wikipedia or Wikimedia commons, two are to the company's own web site, and the other two are to the business listing sit www.hotfrog.in. That site says "Anyone can list their business in HotFrog ... Listing in HotFrog directs sales leads and enquiries to your business." (quoted from http://www.hotfrog.in/AboutUS.aspx). Thus we have no independent sources at all: other web sources have produced similar results. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google search on "Trijit" brings up more results rather than searching "Trijit Technologies". I know both Trijit and NIIT in Indian market. It can not be said that information included by authors or others about the competitors is only for publicity purpose. In my view, Trijit's Info. is the other face of the same coin which must be there on Wikipedia. Desired information searched by the user about Trijit is there on wikipedia but edition of the article is required and reference should be added. I think, after certain period of time, various user will improve this article. Uridhima ujala (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)—[reply]
Uridhima ujala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete unless someone comes up with third party sources demonstrating notability. This may or may not be notable, but currently there's only a reference to Alexa, which is hardly enough to establish notability. Hairhorn (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Keep Apart from Alexa, i found info. on jigsaw as a notability. Only by searching on google, its not enough to say that this article has not notability. Article has good information about Trijit which is required but enough time should be given to other users to edit this article. My strongly recommendation is not to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.166.88.227 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC) —[reply]
122.166.88.227 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete - Can not find any coverage in Indian financial media (or any mainstream media). Does not meet WP:COMPANY--Sodabottle (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in third party sources demonstrating notability. Wikidas© 10:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only references are to either the company's own site or mere business listing sites which give a few factual details like the companay's address and the fact that the company's web site is not in the top 100000 in terms of numbers of visits (we are not told how far below the 100000th mark it comes). There is no way that this could conceivably be taken as indicating notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 20 February 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 American Idol (season 8). Kevin (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge Núñez (singer)[edit]
- Jorge Núñez (singer) (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)
Person was eliminated first along with Jasmine Murray on American Idol (season 8). He has done nothing after the show and he's gone back to school. Particularly, has no notability after the show.
- Redirect to the show article as nominator. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article passes criteria #1 and #9 of WP:MUSICBIO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspects (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. Only claim to notability seems to be a low finish in American Idol. That does not seem to warrant an independent article. But redirect to American Idol seems appropriate, though that could be done without going through AfD. Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 17 February 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joanne Cash[edit]
- Joanne Cash (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 lawyer and candidate for the 2010 election Off2riorob (talk) 16:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Proven notable by continued coverage in reliable sources, and thus meets the criteria under general notability guidelines. Bastin 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- What is she notable for? The coverage what there is of it is that she married a rich guy and is a cameron cutie and a candidate for the election, none of these thing make her notable. Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't seem to have read the notability guidelines that I linked above. Coverage in reliable sources guarantees notability, whether or not she meets the other, more specific, criteria, as established, indeed, by the biographies criteria. Bastin 14:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - She is a notable person. The coverage isn't that she's a "Cameron cutie", that's a rather unpleasant put-down - she's a well-respected lawyer at the very least. It's that she was being forced out because her local association was too old fashioned and didn't like her. The article could be improved, but I think it's a bit premature to delete it. Maybe if she doesn't win the seat maybe then it could be deleted. Would be a waste to delete it and then create a new one if she wins, if indeed anyone could be bothered then. John Smith's (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: From news coverage, the local association's complaint seems to be that she doesn't get involved in doorstep campaigning, not that she's too modern. The Chariwoman who resigned was one of those who pushed for Cash's selection in the first place. 86.144.8.112 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they're not going to admit they're dinosaurs, are they? But certainly it's caused a controversy that makes her worth mentioning. At the least it should stay up until after the election. We can review it later if she doesn't get elected. John Smith's (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not registered so can't vote, but I agree the article is notable enough, at least until the election (and obviously afterwards if she wins). I was merely taking issue with the "dinosaurs" line - that's certainly her line, and it may be being encouraged by the party overlords, but the grassroots in that constituency don't seem to qualify for the unpleasant "dinosaurs" or "turnip taliban" label, and the woman Cash clashed with in particular certainly doesn't.86.144.8.112 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well they're not going to admit they're dinosaurs, are they? But certainly it's caused a controversy that makes her worth mentioning. At the least it should stay up until after the election. We can review it later if she doesn't get elected. John Smith's (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure that the article makes the case that she is notable as a lawyer. As a politician, the Wp:Notability (people) line is that unelected candidates are not notable except in exceptional circumstances. I can't see that that applies in this case. She is close to Cameron, which possibly edges her towards being notable as I believe that has received media coverage in the past. However the current furore surrounding her resignation/non-resignation comes under WP:Not News. If elected she would of course qualify automatically for an article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joanne Cash is clearly notable enough for wikipedia and she does live in Westminster North. Whoever changed that please could you change it back.
- Check the front page of the Independent 10th Feb, check the Times, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Evening Standard etc
- Aside from recent events her personal achievements in law are considerable, she is also featured on the wikipedia page for Westminster North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His5s4g (talk • contribs) 19:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment those recent articles in the paper probably point to her being notable enough. Wikidea 08:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't delete any articles or links at all. You really should be more diligent when reading things.
- I'm not a Republican, you idiot, as my user page actually explicitly states. Most people in the UK are monarchists and Eurosceptic, so who knows why you brought that up. And what the hell does it have to do with anything, again, when he content of my edits was constructive? Bastin 11:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment-Political candidates are not notable, we have recently established that, she is also not notable as a lawyer, the press coverage is minimal, anything that has been in the press about this possible resignation is also one event type coverage and does nothing additional to assert notability, she's not notable until she wins the seat. Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, no. The notability guidelines quite clearly state, as I linked above, that coverage in reliable sources are the important thing. If someone receives coverage in reliable sources, they are notable as a matter of course, whether or not they meet the specific guidelines for politicians, etc. Those guidelines are for people whose notability in reliable sources has not been proven. In this case, it has been. Bastin 15:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment- User John Smith has voted keep with the comment, "Maybe if she doesn't win the seat maybe then it could be deleted. Would be a waste to delete it and then create a new one if she wins" .. this is also a position that I have previously supported but the community has recently decided that it is against this position, being a political candidate does not infer any notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - may I also add the Dinosaur reference has been on her twitter page for months and refers to those MPs caught up in the expenses saga and has nothing to do with the local association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His5s4g (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- — His5s4g (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As there is already a wikipedia page dedicated to the Westminster North seat with Joanne Cash listed as a candidate on it what sense does it make to delete her profile? Surely this is the point of wikipedia to form a connected web of articles. Joanne Cash is featured in this months edition of Vogue for her legal achievements she is clearly notable beyond being the candidate of Westminster North. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His5s4g (talk • contribs) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Westminster North (UK Parliament constituency) (or Delete)- not notable just for being a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate. No real claim that she is notable as a lawyer - only one brief mention in a single newspaper article for this. The remainder of the coverage appears to be about WP:ONEEVENT, which if it merits coverage anywhere, should be a line in the Westminster North (UK Parliament constituency) article. Warofdreams talk 10:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If she's notable only for the one event, how come there are so many references to her before then? Why is she consistently tipped as one of the top Conservative candidates? Why was she listed as one of the fifty most notable women of the age (a laughable claim, but one that was nonetheless made)? That illustrates notability far beyond either her candidacy or the single event. Bastin 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - the article is now much improved, and the range of references which have been found since I commented, particularly those covering her activities as a lawyer, convince me that she is more notable than the earlier version and an internet search suggested. Warofdreams talk 14:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If she's notable only for the one event, how come there are so many references to her before then? Why is she consistently tipped as one of the top Conservative candidates? Why was she listed as one of the fifty most notable women of the age (a laughable claim, but one that was nonetheless made)? That illustrates notability far beyond either her candidacy or the single event. Bastin 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Incubate. Until result of election in May. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no notability to this subject, a political candidate that is a friend of david cameron and was in the paper recently as she threatened to resign and she is married to a rich person. Redirect and incubate, if she wins she becomes notable is she loses you will never hear about her again. 14:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
- Too bad that your opinions are contradicted by the fact that she has received press coverage before this incident happened. Bastin 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Previous coverage, yes an op-ed about her getting married to a rich person, nothing of any substance at all. There clearly isn't an assertion of notability as yet or the AFD would not be relisted, so please show us where is this notability as it has not been asserted yet. My position is this, she is a political candidate and that is not notable unless she wins and if she does then she will be notable but right now at wiikipedia, like all the other election candidates she is not notable. Off2riorob (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too bad that your opinions are contradicted by the fact that she has received press coverage before this incident happened. Bastin 14:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- The assertion of notability is clearly in that other reliable sources, such as the Sunday Times, Observer, Sunday Telegraph, Tatler, and Vogue have all cited her as having notability beyond that of a mere candidate. It is not Wikipedia's place to contradict reliable sources, but to report them. Bastin 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect per Warofdreams. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, but as a candidate, that is a reason to redirect, not delete. RayTalk 18:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion of her notability is not just on the back of her candidacy, as stated below. It is on the back of a slew of reliable sources considering her to be notable as one of the top young Conservatives / Conservative candidates / women of the age. Bastin 15:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we decide please? - In my opinion she is clearly notable from a legal perspective alone. The links go back 5 years to before she became the candidate. Joanne only met her husband in 2007 after she was selected, and it's interesting people assume he's rich. Her husband has only come into the debate in the last 10 days before which she was notable as a result of her own achivements. She is in this months Vogue where she is listed as one of the 50 women of the age which is hardly going to be on the back of her just being a candidate.
A fair compromise is to keep her profile live until the election which is a matter of weeks away. If she loses delete it if not the profile will need updating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His5s4g (talk • contribs) 00:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I add Joanne Cash does not live in Notting Hill. Notting Hill is in Kensington and Chelsea not Westminster North, a fact confirmed by wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His5s4g (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the Notting Hill article is simply too prescriptive, and is factually wrong to limit Notting Hill to just North Kensington (which is a part of Notting Hill, but does not include, for example, Westbourne Park). As stated repeatedly in reliable sources, Cash lives in Notting Hill. In Westbourne ward (Leamington Road Villas, I believe, but I'm not entirely sure). This is in the area commonly known as 'Notting Hill', but also in Westminster North. However, again, this is not the forum for such discussions; there is a talk page for disputes over content. Bastin 16:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I take your point but at the same time her home is within a stones throw of the Brunel Estate as well as the technical boundary of Notting Hill, I understand the Notting Hill tag is more convenient given the recent press and will reframe from changing it. From the level of debate and detail of the page can we please remove the deletion tag as Joanne Cash is clearly notable enough for wikipedia and not famous for simply being a candidate.
On a technical question why doesn't google direct me to this page? It comes up with Johnny Cash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by His5s4g (talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sorry my final input unless someone raises something specific that needs clarifying. The notability criteria states, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Cash has received coverage from multiple notable sources over many years. She is a highly regarded expert in her field and regarded by Vogue as one of the 50 women of the age. Cash is clearly notable enough for a wikipedia page and now has a full very well sourced article.--His5s4g (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Redirect to the constituency until the election, then restore. I know Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but as the constituency is strongly Conservative it's highly likely that she'll be the area's next MP. Paul Largo (talk) 16:48, 19 February 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 WP:NACD CTJF83 GoUSA 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Aitken[edit]
- Arthur Aitken (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)
Reason Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A British general who led troops at a skirmish in Africa. I've never found any evidence that he is important in historical context. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Major General Arthur Edward Aitken is certainly of note. [24], [25], [26]. Polargeo (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability shown in source books mentioned above and also in linked articles Battle of Kilimanjaro and Battle of Tanga.AllyD (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Campaign of the First World War.
- Keep per Battle of Kilimanjaro - "The British conquest of German East Africa was planned as a two-pronged invasion of the German colony, at (1) the port town of Tanga and (2) the settlement Longido on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro. The plan was designed at a Mombasa staff conference with Major General A. E. Aitken in overall command." The reason for the confident proposal for deletion is not clear when the information was almost immediately locatable Opbeith (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per OpBeith and AllyD. This nomination seems a little questionable. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per OpBeith and AllyD. The article could do with a few cites, of course, but does nonetheless appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I have added a reference to the article, but of course it could do with considerable work. I believe, however, that as a major force commander in a war, that Aitken satisfies WP:BIO and WP:MILPEOPLE (role in a significant event, general/flag rank and commander of a substantial body of troops). — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:09, 19 February 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. Moving to Wikisource is a decent idea though, please contact me if you'd like it undeleted for this purpose Black Kite 01:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eleven-code[edit]
- Eleven-code (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)
WP:NOTDIRECTORY of one department CTJF83 chat 19:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with nom's extremely obvious rationale. There are many editors (or at least user names) involved in the history of the article; it's hard to believe that not just one but many people would find this information notable for an encyclopedia. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:IINFO, lack of sources, no assertion of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a non-encyclopedic list of highway patrol codes. We are not a reference manual for CHiPS. JBsupreme (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm gonna go on a limb with a weak keep, strictly off of the precedent of the other code listings as in the article (Yes, I know, but hear me out), but won't complain if it gets deleted. The 11 codes are in semi-widespread use amongst law enforcement to a general extent, though I don't know how far. In my opinion, this serves as an OK example of listing examples. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is a source of miscellaneous information , like an almanac, as well as an encyclopedia .A list of these for major cities or areas --especially those places frequently the settings of fiction, like this --would be appropriate information. A list of this for every possible jurisdiction would not. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTMANUAL CTJF83 chat 07:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, what you are describing belongs at Wikisource, not Wikipedia. We are not an indiscriminate body of information, or have you forgotten? JBsupreme (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure he's not "forgotten" anything. I think I disagree with DGG more often than I agree with him, but I respect the idea that he wants to avoid losing information. The suggestion of Wikisource as an alternative is not unreasonable. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it qualifies for wikisource--it is not an original document. What I suggest people here do is to try to compile all of these related materials here for Wikibooks, which might be nearest. I've from time to time suggested something like WikiData, but I doubt there WMF will be starting a new project like that just now. There's another short range solution , which is to merge into the ten-code article, which is an incomplete collection of variations. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure he's not "forgotten" anything. I think I disagree with DGG more often than I agree with him, but I respect the idea that he wants to avoid losing information. The suggestion of Wikisource as an alternative is not unreasonable. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suppose it could be merged to the article about the California Highway Patrol, but if there are other jurisdictions that use an 11-code (as opposed to the "Ten-code"), then it would be notable enough for its own article. I'll have to say that I've considered the possibility, raised by Dennis, that there are other groups besides CHP that use an 11-code, but I've not been able to find it elsewhere in doing a search among sites like this one. Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I think this article would be more useful if it discussed the evolution and rationale for 11-code as contrasted to 10-code. 67.82.48.171 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Sometimes Wikipedia serves as an almanac, containing information which is verifiable and useful to some readers, but which may not have the significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources needed to show notability. In this almanac category are such undeletables as every spot on the map which is inhabited. It is quite surprising that more coverage has not been found for these codes, since ChP has been featured in many TV shows and movies. Google Book search says that these codes receive some coverage in "Police telecommunications" by Alan Burton, 1973, page 342: "The message can be abbreviated to '19-23 11-98.' (Using the California Highway Patrol vehicle identification 19-23, and their radio code 11-98 for "meet the .." Google Book search also returns "Report" By California Dept. of the California Highway Patrol, p. 30: "At the hospital, the CHP officer who investigated the accident overheard that the victim ... was 11-44, the highway patrol code number for a fatal accident."(not an independent source and lacking bibliographic info). Other codes show up in snippet view other California government publications like [27] and [28]. Some individual codes like "11-99" have been discussed in relation to police shootings [29] or in reference to a foundation for slain policemen [30], [31], [32]. This is not a really strong demonstration of notability, but I feel it could fall into the 'almanac" provision, since the California Highway Patrol is the largest state police force in the U.S. If the decision is that a separate article is not justified, perhaps the codes could be added to the California Highway Patrol article, since I found no evidence anyone else uses them in addition to the ten codes. Edison (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you, or someone else wants to add to the article to make it more than not a directory, then I'll certainly withdraw the AfD CTJF83 GoUSA 05:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the code is being used in large parts of the USA, I'd certainly keep it. If it is only of local importance, probably not. Unfortunately this isn't clear from the introduction. As we are not Wikisource, the list of codes should at least be accompagnied by some more informations about the whens and hows, but this can come later. However what we do need now is some verifying sources. PanchoS (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/observation So far we have a couple week keep !votes being made but no one has taken steps to make this anything more than a directory listing which would be far better suited for Wikisource than Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. --James Kidd (talk) 02:30, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 East Texas Church Burnings[edit]
- 2010 East Texas Church Burnings (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)
WP:SYNTH. There's nothing that indicates that any of these fires are linked. Minimal sources to boot. Author added it to yesterday's current events portal without consensus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYNTH. Very poorly sourced. None of the sources put these fires together and says they have anything in common. If the article is retained, it should be moved to correct capitalization "2010 East Texas church burnings" --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ah, TenPound beat me to it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Forbes magazine is reporting that eight of the fires are the result of arson [33]
The ATF has now said these fires are all the work of a person or a group. [34]
More that one of these fires has been set on the same night in the same community.
I have used a number of sources.
And the article needs improving not removal.
It's also worth pointing out that there is and was an article on the Haiti relief effort while it was happening.
--Dashbullder (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For now, WP:NOTNEWS until a culprit or pattern of some kind is found or it becomes much worse. At this point it's all speculation and the cable news talking heads opining. Nate • (chatter) 05:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The creator of this and other articles cannot seem to grasp that Wikipedia is NOT a newspaper. That's too bad. JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, per [35]. If the ATF links eight of the fires to a "a serial arsonist or group of arsonists", it warrants a single article imo. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ugh. The ATF comments do lend some credence to the idea of an arson spree, as opposed to a series of similar events - so I can see the notability. But the article in its present form does fail WP:SYNTH, in that it draws connections between the incidents where the sources do not. So, we should rewrite the entire article, in the form "The 2010 East Texas Church Burnings are a string of arson incidents focused on churches in East and Central Texas." then a section about the series and the investigation, then a section about the incidents themselves (perhaps with a bulleted list). The caveat - we need stronger sources than a four-line article about the ATF comments, and those sources are thin on the ground. The ATF mention is this morning's, though - perhaps more sources will come out during this debate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I would suggest renaming the article. If the burnt churches are in not only in eastern Texas but also in central Texas, 2010 Texas church burnings would be more appropriate than 2010 East Texas church burnings. The title definitely needs to be uncapsed. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not everything that is currently making the news is barred by WP:NOTNEWS. I think it meets the criteria of coverage outside the local area, such as in the New York Times [36], the Washington Post [37], USA Today [38], the Wall Street Journal [39]. The Post is an AP report, the NYT, USAToday and WSJ are all from their own correspondents. Mandsford (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, referenced story. Needs expansion, but notable enough for a start. Dayewalker (talk) 03:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, clearly notable based on the sources given by Mandsford above. Everyking (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article is in poor shape, but all we need are headings and ref tags instead of external links. The incidents should not be in point form and could be written in a separate section while the lead needs more information. ~AH1(TCU) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per WP:N/CA. Has received independent coverage in multiple national news sources: CNN, USA Today, New York Times, Wall Street Journal. I think some people have an overly expansive notion of what WP:NOTNEWS forbids; it specifically notes that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" (emph. mine) is not sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. It does not say that any subject suitable for a Wikipedia article must have sources outside of news media. Chuck (talk) 21:11, 18 February 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. NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Docherty[edit]
- Glenn Docherty (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 local councillor, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, the provided references do not support any notability. This article reads more like a CV than a biography useful to Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and per previous Afd. ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete definate fails WP:POLLIE as a counciler/deputy mayor neither is notable, the questions lies in SA YA Winner '09 IMHO a state award isnt sufficient to stand alone when considering notability. probable COI in article creator even SPA with the another wouldnt oppose salting by closing admin. Gnangarra 16:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete almost looks like WP:AUTOBIO. Fails WP:BIO in any case, hardly any genuine third party coverage [40]. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as recreation of deleted article without improvement. THF (talk) 15:48, 24 February 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.
Non-Serbs[edit]
The result was Delete via early close, article created by a banned user. Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-Serbs (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)
Personal essay on Yugoslavian history per WP:NOT#ESSAY, large amounts of WP:SYNTHESIS and POV per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is pure synthesis. After following up several of the sources it is clear that this is an original research essay on wikipedia as outlined by the nominator. Polargeo (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, inflammatory and idiotic text. POV fork of Greater Serbia --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYNTHESIS among others. ◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:45, 17 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specializations in MBA[edit]
- Specializations in MBA (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. How-to guide to help a student choose the "right" MBA program. Makes extensive inappropriate use of the second person ("you," etc.). Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing looks retrievable here; it's just chunks of what looks like MBA brochureware (possibly Indian in origin given the list of firms as examples?) AllyD (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some of it definitely looks like copyvio (just mildly rephrased) and it has an improper tone. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing that couldnt be recreated with references. the loss of the various sub names for an mba specialization is easy to make again. the subject may be inherently notable, but this article doesnt help the subject at ALL.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 18 February 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. with thanks to the subject for his graceful withdrawal - hope to see you back some day! JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Hickman[edit]
- Tyler Hickman (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)
According to imdb, he's a production assistant. No awards from anybody notable. Autobiography. Woogee (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the entire IMDB page. I'm also listed as a cinematographer and an editor and a Producer's Assistant. These are notable in the film world.Tyler Hickman 08:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylerlhickman (talk • contribs)
All of the links I have provided on the page are verified, notable, and perfectly acceptable. And the awards I've accumulated over my career have not been from "anybody", but film organizations that have film festivals, award ceremonies, and voting from various levels of the film community. It is not an autobiography, as it does not list anything personal about my life. It is a list of my work, which is notable in the film world. Tyler Hickman 08:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is an autobiography/resume. The only contributor of content is the subject. Clearly inappropriate. The subject fails WP:N. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above. Subject fails WP:N. None of the awards listed are major awards or otherwise notable in and of themselves. The references are all minor (IMDB and trailers are excluded from evidence of notability per WP:FILMNOT). The article is possibly in violation of WP:COI, WP:SOAP and WP:AB. (GregJackP (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete subject is currently not notable by WP standards. being the cinematographer for a 10 minute short doesnt cut it. if, when the forthcoming films are released, notability is established, it would be easy to recreate this article from scratch. the content of this article would still probably be more extensive than justified by any imaginable success of the forthcoming films, but could still be requested by article recreator (please, hopefully, not the subject himself).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suppose you're all correct. I've not done anything worth noting here as of yet. After thinking it over, and reading all of your thoughts/opinions on my page, I agree with you. If, after enough time has passed, and I've done more notable things and works, someone else will, probably, make a page for me. I shouldn't be arrogant enough to think I warrant a page. I apologize. Tyler Hickman 04:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7 given the comment immediately above. Chuck (talk) 21:57, 18 February 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. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Waibel[edit]
- Rob Waibel (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)
Declined A7, fails WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was declined as an A7, fine. It still fails WP:BIO, and miserably so. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 17 February 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 g11, advertising, also doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free King Enterprises[edit]
- Free King Enterprises (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)
Nothing to suggest this enterprise is in any way notable. Having a channel on Youtube doesn't qualify. . . Wayne Riddock (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This should have been fairly obviously speedily deleted as blatant advertising:
FK is well known for their innovative approach to products and services, focusing less on selling to the customer in favor of educating and giving the freedom of choice. The origin of Free King’s name is often debated; some speculate that it means freedom (of choice) is power (like a leader), while others consider the name to simply be a random choice of words. Free King is highly media-centric... the two laid the foundation of what was sure to become a highly successful business enterprise.... Deciding to discard the failed approaches of the past, Free King Enterprises was born. A humble operation consisting of two main computers located miles away from each other saw the birth of DNA Media, a digital media channel. Utilizing the power of video and the popularity of YouTube, Project F was released to the people. The message was simple: you have a choice, choose the best.
If that doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. And even after all that, I'm still rather uncertain as to what they make or do. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have tagged it for speedy deletion as blatant advertising. If that is declined my position is still delete. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:03, 17 February 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. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Adamson[edit]
- Paul Adamson (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 reliable sources to confirm this person played in the League of Ireland - Google search results appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. It is a previously declined Prod sop can't be re-prodded. SilkTork *YES! 16:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a Paul Adamson who played soccer in the late 1990's. There's a record of him here. I don't know if it's the same person. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That page says only that he played for West Auckland Town, who are a pretty low-level amateur team, so even if it is the same guy, playing for them is no claim to notability...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless markedly improved.Red Hurley (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. No coverage, did not apepar to play in a fully professional league as required by ATHLETE--ClubOranjeT 07:28, 18 February 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. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conrad Anthony Murray (Actor)[edit]
- Conrad Anthony Murray (Actor) (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)
After some digging I can't find any real notability here, certainly not enough to satisfy the entertainer notability guideline. Seems to have only been created because his name is the same as the other Conrad Murray. MickMacNee (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:FAILN.--MaxEspinho (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable, no reliable sources, this is a BLP and it needs reliable sources or deletion. Woogee (talk) 08:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 18 February 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, at least for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald J Tate[edit]
- Gerald J Tate (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 biography is about an author who does not meet notability. There are no reliable sources provided to establish notability. The authors works are published through Derwent Press, a self-publishing imprint. I can find no significant coverage about this author, nor find any significant reviews of his work. Whpq (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 19:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wading through the results for the name Gerald Tate I managed to find at least 2 articles which cover him and his work in depth. I'm sure there are more out there. I also cleaned up the article somewhat, which helps. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable as far as I can tell. The books are self-published, and the "awards" referred to in the article - Allbooks, Spinetinglers, etc. - appear to be from Amazon-based blogs. I would gladly reverse myself if shown any significant (or even any) mainstream coverage of this author or his books. There are a couple of references on the page, but I couldn't check them out since they require subscription. --MelanieN (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The following message was left on my talk page (apparently meant for MelanieN):
Hello Melanie
My name is Gerald J Tate, and I am writing to you regarding the citations and things needed for my Page. I have newspaper copies from five major newspapers in Northern Ireland regarding my work, which I would be happy to send, if you can kindly give me a link. I have also been talking on our major radio stations here, twice on Downtown radio, twice on Radio U-105, and my first book was read out on a weekly thing with radio Star. I also have copies of the Book awards, and I don't self publish now. I have signed a contract with Spinetinglers publishing as they are now representing me. All paperwork copies can be sent if needed. However,I will understand if you still wish to delete my file, but there are some Northern Ireland people on there with just a couple of poems etc, and I've never heard of them. Anyway, I'll leave it up to you to decide. Thank you and all the best.
Gerald J Tate, Gerry [email address removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.165.213 (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)
- Hi Gerald. I've taken the liberty of removing your email address because Wikipedia's a very visible site and addresses on here are ripe for harvesting by spambots. If the newspaper articles give significant coverage of you - that is, more than a couple of sentences mentioning you in passing - then they may well suffice to prove your notability. If you have scans of them which you can place online somewhere (or if they're on the newspapers' websites) then please post the link here and we can use them to help decide the fate of the article. If you can't place them online then alternatively you could email them to me and I can have a look over them. Particularly useful would be any articles which verify the awards. Olaf Davis (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakish keep per the two articles now cited in the article, which Panyd has quoted on the talk page, and which seem to give significant coverage of him. Thanks for that, Panyd. The 'weak' is because I haven't seen the articles myself to judge how long and thus significant they are, though I get the impression they're good enough. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:39, 23 February 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) 00:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Galbijim Wiki[edit]
- Galbijim Wiki (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 Wiki. Per Alexa only 17 sites link to it and use of MediaWiki by a local site isn't inherently notable, there are thousands of local wiki communities on Wikia alone. MBisanz talk 19:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability asserted or proven. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 February 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) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Role-playing shooter[edit]
- Role-playing shooter (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)
Possible failure of WP:OR. The Old Pinball Wizard (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Shooter RPGs are definitely a real sub-genre, but the sourcing in this article is beyond awful. Gamefaqs as a source? If reliable sources can be found, it should be kept. If not, then delete it. I wouldn't be surprised to find significant coverage out there, but this one's not worth my time to search. --Teancum (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Falls down the original research well as suggested by the nominator, the supplied sources are of dubious reliability in a lot of cases and address individual games rather than encompass the concept. A brief web search turned up discussion of Borderlands but not a lot else. Genres are a bone of contention
and wikipedia doesn't need articles on half-baked concepts passed off as the real thing. (Short version, see below for further waffle).Someoneanother 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply] The article was created (apparently) on the back of Borderlands' marketing BS, the developers claimed it was the first ever role-playing shooter, it is a favourite marketing trick to claim some new genre has been created by a new "wunder-product". Hybrids happen all the time, in fact if you look at modern gaming chatter you'll see it suggested that games on modern consoles (and increasingly on PC) are becoming more and more mashed-together when it comes to genre, everything has RPG elements. When you consider that a genre is basically a set of core rules, the chances of a new one emerging from this mishmash within full-price console titles is extremely small. Virtually all recently created genres, such as Tower Defense come from freeware and the casusal sector, since developers in these areas copy each other directly and simplistic but addictive game concepts are lucrative. If there is truly a genre here then it needs reliable sources which leave nothing to the imagination, from a number of publications to show it's widely accepted. Until that point there's nothing but established gaming concepts brought together in different degrees in different games, which are just hybrids.Someoneanother 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is being hyped should indicate that it's out there. Marketing people aren't smart enough to come up with ideas on their own. SharkD Talk 16:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Shooters with RPG elements and vice versa are certainly out there, games from virtually every genre have had RPG elements in them, that doesn't make any of them a genre in their own right, experiments and fads happen. If it really is a newly recognized genre then the grunt work has to come first, it has to be a meaningful grouping with criteria, sources need to identify early examples to be reassigned the new genre etc. "That plays kind of like this" does not cut it, which is all the article really says (but in a well-written way). While I can agree with everyone here that games featuring both genres exist, I strongly disagree with putting together non-existent genres with scrappy sources and musings. Someoneanother 19:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm satisfied there are enough reliable sources (none of which are actually cited in the article as far as I can tell) that mentioning their status as a (sub-)genre among some reviewers is warranted. If not in this article, then in some other. SharkD Talk 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there is a basis for the grouping/genre/whatever it's just slapping words together in the loosest and least useful way possible. The whole point is to have a classification. Is it a sub genre of RPGs, or of FPS, or of shooters in general? What do the games classified that way share? Like all meaningful and recognized classifications it has to have a set of criteria, it has to mean something, it can't just be a lackadaisy term meaning any game with RPG and shooter elements, there's a million and one terms like that floating around and hollow terms is all they'll ever be. Someoneanother 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Computer Graphics World, Nov. 2009, describing Borderlands: "Borderlands computer game is not your average first-person shooter (FPS), nor is it the typical role-playing game (RPG). It is a bit of both: a role-playing shooter, if you will." Electronic Gaming Monthly, Jan 1, 2006, describing Doom RPG: "...this role-playing shooter lets you rampage with 10 of the traditional Doom weapons--including the BFG--through 10 levels and even offers an end-game URL that lets you track your performance." Computer Gaming World, Aug. 2006, describing Huxley: "South Korean dev Webzen's punched-up hybrid role-playing shooter Huxley literally swarms you with opponents." Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Sep. 14, 2008, describing Fallout 3: "This is a role-playing shooter of epic proportions, unfolding in a post apocalyptic Washington, D.C, where your character ventures out from the safety of a fallout shelter in search of a lost father." Electronic Gaming Monthly, May 2006, again about Huxley. Article title: "Huxley; 200-player firefights? PC and 360 gamers teaming up? Welcome to online role-playing shooter Huxley's bold new world of warcraft." Wireless News, Dec. 5, 2005: "The first title to be published under the 2K Games label will be BioShock, a role-playing shooter for next-generation console systems and PC." Also a few Business Wire articles about 2K Games/Borderlands that had too much of a press release feel about them for my taste. I couldn't find any smooth places to fit the citations into the article as it is, and they're pretty thin anyway. My take on the term is that it's more descriptive of individual games than of an actual genre, or subgenre. That could change if games of this type continue to be developed. The WP article definitely has OR problems. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge - I'm satisfied that the genre exists, at the very least in the minds of a small number of gaming journalists. Not sure if there's enough material to form an entire article, though. At worst, it can be merged into Role-playing video game. SharkD Talk 16:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no nontrivial coverage by reliable secondary sources. The term is neologistic and most of the article is original research not supported by sources. No results on Google News/Books/Scholar. Google Web results are filled with Borderlands press releases and trivial mentions of the phrase similar to the ones above. The article was basically created on the back of Borderlands' marketing tactics (see [41]), yet most major gaming websites still classify the game as an action RPG or a first-person shooter. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this reminds me of the AfD on "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena", which was another attempt at a developer attempting to push a new gaming term. Similarly, we are only seeing RPS mentioned by journalists in relation to the press releases of one game. Marasmusine (talk) 18:17, 18 February 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. JohnWBarber and Eastmain seem to have demonstrated that there are reliable sources out there. Ideally this Wikipedia is entirely agnostic as to which languages references should be in (although it surely is a bummer trying to find them if they happen to exist in a language which uses a non-Latin script, which is not the case here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Piotr Czerniawski[edit]
- Piotr Czerniawski (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 that he meets WP:AUTHOR. Article also created by subject [42]. -- Pakaran 23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. He has been written about here: Tekstylia bis. Słownik młodej polskiej kultury, ed. Piotr Marecki, Kraków 2006, s. 174-175. ISBN 9788389911438 I cannot evaluate how in-depth the reference is, beyond the fact that it spans (parts of) two pages. The poets to whom he is compared are redlinks in the English Wikipedia and blue links in the Polish Wikipedia. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Tekstylia bis" is a well-established dictionary of the "young Polish culture" (so he's got his own dictionary entry...) Since Piotr Czerniawski is an administrator of Polish Wikipedia (moreover, a bit harsh administrator) there were some attempts to delete the pl-wiki article about him: but in every case many people well orientated in the Polish culture were sure, that he is notable. I do not know well English Wikipedia policies, but I always thought that the Polish understanding of "notability" is far more strict, closer to this of German Wikipedia... So, among Polish poets of young generation he's clearly notable, and I do not think that making sensible decisions in this discussion is possible for editors, who aren't well orientated in the Polish culture. Not knowing en-wiki policies, I do not want to vote, but only to say, that the advice of Polish wikipedians is to keep it. Laforgue (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The described person's notability is undisputed on pl-wiki. In case of young poets especially the reception of their works is important - here it seems that he has established some presence in literary circles. Pundit|utter 16:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable individual. Fails WP:AUTHOR by a mile - Alison ❤ 04:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, only if you ignore non-English sources :) Being covered in leading literary dictionaries/encyclopedias is hardly failing WP:AUTHOR by a mile. I think there clearly is a slight bias against non-English sources on en-wiki (for obvious reasons), but nevertheless the policies do not state that the coverage has to be in English (as it would, quite naturally, very much favor people from English speaking countries as "notable"). Pundit|utter 13:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to pass WP:AUTHOR. The second largest newspaper in Poland (according to our Wikipedia article on it) is Gazeta Wyborcza (600,000 circulation -- it would be one of the biggest dailies in the U.S. if it were located there) has mentioned this poet, as a poet, numerous times, so he appears to pass #1. It's in Polish and its articles are behind a subscription wall, but my Google toolbar helps me translate some pages (it translates his first name as "Peter"), so a Google News archives search comes up with:
- Dec. 15, 2005 (7th search result here [43]), seems to compare a poem by someone else with a poem by our subject: "Related vocabulary used Peter Cherniavsky in the poem "The" (book "The amendments to the dreams"), but with him it was a single text, and add language ..." (Drugą nagrodę ex aequo zdobyli Piotr Czerniawski i Julka Szychowiak, trzecie miejsce przyznano Adamowi Grzelecowi. Podczas Turnieju przyznano także nagrodę ...)
- November 18, 2005 (8th search result on the page): "Second prize ex aequo captured Peter Cherniavsky Julia Szychowiak and third place awarded to Adam Grzelecowi. During the Tournament the prize awarded ..." (... Minidyskusja: Marta Mizuro, Urszula Glensk, Miniprezentacje: Piotr Czerniawski, Marta Dzido, Ewa Schilling, Joanna Wilengowska, Jakub Żulczyk). ...)
- April 27, 2006: (7th result on this page [44]) "Peter Cherniavsky will be a guest of "appetite for reading." Meeting with the author of "30 Easy Pieces" and "Amendments to the Dream" will begin in the chair. ..." (Piotr Czerniawski będzie gościem "Apetytu na czytanie". Spotkanie z autorem "30 łatwych utworów" i "Poprawek do snów" rozpocznie się o godz. ...)
- December 14, 2004: (2nd result on this page [45]) Title: "Tomorrow poetry lovers and poets will have to choose between two ..." Snippet of text: "At the first fire of the poets go Jacek Bierut Peter Cherniavsky and Paul Petrovich and independent film director Luke Tunikowski. ..." (Title: Jutro miłośnicy wierszy i poetów będą musieli wybrać między dwoma … Text: Na pierwszy ogień pójdą poeci: Jacek Bierut, Piotr Czerniawski i Paweł Piotrowicz oraz niezależny reżyser filmowy Łukasz Tunikowski. ... )
- Jan 31, 2003: (5th result, same search page as just above) "The work will be assessed poets and Tomasz Jacek Podsiadlo Zakharevitch and Peter Cherniavsky the editor is showing irregularly Wroclaw journal ..." (Prace oceniać będą poeci: Jacek Podsiadło i Tomasz Zacharewicz oraz Piotr Czerniawski z redakcji nieregularnie ukazującego się wrocławskiego czasopisma ...)
- Dec 28, 2009: (7th result, same search page as above), this one from "Weekly General" publication: Title: "Literature, Man, Mankind" Snippet: "Sylwia Chutnik, Peter Cherniavsky, Peter Czerski, Joanna Pawluskiewicz, Michal Zygmunt) represent the image of capitalism as a world of insurmountable framework ..." (Sylwia Chutnik, Piotr Czerniawski, Piotr Czerski, Joanna Pawluśkiewicz, Michał Zygmunt) przedstawiają obraz kapitalizmu jako świata nieprzekraczalnych ram ... )
- Nov. 17, 2001: (10th result, same search page) "The three got the second prize: Luke Baginski, Klara Nowakowska and Miroslaw Marcol, two-thirds: James Jóźwicki and Peter Cherniavsky. Several distinguished poets. ..." (Trzy drugie nagrody dostali: Łukasz Bagiński, Klara Nowakowska i Mirosław Marcol, dwie trzecie: Jakub Jóźwicki i Piotr Czerniawski. Kilku poetów wyróżniono. ... )
- Oct 16, 2001 (5th search result on this page [46]): TITLE: "Poetic Top Ten" Text: "Ewa Sonnenberg, Martin Hamkało, Peter Cherniavsky, Filip Zawada, Marcin Kurek, Rafal Witek, Agnieszka Free, Adam Borowski. In the world of poetry introduces young ..." (Title: Poetycki top ten Text: Ewa Sonnenberg, Marcin Hamkało, Piotr Czerniawski, Filip Zawada, Marcin Kurek, Rafał Witek, Agnieszka Wolny, Adam Borowski. W świat młodej liryki wprowadzi ...
- I get the distinct impression that this guy is "regarded as an important figure" in the world of Polish poetry, at least by Poland's second-largest daily newspaper, and apparently by the "Weekly General" publication, from at least 2001 to 2009. If not, why would they refer to him so often? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Weekly General" probably refers to Tygodnik Powszechny, which used to publish texts by, among others, Karol Wojtyła, Leszek Kołakowski, Stanisław Lem, Czesław Miłosz and Zbigniew Herbert. — Kpalion(talk) 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the above seems to show that there is no shortage of sources when you look for them. That the article is self-created is undesirable, but not a reason to delete it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 19 February 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. No arguments to keep. Kevin (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Siever[edit]
- David Siever (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 was tagged for speedy deletion, but there are assertions of notability here. Taking here for further discussion. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:54, 17 February 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 List of Pokémon. —SpacemanSpiff 23:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon directory[edit]
- Pokémon directory (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)
WP:DIRECTORY. This information has to be available elsewhere, and all it is is a listing of Pokemon characters and their "hit points", "attack" points, and a number of other attributes. I would support userfication so the editor can put it on a non-wikipedia page, but this is exactly the kind of statistical, directory driven page that's not an encyclopedia article. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect. A page that lists all officially confirmed species of Pokémon (including Zorua and Zoroark) already exists at List of Pokémon. And because Wikipedia is not a game guide or strategy guide, it would be inappropriate to merge most of the contents of the Pokemon Directory page into the List of Pokémon page. But a redirect to List of Pokémon would be okay with me since "pokemon directory" does appear to be a plausible search phrase. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC) (Last edited at 22:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- [Keep] This is not a strategy guide to being a Pokémon trainer or a game guide of the Pokémon games. This is a complete list English article that possesses all the 493 Pokémon recognized by the North American Pokémon site. This page was made in the name of giving people a quick overview of each of the Pokémon and their physical attributes all in one chart. I have looked over the List of Pokemon you mentioned to much of my care and just think the list is very disorganized and superficial in nature. It is a list of Pokémon ordered by 4 different Pokédex numbers(obsolete ones included). It is a very inefficient article in itself with space and information barely scratching the basic formula for each Pokémoon and how it stacks against the rest. The list of Pokemon also uses the Japanese names of each Pokemon to much of its appeal which really doesn't mean much to the community of those interested in simply understanding pokemon as a collective of different species. I will be updating this chart with body type, weight(might replace mass), and evolves from/into quite soon. It is very inefficient to spread almost 500 species of Pokémon across several pages of wikipedia and even less organized to split into group of different amounts that do not pertain to each other.If this page is to be deleted, I will make sure that there is a few more discernments that make this article more interesting to a community of Pokémon fanatics. Its not easy to find a Pokédex Online that holds all the Pokémon in one chart with one row per Pokémon with each interesting trait that can be contrasted across all others. I recommend someone make a key for this chart because of my lack of wiki experience and change certain symbols. Even renaming this page as Pokedex could be in better taste. This is hardly to be merged with "list of Pokemon" for it is not a translator of Pokédexes or languages. This is in itself a directory that scratches the surface of each Pokémon. ---Donovan3995 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donovan3995 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't put too much work into it. It is going to be deleted. Unless you want it moved to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory. Learn policies and how things work before making an article. You will not beat the system. Wikipedia is very strict. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don’t be an ass, and don’t bite the newbies. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't being an ass or biting. I was just saying I wouldn't put too much work into it for it only to be deleted, unless he wanted it moved, and also pointed out that it would be unwise to try and fight for the article as he wouldn't win. Maybe I could have worded it better. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don’t be an ass, and don’t bite the newbies. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Donovan, I want to let you know that I am sorry for the harsh reception you are receiving. I believe you are editing in good faith, and I would hate for you to be discouraged or driven off by the unfortunate events of your first day. However, as Shadowjams points out, if not too clearly: Wikipedia is not a directory. And, you say you want to “giv[e] people a quick overview of[...] each Pokém[o]n and how it stacks against the rest.”, but the problem is that the method you use to do this is derived from in-game numerical statistics – thus these factors, including power, speed, stamina, and even size, are gameguide info, particularly because they are not consistent throughout other Pokémon media. Wikipedia policy on fictional characters is to give brief summaries of in-world history and then focus on the meta aspects, i.e., real world stuff, and some in-world stuff that crosses multiple media,( e.g., all generations of games; games and anime; games and TCG). The existing List of Pokémon provides a listing of trademarked names, and uses evolution chains and various numbering systems show how the Pokémon are consistently related to each other across all media, as well as how their introductions, presence, and prominence have fluctuated throughout the history of the gaming and meta franchise
Again, Bulbapedia probably has the kind of comparison info you are looking for, and if it doesn’t would probably be a more appropriate and more receptive place( provided you read and follow their guidelines, since they are mostly teenagers and can get extremely bitchy if you don’t).
Speaking of which, you really should acquaint yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and Manual of Style, as well as those of the Pokémon WikiProject. Doing so will greatly reduce the chances that you will have a repeat of this experience, doing massive work and having it removed or nominated for deletion. Particularly: Spell Pokémon correctly using an e with an acute accent, especially in articles if not on talk pages, don’t capitalize secondary words like “directory”, and sign talk page commens with four tildes( ~~~~) to generate a sig and timestamp, instead of just manually typing your username. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't put too much work into it. It is going to be deleted. Unless you want it moved to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory. Learn policies and how things work before making an article. You will not beat the system. Wikipedia is very strict. Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is pure gameguide info. Either move to User:Donovan3995/Pokemon Directory or redirect to List of Pokémon Blake (Talk·Edits) 19:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSee below will support redirect first i do want to recongnize the large amount of work that was put in here. That in itself is a tribute to the editor, however; That is not a reason to save the article. The fundamental issue is it reads as a strategy guide and directory. And that is unfortunately not what WP is about. The other information contained in List of Pokémon i think is fine and no merge is necessary. I am sorry to say that I have to lean towards deletion in my opinion. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to List of Pokémon. The information there is encyclopedic, and "pokemon directory" is a plausible search term. This would also keep the history of the article, in case the author would like to move it to another wiki – perhaps Bulbapedia. Jujutacular T · C 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and protect if feasible. It is a likely search term, so it would make a good redirect to List of Pokémon. History should be preserved for transwikiing, but this does go into gameguide territory and cannot be kept in its current format. --WikidSmaht (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea of re-direction as well and would support that. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A note on that. If it's going to be useful as a redirect, it should be renamed so the accented e becomes a typeable e, because right now if you type "Pok" into the search box, this article doesn't even come up on the viewable list. And that's assuming they type "Pok" slowly enough for it to come up before they've type the "e", which excludes the possibility of them finding this in the search box. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pokemon Directory is already an autogenerated redirect to Pokémon directory from the move. Per double-redirect fixing, they would both be redirected to List of Pokémon if redirection is the consensus reached in this discussion. What’s more, typing “Poke” into the search box does yield results that begin with “Poké”. I suspect that the reason they don’t appear in the search box is because they are both too new and not heavily used or linked to. I am sure when the search box list updates both will start to appear when “pokemon di” is typed.--WikidSmaht (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A note on that. If it's going to be useful as a redirect, it should be renamed so the accented e becomes a typeable e, because right now if you type "Pok" into the search box, this article doesn't even come up on the viewable list. And that's assuming they type "Pok" slowly enough for it to come up before they've type the "e", which excludes the possibility of them finding this in the search box. Shadowjams (talk) 09:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This level of detail belongs on the Pokemon wiki. --John Nagle (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Pokémon. I suppose this is somewhat a plausible search term. Otherwise, it is clearly WP:GAMEGUIDE information. –MuZemike 20:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:17, 23 February 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. Black Kite 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Composite C1[edit]
- Composite C1 (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 product. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dmitry Dzygin (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Well, it is used primarily in Denmark. By querying http://www.google.com/search?q=composite+cms+danmark (or http://www.google.dk/q=composite+cms) it is possible to find some related news articles and some web agencies that are using it. There're also some Microsoft\s articles about the product[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More of the same, a web content management system. Google News finds only three Dutch language mentions in a website called IT Commercie, which does not sound like it has any more than limited circulation and interest, not enough to sustain an article about a product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dutch is used in Netherlands, in Denmark we're using danish. Not sure though if it will show a better search result. IMO it doesn't seem to be affective to find info about a piece of software on "Google News", for example, I've found only one reference to Umbraco which is another piece of Web CMS and which has > 200k downloads. Dmitry Dzygin (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCommentWeak Keep This is a .NET CMS with coverage from Microsoft; it appears to be used in several countries. Microsoft has an article in English and a Microsoft-sponsored video [47] (here's their about page and the " people behind it "five guys at Microsoft who want a new level of communication between Microsoft and developers". Between the statement of responsibility and the MSDN.com domain here, I think we can treat that video as a WP:RS). It is also covered in a (paywalled) guide to CMS's , which aims to cover the (28) "standard content management systems in the Netherlands" (if Google Translate can be trusted) here. I haven't looked deeper for more coverage; in the absence of a specific policy of notability for CMSs, this seems like enough to me. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC) (Updated based on Pcap's reference finding.) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "Channel 9" looks quite like a video blog of some sort, even if it is sponsored by Microsoft. Judging by the blurb describing the 47 minute video, it seems to be using this business as an example to sell the advantages of the Microsoft products .NET Framework and LINQ, which is no doubt why it is covered on a Microsoft sponsored blog. In other words, it's covered as an extensive advertisement for Microsoft. At any rate, it seems to be addressed to "an industry"; apparently they assume that everyone whom will ever read that knows what that "industry" is. This is media of limited circulation and interest even if this product is a chief subject of that episode, and no I'm not going to watch that whole thing. We do have a specific guideline for products, including software products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree: Microsoft is an interested party here, and you're right: those two sources above don't establish notability. Thanks for taking the time to share your assessment. :) Marking my previous vote as a comment. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The "Channel 9" looks quite like a video blog of some sort, even if it is sponsored by Microsoft. Judging by the blurb describing the 47 minute video, it seems to be using this business as an example to sell the advantages of the Microsoft products .NET Framework and LINQ, which is no doubt why it is covered on a Microsoft sponsored blog. In other words, it's covered as an extensive advertisement for Microsoft. At any rate, it seems to be addressed to "an industry"; apparently they assume that everyone whom will ever read that knows what that "industry" is. This is media of limited circulation and interest even if this product is a chief subject of that episode, and no I'm not going to watch that whole thing. We do have a specific guideline for products, including software products. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I did a search on the usual sites/mags for this type of software, CMS Watch, EContent, and KMWorld, and C1 has zero coverage there (there are some false positives due to the name though). The same was true for Umbraco, and unfortunately that one was kept as "no consensus". There may be some US-centric bias in those publications tough; e.g. Sitecore wasn't really noticed by them until they started doing business in the USA. Composite C1 gets more hits in the same venues that Umbraco does [48] Version2.dk, Computerworld Denmark (quite a few articles scroll for a list, some google translations: [49] [50] [51] [52]), and the Dutch IT Commercie pointed out above (they have an office in Rotterdam, and are doing business there, which probably explains why it was noted in the Dutch IT media). Perhaps it has some regional success as some CMS-es seem to have, e.g. the Australian Squiz. Can anyone find mainstream Denmark newspaper coverage about it, like Sitecore has? It seems it was only the 4th one the Danish market in 2006 [53], so maybe not... Pcap ping 08:03, 21 February 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) 00:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enquesta[edit]
- Enquesta (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)
Declined A7 nominee. Appears to fail WP:N, and borderline advertisement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unsourced advertisement. Alexius08 (talk) 16:41, 17 February 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 all to Libertas.eu, the main article, per WP:COPYWITHIN, WP:MAD. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 10:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Libertas Austria[edit]
- Libertas Austria (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)
- Libertas Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Libertas Hungary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Libertas Italy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Libertas Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability? Libertas.eu is an Irish company (!) which failed to be recognized as a European party. Mainly a one-topic organization against the Lisbon treaty (that was finally signed last year), Libertas.eu initiated independent voting lists in several countries for the 2009 Europarl elections. However in many countries it failed to be accepted, in several countries it didn't even manage to come up with a list. These five are such candidates, which means these five articles are about nothing more than the ambitions of the company owner to come up with a voting list in these five countries.
I'm okay with merging a few facts with the main article, but if it doesn't happen I don't feel sorry, either. Delete.
PanchoS (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Europe-related and Politics-related deletion discussions. —PanchoS (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete merge some facts into main article, then delete - there's no reason to have articles on entities that failed to be created QEDquid (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the following article to this AfD:
- Libertas Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason: Comparable situation of a non-existent party. Merged some facts into Liberal Party (Greece, modern) and Libertas.eu, ready for deletion. PanchoS (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. If you have merged or plan to merge material from these article, then you must not delete the originating article. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. "Merged ready for deletion" is not something we do for licensing reasons. Fences&Windows 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I have given the main author in the edit summary. The question, however, is: what about "smerging"? Suppose, I merge some 30% out, now what about the rest? Page blanking doen't seem to be inacceptable for me, that's what an AfD is. Or am I wrong? PanchoS (talk) 10:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added the following two articles to this AfD:
- Libertas Portugal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Libertas Slovakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason: Comparable situation of a non-existent party. Merged some facts into Earth Party resp. to Peter Kopecký, Agrarian and Countryside Party, Richard Sulík, Freedom and Solidarity and in both cases to Libertas.eu
PanchoS (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Disagree, deleting will let some very good accumulation of knowledge disappear. Each of these branches were notable and distinct and some may still be entities that still exist and the overall Libertas story is still notable and newsworthy. Historical material, sources and info will be hard to compile again I think. Well referenced and footnoted Catapla (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detele, No noutability whatsoever. The Ogre (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Catapla, but careful Merge would be OK Opbeith (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - a single author is spamming Wikipedia with innumerable articles about a subject that deserves no more than one. This is a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to exaggerate its importance, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT. Each of these branches may have been "distinct", but there is no indication that they were independently notable. Information can be merged to the main article; the usual argument against delete-and-merge, that contribution history would be lost, does not apply here because all these are by the same author. JohnCD (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note by the nominator: I already merged the most important information from some of these articles to the main article. As the second 8-day-term reaches its end, I try to finish this by today, so the articles can be deleted without losing substantial information. I agree with JohnCD's argument that delete-and-merge works here, additionally I see no alternative to delete-and-merge and within 14 days nobody showed me an alternative to what can be done to these articles. PanchoS (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finished this really onerous task. PanchoS (talk) 06:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PanchoS credited User:Anameofmyveryown in edit summaries, see WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Proper attribution, List of authors. Most edits by others were categories, spelling, removals, or reverted; the most substantial changes were to Libertas Slovakia (diff) and were in content too detailed to merge. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 26 February 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's been enough time for smerging now. Sandstein 07:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application[edit]
- 2009 Libertas European Parliament recognition application (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)
- Origins of Libertas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability? The "Libertas-cyclopedia" this author posted to Wikipedia has some 20 articles plus 10 categories plus a huge navbar, as if we were talking about an important party with a long history. In fact the party has little to no influence, few members and exactly one mandate in the European Parliament. Neither this nor the short history nor the few substantial information there is about this party grants a separate article for these sub-topics.
I propose to merge some few facts from these articles into the main article and then delete these two.
PanchoS (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete just some facts to merge to main article QEDquid (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge. Selective merge both of them into Libertas.eu. There's some useful info here for the main article, but standalone articles aren't warranted, they are political geekery and trivia of the highest order, and the use of sources needs checking (e.g. inaccessible photos on Flickr). Fences&Windows 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - a single author is spamming Wikipedia with innumerable articles about a subject that deserves no more than one. This is a transparent attempt to use Wikipedia to exaggerate its importance, contrary to WP:SOAP and WP:WEIGHT. Any useful information can be merged to the main article; as all are by the same author the usual argument against delete-and-merge, that contribution history is lost, does not apply. JohnCD (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note by the nominator: As the second 8-day-term reaches its end, I try to merge the more important information to the main article by today, so these two articles can be deleted without losing substantial information. I agree with JohnCD's argument that delete-and-merge works here, additionally I see no alternative to delete-and-merge and within 14 days nobody showed me an alternative to what can be done to these articles. PanchoS (talk) 11:31, 24 February 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. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alvir Navin[edit]
- Alvir Navin (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)
Declined A7 nominee. Borderline notability per WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC. He's neither mentioned in the BitTorrent (company) or Ashwin Navin articles, so the claim that he co-founded it is questionable. He does appear to be related to a notable person, but that isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He is mentioned as a major player for BitTorrent - see [54] - but I can't find any reliable cites. Possibly userfy. 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:40, 17 February 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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Back on My Feet[edit]
- Back on My Feet (non-profit organization) (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, authored by Back on My Feet (talk · contribs), just appears to be a random non-profit organization that is trying to use Wikipedia as a ways to promote themselves. Other than the references to the official website of the organization, none of the other references are live and if anything, there has not been any further coverage since the initial writing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some of the reference links seem to be broken, but the group is verifiable and does seem to have received substantial press coverage. Here's a copy of the Times-Colonist article: http://www.homelessnation.org/en/citynews/Victoria?page=2 (search for "Jody Paterson"). Pburka (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has had a lot of coverage, and even if the coverage isn't recent, notability is not temporary. The article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest, but that editor has been indefinitely blocked so I don't think there should be any concerns. -- Atama頭 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient 3rd party sources exist to demonstrate notability here RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - other than the spam, which I removed, I don't see a problem with it. It is well sourced and appears to be notable, even if I've never heard of it. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 18 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bruno Turner[edit]
- Bruno Turner (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 believe the subject fails WP:BIO, but isn't quite CSD A7 material since the Mapa Mundi section tries to claim some notability. Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reasonably notable historically, economically and as conductor - references include http://community.sfsymphony.org/profile/CarlAndrewWiener Opbeith (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt Bruno Turner is significant as a businessperson, but as a musicologist, broadcaster and choral conductor it's hard to think of any British figure who was more significant, particularly in relation to Iberian renaissance music, during the 1970s-1990s. The biographical material about the wallcoverings is included in Companion to Medieval and Renaissance Music By Tess Knighton, David Fallows but Bruno Turner's name usually turns up in relation to debates about choral performance practice. In other words his notability is in 2 sections the article doesn't cover In ictu oculi (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Bruno Turner is a very notable musicologist in the relatively small field of Early music, click the scholar search above. He is also very notable as a conductor in that genre, having led the Pro Cantione Antiqua. They have recorded 20 albums on notable classical labels, this alone passes WP:MUSICBIO with flying colors. I would encourage the nominator to see WP:BEFORE, #9 in particular. Wine Guy~Talk 09:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Wine Guy~Talk 10:00, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Réseau Luxembourgeois des Amateurs d'Ondes Courtes[edit]
- Réseau Luxembourgeois des Amateurs d'Ondes Courtes (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)
fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews in English, French, German or Dutch. I hope no one now suggests coverage exists in some other foreign language. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What's going on is a progressive knocking off of all the articles dealing with the national organisations at small-country level (promoting inconsistency of transnational coverage). Opbeith (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that does not prove how this meets WP:ORG. it's simply WP:ILIKEIT argument. LibStar (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominator raises a legitimate issue, but should not raise it many times in many AfDs. Rather, a coherent decision should be made at the parent organization article how to deal with national member organizations that are not independently qualified for articles: should they nevertheless have stubs, treating them all equally, with individual chapters where more sources exist being expanded? Or should there be a "List of" article? Or just the section in the main article? In terms of the efficiency of the development of the encyclopedia, it's obvious to me which one will facilitate the widest participation by casual editors. If the stub exists, it will grow. It's much easier to add information to an article that exists than to create one anew, and IP editors can't even do the latter. Having the stubs in place for all the national member organizations facilitates uniformity of treatment. --Abd (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:21, 22 February 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. Even if the second !voter didn't mean it, there is consensus. JohnCD (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nestor Aaron Absera[edit]
- Nestor Aaron Absera (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)
Actor WP:BLP with no reliable source, no indication of meeting WP:BIO. Contested PROD. Sandstein 06:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable actor. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am a bit depressed these days, and if I get to delete the work of someone else it will make me feel better. That editor will surely get pissed off once he sees that his work was wasted, which will only increase my pleasure. Besides wikipedia has already lost so many editors, losing one more will not make a difference. Not to mention the warm feeling that comes from declaring that someone is "insignificant". Yeah, let's go for it! --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jorge Stolfi, I make no comment in relation to this particular article but I'm afraid - as you're probably aware - your irony will have as much effect as spitting in the wind. I sometimes wonder about the long-term trend of the age distribution of Wikipedia editors. Opbeith (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well,I don't really care bout this article; it was one of several random new articles that I tried to clean up as "good citizen duty". Alas that work of mine will be wasted too, together with that of the article's creator. I have learned my lesson, and don't plan to do that mistake again. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jorge Stolfi, I make no comment in relation to this particular article but I'm afraid - as you're probably aware - your irony will have as much effect as spitting in the wind. I sometimes wonder about the long-term trend of the age distribution of Wikipedia editors. Opbeith (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation. His work can be WP:Verified through the projects themselves, but his career needs to grow a bit and gets coverage to meet WP:BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:52, 18 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Delaney[edit]
- Matt Delaney (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, as you can see from its history, is a BLP violation magnet. Being a dutiful WP geek, I tried to source it--to no avail. I cannot find any reliable references for the subject's name with his band or with his album--none whatsoever. Prove me wrong or delete it. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not appear to be notable. The best I found was a page for him and for his album on allmusic, but niether page contains a bio or a review. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indication of notability. TJRC (talk) 19:56, 18 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ra.1[edit]
- Ra.1 (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 claims that filming hasn't even started--Fails Wp:CRYSTAL among other issues. PROD'ed once before, hence AfD. Jclemens (talk) 04:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, only source is a primary one, via a twitter post RadioFan (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF that states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles". There are no reliable sources proving principal photography has begun, article should be deleted until such a time sources can be found proving otherwise. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice toward recreation if/when filming begins and the project gets enough coverage to meet notability. Its just a tad too soon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:46, 18 February 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 Tagged for speedy deletion - This is the wrong venue for user pages. I have tagged the page for CSD U1 per this user's request. (non-admin closure) --Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:NavalC/Status[edit]
- User:NavalC/Status (edit | [[Talk:User:NavalC/Status|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 needed anymore NavalC 04:53, 17 February 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. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society[edit]
- Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting 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)
fails WP:ORG. hardly any third party coverage [55]. before someone says "there should be non English sources" note that English is an official language of Hong Kong. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to see why non-English sources should not be searched for, since even though HK is legally also English, it is fairly Cantonese in character, meaning that it may not appear in English. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose A simple Google search for the phrase "Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society" obtained 2920 hits - most in English. The article is a perfectly acceptable stub about a notable subject - According to WP:CLUB it does not fail WP:ORG. Roger (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK so maybe WP:GOOGLEHITS are not a valid argument. But still a national organisation whch is an afilliate of a global organisation is inherently notable, notwithstanding the absence of non-specialist media attention. This is in line with a decision of the Amateur Radio Wikiproject. I stand by my opposition vote. Roger (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ORG absolutely and directly rejects any and all claims of "inherent notability" for any kind of organization, national or not. No sources = no article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK so maybe WP:GOOGLEHITS are not a valid argument. But still a national organisation whch is an afilliate of a global organisation is inherently notable, notwithstanding the absence of non-specialist media attention. This is in line with a decision of the Amateur Radio Wikiproject. I stand by my opposition vote. Roger (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose HARTS is notable simply as a member of the IARU. IARU member societies are the primary organizational/representative bodies for their respective countries in amateur radio matters (frequency allocation, emergency response agreements, etc.). Note that even countries with relatively large populations of radio amateurs (e.g. the U.S. and Japan) register only one representative member society with the IARU. /ninly(talk) 05:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:CLUB "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area". LibStar (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- the paragraph you cite is about local chapters, not national chapters. Your getting nonserious. PanchoS (talk) 06:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide evidence of significant coverage and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. LibStar (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would think that an radio communications organization, that predates the Empire of Japan invaded Hong Kong in 1941, Might just have WP:N somewhere in its history. As there is no deadline to the wiki, actual cites may not currently be possible online, (the people that were there, are a generation or 2 older than the Internet and thus not as savvy as others at getting stuff online), however I feel Notability is probable. Besides... AFD is not cleanup, we only discuss a Articles probable Notability. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 12:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the discussion and decision of the parent List's AFD... this article complies with the decision made. Going through the list and putting Each Article up for AFD is a waste of time and effort (as I notice several associations have pop'd up here lately). To delete the stubs would revert the List of amateur radio organizations back to a bunch of external links only, where it was agree'd that stubs were the better of the 2 options. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I stated in that process, THIS was exactly my fear, that somewhere down the road all the stubs would be put for deletion, even as the decision was being made then, to move to the current format. None of the stubs have reference to that decision, so we can be assured that !Keepers in that decision will miss a few as they pass through AFD. Next, when people try to rebuild them, guess what, Speedy ... recreation of previously deleted material :/ Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your fear, Exit2DOS2000, was justified, because of interpretations, as we see here, of the [[WP:GNG|General notability guideline as "absolutely and directly" rejecting these stubs, which sets it up as more than a guideline, as if it were an overarching policy, when the fundamental policies are WP:V and WP:IAR. This particular article may survive, but in the absence of a clear consensus on how to structure IARU information, disruption over this will continue. I'm gently escalating so that we don't have to see a hundred AfDs, but a sustainable consensus, and I thank LibStar for participating in that.
- In fact, the articles in question are not necessarily independent, they are connected stubs, and they should clearly be presented as subsidiary, the membership of the national society in the IARU should be featured in the lede, the articles are so categorized, and we should make them uniform in that respect, if they are kept. I still propose keeping them all, and, as well, creating stubs for the few national societies that don't currently have them, and continuing, through this, to invite additional material from independent reliable sources. --Abd (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nearly 8000 hits in native script for an amateur society is notable. Benjwong (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. Gnews is a better indicator of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 09:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I get 139 non-duplicate GHits in Chinese, of which none consist of non-trivial coverage from reliable third-party publications. cab (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. AfD is absolutely the wrong approach here, this AfD, one of many currently filed, is bypassing what should be decision process at parent articles; national members of notable international societies are ipso facto notable, and the decision of whether or not to cover them at the national article or with a List article or with stubs is a decision best made coherently in a single place rather than in a long series of AfDs. Or if AfD is going to be used, it should be a single AfD on the overall set. An AfD can make decisions individually, but the exact same arguments should not have to be repeated over and over. The issue here is whether or not an individual national affiliate of a notable international organization can have a stub even if there is little or no independent source found -- other than the publications of the international society or others derived from it -- discussing the specific national member. So arguing the merits of each individual society is useless unless that overall question is first answered. Fragmenting process like this results in a choppy and difficult to maintain project. --Abd (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:20, 22 February 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 The Bachelor (TV series). Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jake Pavelka[edit]
- Jake Pavelka (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 is a BLP about a reality television contestant from The Bachelorette who was selected to be the next Bachelor. Previous attempts were made to redirect this page to the current season of The Bachelor, but those were reverted. It's not clear why what appears here could not be included on the main Bachelor page, like say Matt Grant. Prior related discussions include Jillian Harris (redirect) and Tessa Horst (redirect). The current article is entirely based on Pavelka's Bio from the Bachelor website. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Bachelor as in previous cases; protect the redirect if necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per JohnCD CTJF83 GoUSA 21:23, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oligodactyly[edit]
- Oligodactyly (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 enough for more than a dictionary definition, per WP:DICDEF. References are very brief (definitions, and then only going into detail for specific conditions). The 2nd para of the article is all about Ectrodactyly, which has an article. So, other than the meaning of the word, I see no discernable content. Only the first few words are actually about the topic. Smappy (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Only the first statement is a definition; the rest of the article provides the required encyclopedic analysis of the topic. Numerous articles on Google Scholar show that this term is notable within the medical establishment and I can't imagine any other reasons that this article goes against our policies or guidelines. ThemFromSpace 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a recognised medical condition.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article should be expanded, not deleted. —Akrabbimtalk 01:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: virtually all medical illnesses are notable, and Internet searches prove this. I am still working on this, for Pete's sake! The nominator needs to notify the people who have worked to rescue this article. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per everyone above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Real medical condition with a differential diagnosis and of embryological and teratological relevance. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has great potential.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and SNOW close. Smappy, your comment about "I see no content" concerns me. Are you aware that notability rules only require that some sources exist, somewhere in the world -- and not that the current version of the article WP:CITEs these sources, or fully describes the subject? Surmountable problems, like "the article isn't finished yet" is on the list of invalid reasons for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep *sigh* This is a fine encyclopedic topic and the article has plenty of room for expansion. Perhaps some pictures of those with the condition, list of notable people that have suffered from it, etc. Dream Focus 15:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepSpeedy keep - This could have been avoided by WP:BEFORE. There are nearly 1000 publications about this condition, some in highly respected journals. Ectrodactyly is a specific syndrome where the central digits are merged and a common (for a rare condition that is) example of oligodactyly, but not the only one. I've also added an image with description now (probably fair use as it's part of NLM, but I've already asked in the media copyright questions here [56]). There is a clear case of oligodactyly that's neither Poland Syndrome nor ectrodactyly published here: [57]. Note that the fingers are not fused in this case, as in ectrodactyly or syndactyly. I'll see if we can get permission to use those images as well as they are great images and it's apparently difficult to understand the distinctions. Smocking (talk) 16:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Snow Keep - Article is (now) a well-referenced article about a well-known and notable medical condition. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:42, 23 February 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. (non-admin closure) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sadiqabad Chak 152P[edit]
- Sadiqabad Chak 152P (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 stub having no assertion of notability of the subject. I even believe this could fall under WP:CSD criteria A7 if it covered places. Hamtechperson 03:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Hard to say if it is or was an actual population center. Can't find much. A preview of this book (don't have access to the full text) indicates it's some kind of place. But is it a village? A parcel of land? This might be the incorrect English/Latin spelling of an Urdu word. I don't know.--Oakshade (talk) 04:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an article on that. —SpacemanSpiff 08:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added two references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a verifiable village. The search snippet view shows that this is a census village, but I can't read the preview, this (#83) shows it's a village with 1515 registered voters. —SpacemanSpiff 08:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources added and found by Eastmain and SpacemanSpiff.--Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Verifiability is a lower standard than notability. Hamtechperson 02:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Also, I'm removing the unsourced 2005 population estimate Hamtechperson 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a real village it is inherently notable.Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 19 February 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. NW (Talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Tomzak[edit]
- Thomas Tomzak (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)
Unsourced BLP about a small-town mayor with no evidence of actual notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Bearcat (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:41, 24 February 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. I am not convinced, but consensus seems clear. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan economist)[edit]
- Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan economist) (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)
Seems to fail WP:PROF. Pcap ping 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You seem to have forgotten he was also a politician, in the Chavez regime. You also may have failed to notice him mentioned in The Financial Times and figuring on multiple media broadcasts, like:
You also may have failed to search Spanish-language sources for additional references, for example, easily found dozens at El Universal, such as:
.. Or google news, for example:
- http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/business/worldbusiness/30chavez.html?pagewanted=all
- http://wesleyanargus.com/2010/02/09/rodriguez-brings-un-human-development-report-to-wes%E2%80%A8/
- http://www.democracynow.org/2007/5/31/chavez_shuts_down_venezuelan_tv_station
- http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/17/a_debate_on_hugo_chavez_and
.. Or associations beyond PROF, like:
- Shall I continue? Another silly effort to suppress information not pro-Chavez from Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The version I nominated [58] did not present him as a politician. But I don't see how he passes WP:POLITICIAN either. He has a few media appearances as an expert on Venezuela. But the mainstream news pieces are not about him. Only the story in a student newspaper is about him. (For comparison purposes David Mertz was interviewed a fair bit too; that didn't prevent deletion of his bio.) Rodríguez does not seem qualify as an outstanding media personality per WP:ENTERTAINER, which applies to serious TV shows as well. Also, please WP:AGF: I've never edited anything related to Chavez, and I don't like the guy either. If this is an attempt to promote his opponents, then WP:SOAP should be a good read. Pcap ping 07:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The version you saw did mention the Venezuelan National Assembly; I have now linked it for you, so you can continue to do your homework. And if you want to start deleting bios of people who don't have mainstream mentions specifically about them beyond their own websites, you've got a lot of deleting to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse my ignorance, but what does "the economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004" mean? Was he an elected member, or just an economic adviser? Pcap ping 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that simple in Venezuela's version of "democracy" (in other words, I don't know, but few are legitimately elected to anything in Venezuela these days ... it likely means he was chosen by Chavez, but I really don't know, since it seems that the, um, constitution keeps changing in Venezuela). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some research. Despite the pompous title "head of the Office of Economic and Financial Advisory of the National Assembly" (can you expect any different from Chavez's blokes?) he was not an Assembly diputado, but a high-level technocrat adviser attached to it. He gets very little coverage on their National Assembly site. He does not have an individual web page like the diputados do (e.g. [59]). Even Francisco (Kid) Rodriguez, the pitcher, has more coverage on that site [60]. Almost certainly our economist friend wielded no real power. Pcap ping 08:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think the National Assembly or the local controlled media is going to have a page about someone that is critical of Hugo Chavez? Last time I checked, Chavez was trying to regulate the Internet in the same way he does the local media, attempting to stop any sort of negative commentary about his rule. 1.--Jmundo (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pohta, you may be a bit naive about the control Chavez has over media, the judiciary, and the National Assembly and everything else in Venezuela; most certainly, someone who used to "work" for the Chavez administration, and then opposed them, will not be represented on their websites. That's how it works in Venezuela :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the Venezuelan Assembly link you added to the article has now gone dead (I wouldn't be surprised if we soon lose El Universal (Caracas), as has happened to most media in Venezuela). Can you check the link you added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did some research. Despite the pompous title "head of the Office of Economic and Financial Advisory of the National Assembly" (can you expect any different from Chavez's blokes?) he was not an Assembly diputado, but a high-level technocrat adviser attached to it. He gets very little coverage on their National Assembly site. He does not have an individual web page like the diputados do (e.g. [59]). Even Francisco (Kid) Rodriguez, the pitcher, has more coverage on that site [60]. Almost certainly our economist friend wielded no real power. Pcap ping 08:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not that simple in Venezuela's version of "democracy" (in other words, I don't know, but few are legitimately elected to anything in Venezuela these days ... it likely means he was chosen by Chavez, but I really don't know, since it seems that the, um, constitution keeps changing in Venezuela). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse my ignorance, but what does "the economist of the Venezuelan National Assembly from 2000 to 2004" mean? Was he an elected member, or just an economic adviser? Pcap ping 08:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The version you saw did mention the Venezuelan National Assembly; I have now linked it for you, so you can continue to do your homework. And if you want to start deleting bios of people who don't have mainstream mentions specifically about them beyond their own websites, you've got a lot of deleting to do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per the references provided by Sandy. Even if he does not pass PROF, he certainly passes WP:BIO. --Defender of torch (talk) 07:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No opinion on keep or delete yet, but I find Sandy's comment "Another silly effort to suppress information not pro-Chavez from Wiki" directed at the nominator to be distinctly unhelpful. No reason to start throwing personal accusations like that, which appears to imply some sort of bad faith/POV motives behind the nom. At the time of the nomination the article did look like an article about an academic, with a fairly junior title of an assistant professor. It was not unreasonable under those circumstances to AfD the article on the basis of falining WP:PROF and I am sure that the nom acted in good faith. It is not yet clear to me if the subject has independent notability under WP:BIO but in any event let's try to keep the temperature down here. Nsk92 (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies to the nominator, who had nothing to do with that comment; the origin of this AFD seems to be here (which is where I may have incorrectly assumed the nominator came up with the incomplete deletion rationale). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a baseball player with the same name which makes google-searching somewhat difficult. But even a highly filtered GoogleNews search[61] returns 236 hits. Enough here to pass WP:BIO, plus a case could be made for passing criterion 7 of WP:PROF since he is frequently quoted in the media as an expert on Venezuela's politics and economy. Nsk92 (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is probably going to be kept. After having some advisory job in Chavez' legislative body he turned into a Chavez critic and defected to the US (not sure which came first). Reminds me of Vladimir Tismaneanu in his early days. But I don't think Rodríguez raises to notability yet, even as a Chavez critic. For my amusement, a google search for Chávez critic returned a lot stories about other guys: Didalco Bolivar [62], Manuel Rosales [63], Raúl Baduel [64], Mario Vargas Llosa [65], Teodoro Petkoff [66], Pat Robertson/Thor Halvorssen [67], Alejandro Sanz [68], Ramon Martinez [69], but not about Rodríguez, or even a story where he criticizes Chavez. The same observation hold for google news archives, but order of hits is not that relevant there. YMMV, of course. Pcap ping 19:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On a separate issue, I may have misnamed this article, as I created it while very busy, only to avoid a lengthy discussion of who Rodriguez is in another article. Should it be instead Francisco Rodríguez (economist); I'm unsure? Or is the Venezuelan helpful to distinguish him from the Venezuelan baseball player by the same name ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think the word "Venezuelan" is redundant and makes the title of the article longer than it needs to be. IMO, having "(economist)" in the title is sufficient for disambiguation purposes, to distinguish him from other people with the same name. However, moving the title can probably wait until after the AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 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 as Murder of Laree Slack (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 11:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laree Slack[edit]
- Laree Slack (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)
Please note: This article has been moved to Murder of Laree Slack. Wine Guy~Talk 10:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly an A7, and a bit too controversial for a prod. This is a WP:BLP1E about a girl who died in 2001 at age 12. The article was written as a word of caution regarding the cause of death. While I fully agree with the author's point, Wikipedia is not the place to express it. Delete. (see below) Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the closing admin: I request that this AfD be hidden with the {{Afd-privacy}} template once closed. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote the page about Laree Slack so that other people might avoid the fatal mistake that Laree's parents made. I have read numerous reports about the maiming and killing of children by their parents, with the parents believing that they were carrying out the will of God. This is an ongoing problem. Wikipedia can do a little bit to solve that problem by allowing the page about Laree to remain in Wikipedia.
- I have installed many hundreds of feet of large electrical cable. I know how much a 5-foot-long, 1-inch-diameter cable weighs. It totally boggles my mind that any rational person would use such a thing to strike a child even once. Using such a thing to strike a child more than 100 times could only be done by a person who truly believes that the child is supernaturally protected from death as a result of parental corporal punishment. People should be warned that this is not true.
- Please allow the page about Laree to remain in Wikipedia. Thank you for considering this request. MementoLaree (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and support hiding this discussion with {{afd-privacy}} upon closure - I always feel bad writing deletion arguments for these types of articles, but the fact remains that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and, unless the topic meets notability guidelines, an article shouldn't exist in an encyclopedia just to warn people about something. Sorry. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Although this was a tragic event, Wikipedia isn't the proper place to memorialize a loved one. ThemFromSpace 07:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Tragic, but unfortunately not notable. Support us of {{afd-privacy}} on closure.Keep as rewritten. (GregJackP (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but I see no justification for the privacy cover. There is nothing here that is contentious or unsourced that would indicate courtesy blanking being appropriate. There is no justification for blanking according to WP:CBLANK. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 19:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep due to changes made. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 12:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that privacy blanking is not called for. Edison (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Move the article, which is not a biography but an article about a crime to Murder of Laree Slack. Google News Archive shows the crime was covered by newspapers in 2001 and 2006, with 15 results, some reprints of the Associated Press stories. The murder was also covered in the textbook "Delinquency in society" by Robert M. Regoli & John D. Hewitt,McGraw-Hill, 2005 page 92. "Biblical" torture and murder of a 12 year old by parents is not a run of the mill crime story. The case was cited by these scholars as an example of the failure of an "intact two parent family" to prevent violence against a child. An article about a notable subject should be edited, not deleted, if there are problems with the article creator's point of view. Edison (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Edison: I see that Wikipedia has numerous articles titled "Murder of..." And I found a reference to an article about the sentencing of Laree's father ( http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1627859.html ). According to the publicly available portion of that article, "The sentencing came one month after jurors heard how Slack, relying on a perverse ..." I suppose that "perverse" is followed by words like "interpretation of the Bible". So perhaps it would be possible to rewrite "Laree Slack" in a way that cover's the father's interpretation of the Bible, without being an advocate either for or against that interpretation. I am willing to try to rewrite the article under the title "Murder of Laree Slack". MementoLaree (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We usually just move the existing article to the new title, which preserves the editing history. If there is no objection I could go ahead and do that. Edison (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the article to Murder of Laree Slack and done some editing and addition of references. Edison (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep under its new name. of course the name change was necessary, and thanks for that. what is sufficient is the media coverage at the time, and the strikingly unusual circumstances. i see the "1 event" overused alot. of course a person can establish notability for 1 event, its just usually not enough. this isnt an article on the daughters notability or the father, but the event itself. neither person will likely ever qualify for an article of their own. in this case, i think it is, but not for the article creators reasons.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per changes made. Withdrawal of nomination will have to wait for the outstanding Deletes to be changed as well. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:38, 18 February 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.
- I am closely related to the family. It is a mistake to say that the family were "devout" Jehovah's Witnesses. They were inactive, they were not going to meetings, and they were not following the principles that Jehovah's Witnesses live by. We had many discussions about JW's principles, because the father did not agree with many of them. He had began living by his own principles. For instance, the "40 lashes minus one" principle that he followed in disciplining his kids was definitely NOT a principle of Jehovah's Witnesses. I think that should be made clear, somehow.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Rordam[edit]
- Ron Rordam (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)
Unsourced BLP about a small-town mayor with no evidence of actual notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no inidication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 24 February 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. NW (Talk) 20:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dana D. Munsey[edit]
- Dana D. Munsey (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)
Unsourced BLP about a small-town mayor with no evidence of actual notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. fails POLITICIAN. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:44, 24 February 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 The Yellow Tape and rename to Barenaked Ladies EP. JohnCD (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barenaked Ladies EP (album)[edit]
- Barenaked Ladies EP (album) (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)
Inependent EP, no secondary sources found at all. Redundant (album) at end of article name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article itself claims that it's a rerelease of The Yellow Tape under another title. So leaving aside the question of whether releases by notable bands are automatically notable enough for their own articles, we don't actually need a separate article about an alternate title for an existing release. Redirect to The Yellow Tape. Bearcat (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no point in a redirect with the superfluous (album) at the end. One without the (album), certainly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Yellow Tape. Agree with 10 lb Hammer that (album) is not needed as Barenaked Ladies EP will serve as a fine search term RadioFan (talk) 16:07, 21 February 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 International_Mathematical_Olympiad. Black Kite 01:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
India at the International Mathematical Olympiad[edit]
- India at the International Mathematical Olympiad (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)
While the International Mathematical Olympiad is notable, India's performance is not. StAnselm (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages. All of these are about the Indian IMO team, and none of them demonstrate notability:
- Regional Mathematical Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Indian National Mathematics Olympiad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)I have withdrawn this last one, due the presence of numerous individual country's olympiad articles - United States of America Mathematical Olympiad, Canadian Mathematical Olympiad, etc. I removed some unencyclopedic bits. StAnselm (talk) 07:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
StAnselm (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It might be possible to make a case for an article like this, after all there is an article for India at the Olympics. But for some reason the IMO doesn't get the same coverage in the media as the Olympic games and it seems unlikely that references to establish notability can be found.--RDBury (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I think it ought to be kept. Will start searching for sources. Harsh (Mujhse bat kijiye(talk))
- Delete the International Mathematical Olympiad Training Camp; it's only a training camp for Indian students, despite its name. Many countries have similar prep camps; at least all Eastern European ones used to. Merge and Redirect Regional Mathematical Olympiad to Indian National Mathematics Olympiad; the former is just a preliminary phase of the latter. Even small countries like Romania have such regional phases, nothing unusual or notable. Delete India at the International Mathematical Olympiad. Had they consistently scored among the top places, the topic could be presumed notable, but ranking 13th or 25th isn't likely to have generated much press coverage. Pcap ping 16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have nominated (separately) for deletion International Olympiad in Informatics Training Camp for the obvious reasons. Pcap ping 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm a normal user. I was searching for Indians in IMO and found this page very useful. I noticed that there is a discussion going on for deletion, and so I'm putting a message here pointing out that I did find this page is useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.52.2 (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. StAnselm (talk) 07:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Verifiability cannot be the issue here: here is the official source. Like the hundreds of articles in Template:NationsinOlympics, I think an argument can be made for (possibly short) articles on each nation's performance at the IMO. In addition to the official table, it is also possible to find newspaper and magazine sources reporting on each year's performance. (The only reason I haven't done that already is because I'm unsure whether the article will be kept after all that.) I would argue that given the reputation of the IMO, this sort of information is worth keeping, though I know notability is not inherited. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:35, 26 February 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) 00:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Romanticism and Revolution[edit]
- Romanticism and Revolution (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)
Per original prod and prod2, this is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Intrinsically WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article contains numerous good sources which testify to the notability of the topic such as Romanticism, Revolution, and Language; Romance and Revolution: Shelley and the Politics of a Genre; The French Revolution and the English Poets; Anger, Revolution, and Romanticism. As there is abundant material of this sort, it seems a straightforward matter to summarise it in an encyclopedic way. Any deficiencies in the current draft may be remedied by ordinary editing in accordance with our policy and deletion would obviously be unhelpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete personal essay by someone who couldn't even spell Tintern Abbey correctly with a title so broad, it could never possibly hope to become an encyclopedia article (decent title though, i wonder if there's a notable book of this name. Worth nicking if not.)Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While I do not disagree with Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) on the fact that this article is actually well sourced and has a lot of potential content, the fact remains, in my opinion, that it will never be able to be anything other than an essay. I don't believe that cleanup is an option here, because in order to write about the potential influence of one thing on another, you have to write an essay. There is no way to write this article and have it be an encyclopedic work. While some of the content on this page may belong on the Romanticism article, I don't believe that an article on this topic alone should exist. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The title is too vague to allow this essay to be rewritten as a suitable encyclopaedia article, or even replaced by a stub. An article on The French Revolution in literature or The French Revolution in English Romantic poetry would be another matter, but the content here isn't going to help in writing one. EALacey (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Col. Warden. It is a well-referenced and well-written article, and any problems can be addressed with editing. Warrah (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warrah (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- an essay which is unlikely to ever become a legitimate encyclopedia article. Reyk YO! 01:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The author should write a longer article and try to get it published in print, for money! WP is for definite (and sometimes boring) facts about clearly defined topics.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the subject of numerous books already cited so, notable and sourced. What remains is regular editing which is not a reason to delete. -- Banjeboi 15:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ottava Rima, an administrator on Wikiversity, has expressed an interest in importing this article for use on that project, should this be closed as delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR. Dlabtot (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It can never be anything but a personal essay with that title. In itself, being well sourced is not a reason to keep.--SabreBD (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, stubify, and send to the article rescue people. This is quite obviously an essay at the moment, but the positing of a connection between romanticism and revolution isn't excetly a new discovery. Rather it is an encylcopedic subject. The current essay seems to focus on literature when revolutionary romantic figures were active in ther fields. For example, in music there is Beethovens riping out the dedication of the 3rd symphony when Napoleon declared himself emperor, Wagner literally manning the barricades in the 1849 Dresden uprising and Rimsky-Korsakov's support of the students in the 1905 uprising. There's even an orchestra specialising in music of roughly the first half of the 19th century called Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique. So I reject SabreBD's claims that this title can only ever be covered by an essay.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article is original synthesis of primary documents, it doesn't belong here. I don't see how it could possibly be rescued, there's nothing usable here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete while i agree that there is a possible encyclopedia article on the intersection of these two ideas as manifest in europe at this time, this article, its content and title, and its use of references, is wholly unencyclopedic. if someone wants to userfy the references, and attempt to find out if a new article could be written based on them and others, fine, but they would have to be a widely expanded collection of references which all explicitly argue for the connection between these two movements, and not just evidence that the 2 can be connected. We all know they are connected, but in an article like this we have to show THEIR work, not OUR work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is an essay. That's fine in itself, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. --Kleinzach 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly an essay and a synthesis. Interesting, yes. Encyclopedic, no.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:12, 18 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here Comes The Kraken[edit]
- Here Comes The Kraken (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 band. The article's author removed the A7 Speedy Delete tag, so let's bring the article here for a full discussion of its merit. Warrah (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i didnt remove the tag actually. i started a discussion on the page's talk page. this is a new band but note-wrothy because they've released material and are popularizing and need a wikipedia page--Riossez (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the removal of the Speedy Delete tag: [70]. Warrah (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I'm going to refrain from !voting, but I'd like to point out that Riossez's deletion of the Speedy tag appears to be a good-faith editing error in his edit adding the infobox, band membership, and references section. In any event, another editor followed up and also removed the speedy tag when it was reinstated, see [71], so the issue of Riossez's deletion is moot. Let's assume good faith here and limit the discussion to its merits. TJRC (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - non-notable band, fails WP:MUSICBIO, no charted records, no awards. History on the article page shows that the author of the article removed the A7 Speedy Delete tag, despite his protestations to the contrary. Also, the article is written for promotion and violates WP:SOAP (GregJackP (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Strong Delete, completely non-notable, per ibid. -Zeus-u|c 02:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have declined the speedy, a statement that a band has released an album and gone on an inter-country tour is clearly enough to avoid an A7. The tour also appears to fulfill one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The soapboxing can be dealt with by normal editing. DES (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong on both counts. Touring is only notable, as per WP:MUSIC, if the performers "have received significant coverage in independent reliable sources." No such coverage exists. And WP:BAND requirements states that the performers must have "released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." This group is on an obscure indie label with one album and one EP. Warrah (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just added one source for the tour, and one for critical comment. Whether this constitutes "non-trivial" coverage, the term actually used in the guideline, can be discussed. And the "two or more albums" is one of 12 criteria, passing any one of which indicates notability. It is not a "requirement". note that the tour language is criterion #4 on that same list. (BTW WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND are the same page.) DES (talk) 03:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A single review by an obscure web site? That actually makes the group look more obscure. And, in any event, the article does not meet any of the 12 criteria in WP:MUSIC. Warrah (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails all 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC, "sources" don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the band completely fails A7. 1) No multiple non-trivial cites. 2) No charted songs. 3) No gold record. 4) No non-trivial coverage of a national tour. 5) Has released 1 album, with one on the way - on an minor indi-label that doesn't even have a webpage. 6) No previously notable band members, etc, etc. Nothing. (GregJackP (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - The band fails all 12 categories in WP:MUSIC. --BaronVonYiffington (talk) 15:00, 23 February 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TNN's Alternative Lunch[edit]
- TNN's Alternative Lunch (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. This article goes to great lengths asserting the notability of this radio station's guest hosts, but doesn't assert any for the station itself. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G11 Blatant advert, reads like PR/copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete G11 Whatever the case, the show's acronym for TNN makes absolutely no sense, and it's very unlikely that the powers that be at Spike TV have ever released their former name back and continue to hold trademark rights for it in all media. Also reading through this incredibly wordy article, it sounds like non-notable brokered programming. Nate • (chatter) 05:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication of how this is notable. Reads like copy/pasted advertisement. RadioFan (talk) 02:24, 18 February 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. NW (Talk) 20:19, 24 February 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. (non-admin closure) Wine Guy~Talk 09:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100 Greatest Britons[edit]
- 100 Greatest Britons (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 signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable sources (WP:RS). The only sources are from the BBC, who also compiled the list. ArticlesForRedemption 00:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, several WP:RS cover it, see Gnews results here; for example see a full Guardian article and a full Telegraph article. --Cyclopiatalk 00:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's ridiculous to treat the BBC like a blog suspected of "self-promotion"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And furthermore, the deletion nomination would be much more credible if the nominator could come up with something not already discussed the first time around... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete No lasting importance. Reprinting the list is a copyright violation. However the list as posted on the BBC's site could be used as a reference in articles on each listed person, then people would not miss out on it. Also could be an external link or mentioned in BBC. p.s The BBC certainly does engage in self-promotion, not to do so would be irresponsible of them. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to "Weak Delete" since sources have been cited. I'd like to repeat my comment from the "100 Worst Britons" AFD discussion: News media outlets will always comment on what other news media outlets do, but this does not make for the kind of lasting importance WP strives for. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we cannot know what will be of lasting importance and what will be not. To do such a judgement is to apply a POV on the subject. --Cyclopiatalk 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. However somehow we must make that kind of decision or else WP becomes just a digest of everything that is printed by any "notable source." Steve Dufour (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP's aim is to be a digest of everything that has been covered by reliable sources. You make it sound wrong, but it is actually a positive achievement. We must not make this kind of decision: we must be sure content satisfies WP:GNG and doesn't go against WP:NOT and other policies, but that's it. Storage space is cheap. Please have a look at WP:NOTPAPER. --Cyclopiatalk 23:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. However somehow we must make that kind of decision or else WP becomes just a digest of everything that is printed by any "notable source." Steve Dufour (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that we cannot know what will be of lasting importance and what will be not. To do such a judgement is to apply a POV on the subject. --Cyclopiatalk 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in the broadsheets; notably the Telegraph, Guardian, Daily Mail.. intellectual content. This has already been covered. StiffyAdams (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable programme when broadcast with response from the public and national UK media. MilborneOne (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator's statement that there is not coverage in multiple reliable sources appears to be incorrect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Notable programme covered by more than just the BBC when broadcast, as mentioned by User:StiffyAdams. XXX antiuser eh? 05:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW Doc Quintana (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the status of the nominator is now BLOCKED SatuSuro 04:13, 24 February 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. Sandstein 07:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
100 Worst Britons[edit]
- 100 Worst Britons (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 signs of notability (WP:N) from multiple, reliable sources (WP:RS). ArticlesForRedemption 23:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Again, Gnews results show RS coverage: e.g. [72], [73], [74]. --Cyclopiatalk 00:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:COPYVIO. THF (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't see the point of deleting this, it's linked to by other pages (which is how I found it) so removing it detract from them. On notability: It is the result of a large public poll and therefore represents the viewpoint of a large number of Britons in 2003. That is interesting to some people. Will the historians of the future really thank you for stuffing everything you don't personally think notable into the memory hole? Roger Heathcote, London 20 Feb 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.0.25 (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Cyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is lots of fun, but of no lasting notability. There are also no secondary sources. And, I know this is hard to grasp for some people, reprinting a list is really ripping off the hard work of those who created it. Let's do right by them and have an article Fun lists where we could link to the original sites of these lists.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are secondary sources: see my comment above. And yes, it is hard to grasp for me how reprinting a mere list is a copyvio; even if it was, we can remove the list without removing the article. --Cyclopiatalk 12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again and saw no secondary sources.No sources are cited in the article, but I see that you have provided links to news stories about the list. But really all they say is there is a list. This is not an item of lasting importance. Also I am not a lawyer, which is why I used the informal expression "ripping off" rather than "copyright violation." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I will soon start List of for-fun lists. Seriously. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just sent this to AfD as it fails WP:TPA Martin451 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I voted keep. However every deletion is a victory. I have said before, and will say again, that 90% of WP should be deleted according to WP's own stated principles.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your highly personal opinion. I refuse to accept that slashing 90% of an information resource can be seen as a "victory" of any sort, apart than for ignorance maybe, but YMMV. --Cyclopiatalk 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. You are also entitled to your opinion. I see WP as an encyclopedia not just a place to store information. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is your highly personal opinion. I refuse to accept that slashing 90% of an information resource can be seen as a "victory" of any sort, apart than for ignorance maybe, but YMMV. --Cyclopiatalk 16:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I voted keep. However every deletion is a victory. I have said before, and will say again, that 90% of WP should be deleted according to WP's own stated principles.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just sent this to AfD as it fails WP:TPA Martin451 (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will soon start List of for-fun lists. Seriously. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are secondary sources: see my comment above. And yes, it is hard to grasp for me how reprinting a mere list is a copyvio; even if it was, we can remove the list without removing the article. --Cyclopiatalk 12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be coverage in reliable sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there on going reliable sources about this list, or were they all around the time it was aired? If this list is kept, then it must be renamed to something more appropriate like Channel 4's list of the 100 Worst Britons as this really is the opinion of a tv channel and its views at the time, and not a set in stone list. Martin451 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer Martin451's question, occasionally newspaper profiles will note that the person being profiled was on the '100 Worst Britons' list; there were three such profiles published in 2009. But there are no published articles which centre on the programme itself since 2003. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment News media will always comment on what other news media do. This does not give a news feature lasting importance. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:28, 19 February 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. Many participants share the nominator's concerns about the sourcing, but there is no consensus to delete it outright. Sandstein 07:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biblical wedding[edit]
- Biblical wedding (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)
Apparent original research from primary sources. Avi (talk) 02:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Secondary sources, public domain encyclopedia articles, are cited. The topic needs to be a little better defined. The Bible covers about 3,000 years of history so customs must have changed over time. Is there an article on ancient Jewish weddings? If so maybe delete this one or merge. If not then keep this one and improve. The topic is clearly notable and important. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't argue that the topic has merit, but the majority of this is not from secondary sources that discuss the bible (like commetaries, the Talmud, or even contemporary sources) but it seems to be comprised mainly from biblical quotes and the wikipedia editor's personal opinion (WP:OR) as to how they reflected biblical society. As an essay, this may be nce for some website, but not for wikipedia. A massive cleanup would help, but I think as the article stands now, it is better deleted and recreated. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article on Erusin also need to be considered with this one. I mentioned some of the issues on the discussion pages (including a whole section of the article that appears unrelated to Erusin). I am not sure that this article adds to the general article on Jewish marriage. But I do not have a firm opinion on the matter. BTW, can people stop making general references to the Jewish Encyclopedia and leave the reader to guess whether a particular paragraph has a source or not?Mzk1 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to fix the article on erusin to be NPOV and to remove some of the uncited material; at this point, I do not want to remove erusin. However, I am worried about the author. In places he puts in lots of OR, with a reference that does not say what he says or even contradicts it. (See, for example, the original version of the section in erusin that I replaced with "Other issues".) It is difficult to check through every possible article in JE to see if his quote is authentic. Plus, he is starting to use non-internet sources (an idea I would normally recommend), which would be fine except that he is difficult to trust. I realize that not every word in my writing may be in the source, but NL goes way beyond that. He needs to make some commitment to reform, so we can trust him that he is not inventing sources.Mzk1 (talk) 22:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article on Erusin also need to be considered with this one. I mentioned some of the issues on the discussion pages (including a whole section of the article that appears unrelated to Erusin). I am not sure that this article adds to the general article on Jewish marriage. But I do not have a firm opinion on the matter. BTW, can people stop making general references to the Jewish Encyclopedia and leave the reader to guess whether a particular paragraph has a source or not?Mzk1 (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't argue that the topic has merit, but the majority of this is not from secondary sources that discuss the bible (like commetaries, the Talmud, or even contemporary sources) but it seems to be comprised mainly from biblical quotes and the wikipedia editor's personal opinion (WP:OR) as to how they reflected biblical society. As an essay, this may be nce for some website, but not for wikipedia. A massive cleanup would help, but I think as the article stands now, it is better deleted and recreated. -- Avi (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Very definitely based almost entirely on secondary sources. You'd have worked that out for yourself, avraham, if you checked the full edit history (including that of the article which the first edit notes that this article was originally split from). I'm sorry that the ref tags often appear to refer to primary sources, but that's only because I've wikified the references to them that the secondary sources use - as far as I can tell there isn't a wiki markup to distinguish references that the source refers to from the source itself. 100% of these references originate from the secondary sources I've used - I haven't touched copies of the Torah/Talmud/Shulchan Aruch/Mishneh Torah/etc. in making this article, its just that the secondary sources point out the references to them, and I've preserved mention of those references for the sake of completeness. If you check the secondary sources out yourself (there are online copies of most of them - and I've mentioned which articles/etc. they are explicitly in the edit history), you'll see those references there. Newman Luke (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that this is the way it's supposed to be done? Wouldn't to be better to say, JE, so-and-so based on Gen. 23? It is very hard to track your sources. In erusin, I found a rather impressive reference to Kiddushin 50-something, which to my surprise turned out to be completely accurate. But I have no idea where you got it from.Mzk1 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do that, you end up with absurdly long convoluted references to JE. Its also extremely tedious when you're wikifying the original public domain text (sorting out all the references in it is fairly tedious anyway). As for Kiddushin 50-something, if you go through the edit history and trace the content you'll find out where it came from - or if you explain to me in detail what the reference is about, I'll see if I can remember the secondary source I took it from more directly. Newman Luke (talk) 22:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point, Mzk1, the article needs serious cleanup; right now it looks like Newman's own essay and it's impossible to tell what is sourced and to which source. Furthermore, there are better sources than the JE, older and newer, but better and more authoritative, which has been explained to Newman before. We should use those. -- Avi (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Define authoritative, bearing in mind wikipedia's policy of not favouring one denomination of a religion above another, in a way that doesn't include primary sources/original research, while still rejecting very respected encyclopedias. Besides, Avraham, that's you claiming I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know and/or I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source, which is behaviour forbidden by WP:OWN. What it isn't is a dispute about existence of articles, so you should retract the nomination. There is a tag for suggesting serious cleanup and it isn't {{afd}} Newman Luke (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know; I prefer Say Where You Found It. At least put the JE reference at the end of the paragraph. As it is, I find (not in this article; I did not examine it) references in your articles to things that are not in any of the JE articles you cite. I have to say, if I see Kiddushin 1:1 (actual case), and it is not there, and the actual page in Kiddushin says nothing of the sort, then I assume OR. (I do check the general references too, just in case, but it wasn't there, either.) I wasn't aware that we were obligated to look through the change log, but, in any case, how would you find the particular change that entered a particular line? If you can tell me how, I will try.Mzk1 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NL, I think you are wikilawyering. Where does it say that one is supposed to look at the change log? (Perhaps it does; I will appreciate the reference.) That is NOT what those pages mean. It means if I don't have the book, or if I don't know Hebrew, or I am too busy. It doesn't mean that I have to guess at your source.Mzk1 (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know; I prefer Say Where You Found It. At least put the JE reference at the end of the paragraph. As it is, I find (not in this article; I did not examine it) references in your articles to things that are not in any of the JE articles you cite. I have to say, if I see Kiddushin 1:1 (actual case), and it is not there, and the actual page in Kiddushin says nothing of the sort, then I assume OR. (I do check the general references too, just in case, but it wasn't there, either.) I wasn't aware that we were obligated to look through the change log, but, in any case, how would you find the particular change that entered a particular line? If you can tell me how, I will try.Mzk1 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Define authoritative, bearing in mind wikipedia's policy of not favouring one denomination of a religion above another, in a way that doesn't include primary sources/original research, while still rejecting very respected encyclopedias. Besides, Avraham, that's you claiming I haven't had time to confirm what you wrote. I have other obligations besides wikipedia, you know and/or I don't own that book, so I can't confirm your source, which is behaviour forbidden by WP:OWN. What it isn't is a dispute about existence of articles, so you should retract the nomination. There is a tag for suggesting serious cleanup and it isn't {{afd}} Newman Luke (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure that this is the way it's supposed to be done? Wouldn't to be better to say, JE, so-and-so based on Gen. 23? It is very hard to track your sources. In erusin, I found a rather impressive reference to Kiddushin 50-something, which to my surprise turned out to be completely accurate. But I have no idea where you got it from.Mzk1 (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion. Give NL a couple of days to clean up his sources. Then we can look and see if the article is irredemably POV or OR. "I don't have time" is an argument for delaying a source a little, not for making them impossible to find WITHIN THE ARTICLE. Or we get a ruling on whether you can do cites like that.Mzk1 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the problem with that. Unlike Newman Luke, I can read the original Talmud, Shulchan Aruch and other normative sources in their original language, and I have found, as you have Mzk, that NL's citations are often inaccurate. Newman Luke has been doing this for months. If giving him a little more time now would result in properly sourced articles, so then a determination could be made as to what is accurate and what is not, what is appropriate and what is not, what is properly represented and what is not, I'd be the first to sign up for that. However, already having to have re-written and re-source a number of the inaccurate articles he has created or to which he has made major changes, I am not confident that a few more days will result in a new Newman Luke. -- Avi (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Avraham, I can and do read the Talmud, etc. Not the original copy because it doesn't exist anymore, but a copy at least as good as yours. However, when I'm writing for a Wikipedia article I deliberately avoid looking at the Talmud, etc. That's because its a Primary Source, and using it directly is abhorred by wikipedia policy, despite your desire to do so ([75]). My citations are from secondary sources, my 'citations' of the Talmud, Shulchan Aruch, etc. are just wikifications of the citations from the secondary sources. Its the secondary source that makes them, not me; maybe it gets them wrong, but I haven't seen you cite any evidence that other reliable sources think the secondary sources I use get the cites wrong, and until you do, I don't think your argument has any merit whatsoever. Newman Luke (talk) 21:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I thought the use of Primary Sources was no longer deplored as it was when I first used to edit WP several years ago. Certainly I have seen articles on subjects from Classical Antiquity with extensive citations from classical authors. Citations from the Bible are at least as legitimate. If the author has used secondary sources and quoted from them as if he had read primary ones, I would certainly consider it illegitimate, but that is a reason for cleaning the article up, not deleting it. I would prefer the title to be Marriage in the Bible (or something like that) to exclude material on how modern Christian and Jewish groups have interpreted the texts. If Newman Luke is misbehaving, by citing original sources which he has not actually read (rather than his secondary source - or better still, secondary source citing primary source), he needs to be warned and, if he persists, threatened with administrative action. If he reappears as a sockpuppet (or non-logged in editor), there are means of dealing with that too, by reverting his work until he realises that it is futile. If my guess is that he is spuriously citing original sources not available to him, it is possible the fault is not with him but in the secondary source he is using. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are missing the point. The author does NOT believe in primary sources - I do. But he insists (see above) that it is legitimate to put in sources that he has not seen, if it is quoted in another source that he has seen. He said we are supposed to check the comments in the history pages, which I do not believe is a valid citation method. Basically, I am supposed to find in the history page where he created it, or check every reference in the footnote section (there isn't even a reference section, which would be the place for this), as well as any other possible atricle in the same reference that might be applicable, but he forgot or was lost with the deletion of some other part of the article by someone. I am assuming Good Faith, but this is making a mockery out of Verifiability. How can I put "citation needed" next to a citation?
- I think the remedy is as follows:
- * Find the articles in Judaism that are mostly his.
- * Have him give us a list of the actual references he used, and if he won't, make an educated guess (encyclopedias, probably)
- * Delete all other references, and put "citation needed"
- * Give him some time to show a good faith effort to put in real citations, or delete the writing. If there is no article left (and in most cases there will be something left), so be it.
- NL likes to quote guidelines as if they were policies, and Say Where You Found It is a guideline while Verifiability is a Policy, but how are we to have Verifiability without it? Good Faith is one thing, but if the author himself says he doesn't need to see it? I have to go find a book he doesn't have to find and perhaps can't even read (if in rabbinic Hebrew)?Mzk1 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mzk1, you should NOT believe in primary sources - see WP:PRIMARY. Its a policy that strongly disapproves of using them. Use secondary sources. That's wikipedia policy, its not me being odd, that's actually what the policy tells you to do, I'm just obeying it, unlike some.
- As for verifiability, the policy is say where you found it not keep repeating where you found it every time any tom dick or harry asks you. I have already said where I have found it; check the edit summaries in the edit history, and the associated edits, that's what its there for. If you want to find out the sources, where I've got it from, the detail is there for you; it is not my responsibility to repeat this for you.
- As for 'traditional interpretation', that's fine, as long as it is clearly marked as such and not given undue weight. This is an article about the Bible and the Bible isn't exclusive to Judaism, so don't distort it to suggest that the view of Orthodox Judaism is the norm from which all other views deviate.
- And as for Delete all other references, and put "citation needed", that is EXTREMELY inappropriate behaviour, and constitutes vandalism. Newman Luke (talk)
- (1) I do not read it that way. Primary sources are valid when used carefully, and I use them VERY carefully. Furthermore, the policy tends to consider encyclopedias more as tertiary sources than primary; please stop mis-stating it. Finally, a hundred-year-old encyclopedia widely understood (see the page on JE and the library journal article) to represent a particular school of German thinking strikes me as more of a primary source - but I have no reason to push that, as long as you properly cite it and allow other viewpoints.
- (2) The point is that your use of "wikified" footnote implies that you are quoting them directly, and you are not. The user has no way of knowing this, and they should be removed. There is no reason you cannot put your footnotes in a shortened form (Gen. 15:16, as per JE article Wedding), or at the end of the paragraph.
- (3) If all I can see is your "wikified" footnote, then there is in reality no citation. Please explain to me how anyone will accept a "citation needed" next to a citation?
- (4) A comment in an edit summary is nice for defending reverts, but it is NOT an inline ctation. Period. You like wikilawyering; please quote the policy or guideline that states otherwise. There are only three policies in Wikipedia, and you are completely ignoring one of them. I do not want to be a purist in this; but, in general, uncited material needs to be cited or removed. A cite MUST be on the article page. I just edited one of your articles, and it was FULL of uncited material. I'm sure you got it from a good source, but there was no way to tell what it was by looking at the page.Mzk1 (talk) 22:53, 22 February 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.