Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 5
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carne Adovada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, unsourced, violation of WP:NOHOWTO, sounds lake a hoax. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is not a hoax, but is a violation of WP:NOHOWTO, maybe if it is correctly sourced and re-written it could stand up. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Certainly not a hoax, carne adovada/adobada is a common, popular, and thoroughly notable dish.[1][2] Whether it needs its own article right now, I don't know. I agree that the content of the current article isn't what we're looking for in food articles. There's an existing article at Adobada to which this could be redirected until someone writes an article with sourced material about the history and culinary varieties of the dish. Such material would not be hard to find; here, for example, is a link, from the first page of Google Books results, to a discussion of the dish by Jane and Michael Stern.[3] --Arxiloxos (talk)
- Delete
and merge content to Adobo— "Carne adobada" and "Adobado" are synonyms with Adobo. "Adobo" is the article on es.wikipedia where Adobado redirects to there. Although the en.wikipedia article "Adobo" is not well sourced, I will look to see if there is any text (that is worth translating) or sources that I can use to improve the current article. -- JMax (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?) 01:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — After a few hours rewriting the article Adobo, with information translated from the es.wikipedia article of the same title, I have learned that this article Carne Adovada has many absurd statements to which I have attached the {Dubious} template. See Talk:Carne Adovada for the complete rundown. As a result, I would like to change my vote to Speedy Delete, citing WP:NOTHOWTO because this is written like a cookbook (Is there a WP:NOCOOKBOOK shortcut?),
WP:GNG because it does not meet notability guidelines as an individual article,and this reads as original research WP:NOR. There is nothing here worth moving to another article. Thanks, JMax (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?) 06:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you for your efforts in upgrading the adobo article. I note, however, that you've added nothing about the New Mexican version of the dish, which is the one valid contribution of the current, flawed Carne Adovada article. This is a hallmark dish in New Mexican cuisine. In addition to the Sterns' discussion I cited above, note the 100+ other hits at Google Books [4]. It is related to, but is not the same, as Spanish or Filipino abobo. The current Carne Adovada article is not a good one, and may be wrong to omit the roots of the dish in other cuisines (and its reference to carne asada does seem out of place), but carne adovada is a real and distinctive dish and an important one in New Mexican cuisine.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments Arxiloxos. I struck the statement I made above about not meeting WP:GNG, because further reading has led me to change my mind on that one. (Yes, I can change my mind on occasion.) I am thinking now that the article just needs to be rewritten from scratch, but the article that is there now needs to be scrapped. Regarding the article Adobo: first, I was only translating information from the Spanish-language article into English, so what I added was only what is already included in the Spanish article; second, I will work on adding New Mexico to the article -- thanks for the idea. -- JMax (Okay, tell me. What'd I do this time?) 04:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your efforts in upgrading the adobo article. I note, however, that you've added nothing about the New Mexican version of the dish, which is the one valid contribution of the current, flawed Carne Adovada article. This is a hallmark dish in New Mexican cuisine. In addition to the Sterns' discussion I cited above, note the 100+ other hits at Google Books [4]. It is related to, but is not the same, as Spanish or Filipino abobo. The current Carne Adovada article is not a good one, and may be wrong to omit the roots of the dish in other cuisines (and its reference to carne asada does seem out of place), but carne adovada is a real and distinctive dish and an important one in New Mexican cuisine.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — After a few hours rewriting the article Adobo, with information translated from the es.wikipedia article of the same title, I have learned that this article Carne Adovada has many absurd statements to which I have attached the {Dubious} template. See Talk:Carne Adovada for the complete rundown. As a result, I would like to change my vote to Speedy Delete, citing WP:NOTHOWTO because this is written like a cookbook (Is there a WP:NOCOOKBOOK shortcut?),
- Delete, per WP:NOR and WP:NOTHOWTO - as pointed by JMax, the article also has some dubious, unsourced claims. No proper content remains to be merged after taking that off - patitomr (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. It iw written more like a cookbook lead paragraph than an encyclopedia entry. What content is there can be merged into an appropriate article. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow delete This is pure spam. —GFOLEY FOUR— 16:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DeltaNeutralCalendarSpreading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a place to share your opinions on investing in the stock market. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) (Shout!) 22:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not sure why this wasn't marked for speedy. It reads like a cross between an essay and spam. Bagheera (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: smell likes spam to me. Eeekster (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article is obviously a spam mixed with advertisement essay. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hybrid of an editorial and spam (i.e. it doesn't belong here per WP:NOT) Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we aren't an essay host or whatever else this might be. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. So you are an investor that would like to invest in the stock market, and you want to make a profit but you do not want to lose your primary capital. In the spirit that a doctor is taught to “first do no harm”, the scope of this article is to propose one idea that presents a low risk but high reward strategy. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Reads like a advertisement. Nothing but spam. Whitewater111 (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedosadism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism about a supposed crossover of Pedophilia and Sadism. Clearly made up by the article creator. Was deleted by prod once then re-created by the author, prodded again and I deleted but restored as a contested prod :(. A handful of German sources refer to "Pädosadismus" but I don't think this is enough to warrant keeping this page full of lurid original research. Fences&Windows 22:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to Pedophilia which adequately covers the medical and criminologicla aspects of the subject. The Land (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd consider supporting that suggestions it others think it might be a plausible search term. Fences&Windows 18:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidently it's not a neologism - see here, for instance. The Land (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that "Medical Dictionary" WP:RS? Even the cover wording seems a little odd. --Closeapple (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidently it's not a neologism - see here, for instance. The Land (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd consider supporting that suggestions it others think it might be a plausible search term. Fences&Windows 18:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:Original research , WP:Neologism 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreadable by any standard and unsalvageable. Unnecessary as subject is covered adequately in Pedophilia. --Seduisant (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally non notable neologism - the only source that appears in Google is a single dictionary definition, but that's it. Evidently OR by the creator. OSborn arfcontribs. 02:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The term itself appears to fail under WP:NEO. Higher Google hits are casual use in informal language that could have been invented at the time. Lower Google hits are pure linkspam, possibly even generated from the Wikipedia article title. Pseudo-psychological word mashups happen all the time on the Internet; if this were the recognized term for a (probably) recognized concept, it would have readily-available journal research already. That being said, I don't know what word there is sadistic child molestation, or if there is even such a word. I'm sure criminologists and psychiatrists must have done some kind of research about it by now; maybe it's just described by a phrase rather than having a specific fixed name. --Closeapple (talk) 06:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article should be summed up neutrally in a few sentences and backed by solid sources in a parent article. Jnast1 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly a neologism for child abuse.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - straight up delete.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert Wells (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable one time third party candidate. I couldn't find anything on him in a brief Google search. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As an unsuccessful candidate, he fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other claim to notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As coments above. Googling reveals nothing except one or two mentions of this failure. How has this one been around since 2005 ! Acabashi (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN as unsuccessful candidate, as iterated above by Cullen328. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - past outcomes of debates almost always end up deleting losing minor party candidates, and even some losing major ones, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gail Goode. Only in cases where the subject has done something else notable with his life, such as Harry Wilson (businessman), have we kept such articles in recent years. The subject received a tiny proportion of the vote, which makes him non-notable. Our standards have tightened since 2007. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Almost a "keep" but not quite, could use another supersource or 2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Immune (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contains no content other than a tracklisting. Fails WP:NALBUMS. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 13:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: Has coverage by AllMusic, and the article is sourced. I do agree that the article needs expansion.--3family6 (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another source, between the two notability should be established.--3family6 (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per significant coverage in 3family6's comment. Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Furthermore, the nominator removed the AfD template from the article. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 01:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- United States at the 2011 World Aquatics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contains some crystal ball as well on wikipedia never has "insert country" at a world aquatic championship ever been created. Intoronto1125 (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguement is very weak. Just because its never been created before, doesn't mean that should stop us from making the article. Look at the World Championships in Athletics, specifically the 2009 World Championships in Athletics. They have "insert country" for every single country. Their competition is just as important as the World Aquatics Championships. Why shouldn't the World Aquatics Championships have "insert country" if that competition does? At the moment, currently the United States has an article but I believe its creation will inspire more creation. Philipmj24 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has been done to other sports festivals like Philipmj24 mentioned, needs some work for sure but when infos are coming it will be good. Kante4 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 21:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the nominator removed the AfD template [5] last week... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate Suggest that an admin boldly move this article to the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Mandy Smith#Singles/EP's. joe deckertalk to me 18:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mandy EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage, doesn't satisfy WP:NALBUMS Muhandes (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mandy Smith#Singles/EP's. There is no coverage of this EP released only in Hong Kong. The information in this article provides no additional information than what is already at that section of the discography so no merge is needed. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable even if it exists. Completely worthless article.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 18:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eliana Benador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I stumbled upon this article and it seems to not meet notability guidelines and it reads like an advertisement to me. There hasn't seemed to be any news about her in 3 or 4 years. Rowrowrowurboat (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is established by the references in the article, as well as other references brought forward in the previous AfD debate. Notability is not temporary and has no expiration date, so the lack of recent news coverage is irrelevant. Cullen328 (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator appears likely to be a single purpose account dealing only with this article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per the reasoning of the prior AFD discussion. There hasn't been any news about Joan of Arc in the last three or four centuries, but we're not going to delete that article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nom misses the point. There hasn't been much news about her ever. Two of the Google Classic hits mention her in passing. She said something about a subject unrelated to her, to the other 2 hits, which also show up on Google News; that's less trivial than utterly trivial, but none of it is about her, and therefore non of it establishes notability. Anarchangel (talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same with the cites in the article. Stuff happened, and the sources prove that. We have to take the author's word for it that she was there, or that her being there meant anything. Anarchangel (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Nominator being a single purpose account. No real indication of non-notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO. Real indication of non-notability by only 2 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 10:38, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe she passes WP:BIO. Also Gnews is hardly an indicator of notability or not.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep per Hullaballoo. Jivesh • Talk2Me 17:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not seeing anything that establishes notability, it looks self published and trivial. Szzuk (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not the quantity of the references that is important in this case, but the quality of the references. This is not an article about a pop star. I challenge anyone advocating "delete" to read the coverage in the Asia Times and The Nation, and then tell me that this is not in-depth coverage. In years or decades, when the history of the Iraq War is being written in depth, this Wikipedia article will function as a useful resource for helping to understand how that war was marketed. It would be sad to see it deleted. As for "self published", why would the devastating article in The Nation be referenced if that was the case? Cullen328 (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've re-read those two articles carefully. The Asia Times article was in my opinion self published, 8 years ago, and in The Nation article she admits spreading lies - news about news is rarely noteworthy. I also read the unrelated refs in the first AFD, they're all trivial. There isn't enough to establish notability. In fact for a publicist it could be described as a pretty poor showing. I can see your point, however I think you've misunderstood what a quality reference is. My opinion is that she has no quantity or quality references. Szzuk (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 21:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen328. Examples are given of substantial in-depth coverage in important publications. I don't understand Szzuk's comment that "news about news is rarely noteworthy", unless xe is suggesting that public relations people can never be notable. By the way, there are more GHits under the alternative spelling "Eleana".--Arxiloxos (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Szzuk expressed the opinion that Jim Lobe's article in Asia Times Online was somehow "self published". There isn't a shred of evidence for that. If the editor meant "self promotion" then that is also incorrect. Jim Lobe is a well-known and long time critic of the neo-conservative movement that Benador served so enthusiastically, and Lobe is the last person that Benador would go to to promote or "publish" herself. Lobe's article and the article in The Nation both make the explicit point that Benador is of long-term historic significance. That's exactly why we should keep this article. Anarchangel and Libstar failed to notice that her first name can be spelled two ways, and searched under the least common spelling. For those who want more in-depth coverage that what is already in the article, here's an article [6] from The Guardian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 April 2011
- Keep - article has sufficient independent reliable sources to meet WP:N, but should be expanded with additional independent sources such as interviews, to better meet BLP requirements. Grounds for deletion have not been established in accordance with established policy and guideline. There is room for slight rewriting to reduce any hint of POV, such as literally quoting opinionated sources. Benador Associates has additional coverage in several books. Eleana Benador also has similar book coverage. --Lexein (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1N400X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note when searching there is no such part as 1N400X, one must search for 1N4001 (or 2, 3 etc)
Contested nomination for PROD. No referenced assertion of notability. Wikipedia is not a parts catalog nor an indiscriminate collection of information. This is a parts catalog entry, not an encyclopedia article.There's no "who", "what", "when", "how" or "why" in this article, it's just a recitation of stuff you can get out of a catalog page listing. Wtshymanski (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. See comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1N4148. These are the two diodes (and not counting the BZY88 Zeners) where there is a case for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Mass deletion of electronic components SpinningSpark 12:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on this proposal. With the current glut of electronics components presented for AfD individually it is impossible to legitimately determine what the consensus is for any of them: discussion is simply fragmented over too many fronts such that no one can keep track of them all. A central meta-AfD is needed for general principles. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the GNG. A one line mention of this type of diode does not fall into line with "Significant coverage".
@Crispmuncher: one big AfD of all of these would get the same response. Each article needs to be weighed individually. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so: the problem with the current glut of component deletion discussions is that there are so many of them none of them can be considered properly. Wtshymanski beleives weeding is needed and I am receptive to that position. However, this is not the way to go about it. Consideration needs to take place at a higher level first, a set of guiding principles established, and individual articles in the light of those principles. Without that we risk ending up with an inconsistent mess based not on the intrinsic worth of any particular article but based on how vigorously the deletionists and retentionists stand up for each individual article. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't need another process, we have a perfectly fine mechanism for AfD and reliable guidelines as to what constitutes suitable topics. These can be applied consistently. I don't think I need to campaign for "no parts numbers as article topices", we can use existing guidelines. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is the guideline, If it is really such an influential part, then this must be attested to by multiple reliable sources, as does each and every Wikipedia article. No multiple, independant, significant, reliable sources: no article, no matter what. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant talk 21:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The title needs work but that's not a matter for AFD. The parts-catalog objection is not policy. Our editing policy is to continue to work upon this topic to improve its scope and content. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would someone please tell me which of these citations has more then a passing mention of this part? --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 23:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Electronic Principles has a section discussing the properties of the 1N4001, not as a random example, but because of its widespread use in power supplies. SpinningSpark 07:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep SpinningSpark 07:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google search for [allinurl: 1N400X] yields 140 websites that note "1N400X" in the URL. [allinurl: 1N4001] yields 605 websites that note "1N4001" in the URL. Such usage shows that under the definition of notability in WP:N these topics are considered "worthy of notice". It is reliable that these URLs exist and Wikipedia readers can verify that these webpages exist. There is no deadline for completing Wikipedia, it is enough for now that we know that the topic is notable. Unscintillating (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs)
- Comment by nominator Again, appearances on parts lists is not notability. There's no in-depth coverage, nothing to explain why this is the most blessed of all possible diodes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If someone feels the desire to merge it, I will undelete and redirect to facilitate this, but I don't see it as a likely search term otherwise. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rulering (punishment) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references. No uses of this term found on a Google search apart from Wikipedia mirrors. Not a real term. I might even describe it as "spankingcruft" The Land (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New Zealand, The Pittsburgh Press - Mar 13, 1941, The News - Feb 15, 1877. There is plenty more in Google Books, too. Royal road to happiness; or, The picture preacher: A book of pictures; John Warner Barber
- The poor standard of search skills exhibited by AFD nominators and delete voters never ceases to amaze me.
- The edit summary of the original author (User:Geary) is an exquisite example of why WP:POVFORK is not only written from a particular Point of View, but may well represent half or less of the cases it laboriously and unnecessarily describes. In this case, material that the author believes to be PoV is removed from the article "I do not endorse the content of this article. I copied this text from the Ruler article as a way to get it out of that article." Not someone pushing PoV. Someone pushing PoV away.
- Were the Ruler article of sufficient size, then I do not believe this material would be undue weight in it, but that seems unlikely. Consider, instead, if meatpuppets were to prevent good material from inclusion in an article, and the person seeking conclusion sees there is enough material to form an article. I imagine there were good articles deleted from WP already, good articles still on WP that were formed this way and more to come; are we to allow them to be jeopardized by a rule that assumes they are POV not only because of the the author's other actions (ad hominem) but because of the actions of other people?
- Anarchangel (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the term used in the first of those links; with the others, you'll have to point it out. But even though it isn't a neologism, you'll have a hard time convincing me there are enough reliable sources to give this article more than a mixture of dictionary definition and idle speculation. The Land (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust me, or do a Google News search for "Rulering" without the (punishment) suffix. Makes a big difference. 'Rulering' as punishment is described in detail in the articles, and shown verbatim in the search text. Google searches vary by search date and even user, but I got 13 hits and those three were all on the first of two pages. Anarchangel (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News comes up with nothing at all. Google News Archives comes up with 13, but if one excludes duplicates, foreign-language articles and apparent OCR errors there seem to be two distinct occurrences of its usage in this context. That might put the term in a dictionary (on a good day with a following wind). It doesn't mean it's a subject for an encyclopedia article. The Land (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust me, or do a Google News search for "Rulering" without the (punishment) suffix. Makes a big difference. 'Rulering' as punishment is described in detail in the articles, and shown verbatim in the search text. Google searches vary by search date and even user, but I got 13 hits and those three were all on the first of two pages. Anarchangel (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see the term used in the first of those links; with the others, you'll have to point it out. But even though it isn't a neologism, you'll have a hard time convincing me there are enough reliable sources to give this article more than a mixture of dictionary definition and idle speculation. The Land (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a made up word, the correct term is caning. You can be caned with more than a cane, my teachers made do with any old stick :) Tentontunic (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is likely a neologism, and certainly a made up term. Strap, cane, ruler were all forms of corporal punishment in schools and college yonks ago. That it gets applied to buttocks does not qualify for BDSM either. See the movie Dead_Poets_Society; Charlie gets the pandybat on the buttocks from the Headmaster and re-enacts this in the dorms afterwards. Definitely no sexual element.--Whiteguru (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to School corporal punishment with a mention at Ruler. The references provided by Anarchangel clearly indicate that this is not a neologism (still less a "made up term"). Insisting that "the correct term is caning" is a misunderstanding of ENGVAR I think; if one is hit with a cane then it's a caning, if one is hit with a belt (strap) it's a belting (strapping), if one is hit with a paddle it's a paddling, and these printed sources (from as far back as 1871, no less!) use "rulering" to mean being hit with a ruler. Re-labelling it a caning (just because the cane used to be the most common instrument of corporal punishment in British and Commonwealth schools?) makes no sense, just as re-labelling it a paddling or a strapping would make no sense. Whether the practice does or does not feature in BDSM is not relevant to its notability. Unfortunately the BDSM aspects of common corporal punishments mean that there is indeed a proliferation of cruft material in this topic area, and a corresponding reaction to it (for example, as Archangel points out, this article was created in the first place, not as an addition of spankcruft material, but as a content fork to get BDSM-related material relocated out of other articles on grounds of IDONTLIKEIT). However, that's a reason for the historical and cultural topic area (not the cruft) to need to be covered better, not a reason for material about it to deleted as supposedly 140-year-old neologisms. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:HEY. Good rescue by Dr. Blofeld et al. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Piantadino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. Only information to be found are various almost empty listings at all the usual places (IMDB, etc) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand Really? a]The article could be expanded with info about the original comic strip. b] The film is also notable, being directed by Mugica and starring Pepe Iglesias, a popular Argentine comedian and written by Carlos A. Petit who was amongst one of Argentine cinema's all time great screenwriters. Information about a film from Argentina form 1950 online is inevitably going to be poor but the sources currently used are sufficient for it to pass notability requirements. It would be best to expand it with information about the comic and film in a single article I think..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Really. The sources you've found indicate that the film existed. Nothing much more. The comic strip may have had notability; the film does not appear to have. The article had remained a stub for over 4 years. It wasn't going anywhere. (I don't believe that the various historical references you've provided, that list the film as "a film made in Argentina in 1950" really help the notability issue all that much.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has it not occurred to you that 1950 Argentine films do not have masses of material floating around on the Internet? What makes you think it is non notable?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Really. The sources you've found indicate that the film existed. Nothing much more. The comic strip may have had notability; the film does not appear to have. The article had remained a stub for over 4 years. It wasn't going anywhere. (I don't believe that the various historical references you've provided, that list the film as "a film made in Argentina in 1950" really help the notability issue all that much.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Blofeld. Appears to be a major Argentinian film. An equivalent American comedy from the same period, say Pat and Mike, wouldn't even have been nominated. —Chowbok ☠ 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Following the excellent expansion work. Lugnuts (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dr Blofeld has indeed done quite a bit to expand the article; mostly with information about the comic, not information about the film. If you check his sources, they all appear to be entries in various directories of Argentine film. I don't see a single piece of significant coverage for this film. Admittedly, the film is 60 years old, and sources may be hard to find, but in the absence of any, I still don't see how this film qualifies for inclusion. Perhaps it should be reborn as a film about the comic strip instead, with a mention of the film in a "Related media" section. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the comic was more notable than the film its still a valid subject. I know more about Argentine cinema than anybody on wikipedia and whilst I've never seen the film I do know that the director, writer and main star are very notable figures in Argentine cinema which would indicate its notable. Try researching any 1950 Argentine movie online or google books and the amount of solid sources you'll find will be the same. Does that mean that Argentine never produced a notable movie in this period? Or are we faced with the extreme uneveness of web resources? OK lets try Arrabalera (1950) starring Tita Merello, one of the biggest tango stars of Argentina and the directorial debut off Tulio Demicheli, another of the top Argentine directors. turns up similar type sources. Lets try Así es el tango from 1937, a major tango production also starring Tita Merello. Barely anything at all. So the films are non notable? You're wrong, these were major films in Argentina.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The expansion with sources shows that both the comic strip and the movie are notable. They could have separate articles, but there is no problem with having one article that discusses representations of Adolfo Mazzone's character in both media. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The current title is suitable for a treatment of named character, film, and comic series, with the comic series being sourced more than adequately, and at this time best of the three. "empty listings" is a misrepresentation and this continues ("I don't see a single piece of significant coverage"), with raising of the bar ("absence of any"). Anarchangel (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability in Argentina for a 1950s pre-Wikipedia pre-internet topic is perfectly fine for en.WIkipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep: No substantial arguments for deletion beyond nominator (Non Admin Closure) Hasteur (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Psychology of Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional or non-notable topic. The name of the book does not allow for a book to be included as an article on WP. Wikidas© 20:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm unclear how this could be a promotional article 97 years after first publication? A Google Books search turns up plenty of books discussing Gilbreth and this work in particular. AllyD (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Notability is not inherited. Even if the author is notable the book by the same may not be. See GNG afor inclusion criteria. I accept your point that promotion is the wrong word. Wikidas© 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be explicit about the Google Books links I provided. Take one of them, "A to Z of women in science and math" by Lisa Yount, p121: "Martha Trescott says that this book 'open(ed) whole new areas to scientific management ... (It) formed a basis for much modern management theory'". Or Encyclopaedia of New Jersey, p315: "Her dissertation, entitled 'The Psychology of Management,' became a classic in its field." AllyD (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Notability is not inherited. Even if the author is notable the book by the same may not be. See GNG afor inclusion criteria. I accept your point that promotion is the wrong word. Wikidas© 20:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If notable, this ought to be an article, and if not, it ought to be a redirect to Lillian Moller Gilbreth#Work where it's discussed. I can see the argument for non-notability, but what I don't see is how "non-notable" leads to a delete outcome in this case.—S Marshall T/C 21:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD step 1 hasn't been completed so no reader of the page in question would be aware of this discussion. Nor has the original article creator been notified (though s/he does not appear to have been active since 2006). AllyD (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am completing this process now and am not opposed to redirect as a result of AfD, even if the name of the book is too generic for that and the book is not that famous. Wikidas© 07:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still unclear on the basis for this nomination, but I'm wondering - is it the article name that is causing the nominator a problem? Would Wikidas be more comfortable if the article was renamed, for example, to "The Psychology of Management (book)" so that someone seeking the generic field would not come straight to that page? (If that's the issue and a suitable way to address it, then this can be done through a simple rename after discussion on the article talk page, with the need for AfD.) AllyD (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The basis of this nomination is not clear to me either, except that it should demonstrate notability from 3rd party sources. Clearly, the sources are available on the Internet, which gives a compelling reason not to delete the article. Articles are normally deleted if there is no obvious sources to demonstrate notability, but I don't think that is the case here. So there is no obvious reason to completely delete it right now. Renaming it to "The Psychology of Management (book)" wouldn't be such a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.241.92 (talk) 10:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still unclear on the basis for this nomination, but I'm wondering - is it the article name that is causing the nominator a problem? Would Wikidas be more comfortable if the article was renamed, for example, to "The Psychology of Management (book)" so that someone seeking the generic field would not come straight to that page? (If that's the issue and a suitable way to address it, then this can be done through a simple rename after discussion on the article talk page, with the need for AfD.) AllyD (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- Notability is established by the policy of Wikipedia, there is no claim for notability of this book and even if it was claimed it is not substantiated by reliable sources. There is no reason for this article to exist, and notability is not inherited. Wikidas© 06:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But nobody is claiming inherited notability. Repeating the 3rd party quotes above about the book: 'open(ed) whole new areas to scientific management", "formed a basis for much modern management theory'", "a classic in its field". AllyD (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia policy does not say that there should be a source that says: "this subject is notable" so wikidas' argument is invalid. Notability is established through multiple means. The fact that the book is so widely quoted at least gives reason that the book is notable. I do think the article needs more information for it to be a worthwhile wikipedia article. But as it stands, it could at least be called a "stub".
- Keep The article as it stands doesn't explain how it is notable. From scholarly searches, it is certainly clear that it is a widely references and notable book, but the article should be longer than it currently is and mention some of the sources that discuss this book.
- Comment I don't think there is any reason to delete it though. I would say keep it, and mention that the article is a stub.
- Comment A few possible sources that could be integrated into the article:
- "The Psychology of Management is a major early work in its field" [7]
- "The Psychology of Management was a groundbreaking work on the health of industrial workers which had an enormous impact on the development of business practices in the twentieth century." [8]
- "The Psychology of Management," became a classic in its field." [9]
- "The Psychology of Management was the touchstone for a new field of study." [10]
- "The psychology of Management... became a classic" [11]
- "... today it is recognized as authoritative" [12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.241.92 (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Psychology of Management is the foundation on which modern industrial management theory and practice is built." [13] 86.45.241.92 (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep due to the incoherent deletion rationale presented, which doesn't allow for a sensible response to be made. What on earth is "the name of the book does not allow for a book to be included as an article on WP" supposed to mean? Are there certain book titles that in themselves make it impossible that the books with them are suitable topics for an encyclopedia? Of course not. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was move to Tim Spears (Onboard Systems) and delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Spears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- I fail to see why this fellow is in any way notable. —Chowbok ☠ 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Techlogs saw fit to write this article over the top of a biog of a rugby player. That article is now at Tim Spears (Rugby Player). Delete this version and move the rugby guy back over to here. Poor show from Techlogs if I may be so bold as to say. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That article is now at Tim Spears (rugby). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY, also support above motion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article is part of cut and paste page move. I have listed it and the rugby player article at WP:SPLICE for a history merge. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and Dylanfromthenorth. —Tim Pierce (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have history-merged the rugby player edits to Tim Spears (rugby), and its talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]
- Move to Tim Spears (Onboard Systems) and then delete, so that Tim Spears (rugby) does not sit over a deleted WP:Parallel history when it is moved back to Tim Spears. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:13, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move then delete per Anthony Appleyard. Tim Spears of Ultramain/Onboard has no coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Psp earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable application. Cannot find coverage in reliable independent sources to pass WP:GNG. Possible conflict of interest, article creators only contributions are to this article. doomgaze (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't appear notable, possible spam article. Article doesn't even tell you what the program is or what it does. Rehevkor ✉ 17:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable homebrew software; lacks significant coverage in 3rd party refs to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FindingDulcinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Website which does not appear to meet the WP:GNG general guidelines for notability. There are a few references, generally amounting to 2 or 3 sentence blurbs in an reliable publications, but none of these amount to in-depth coverage. Everything I find on google I would consider "trivial" coverage. This was supposed to be the "next big thing" back in 2008, but it doesn't appear to have come to fruition as such, and given the lack of depth in the coverage of this topic, it is likely not notable enough for Wikipedia. Jayron32 20:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree; for what it's worth, I'd never heard of it before browsing the wikification backlog and judging by my Google search, in 2+ years it doesn't seem to have gotten far enough off the ground. Sounds like a good idea, more difficult in execution.--Wi2g (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I Completely agree with the reasoning stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightenbelle (talk • contribs) 15:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- John Bryant Davila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NACTOR, only major role is in a redlinked film. Other credits are commercial and minor roles. No third party refs with significant coverage - Times ref only cast mention. The Interior (Talk) 20:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilkingzarkon (talk • contribs) 20:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Do I need to say something? Eduemoni↑talk↓ 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That the film was redlinked is irrelevant (it was his most substantive work to date), as is the fact that it was deleted as spam. The film was noteable, and covered extensively, although mostly criticisms; it was not a commercial or academic success, and has not been critically covered in the last 14 years. I find no coverage as yet of the actor individually (including interviews in venues that cover movies with gay themes) or coverage of community involvement, either locally or nationally; any of these might have made referencing and retention possible. Dru of Id (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – NN actor lacking Ghits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR. ttonyb (talk) 02:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Acsis Incorporated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article reads much like the press releases listed as citations. There is no independent citations to prove WP:NOTE. Suggest editor look at Article Wizard and follow those steps. As it stands this article does not meet eligibility requirements. With some work it might have enough merit. Golgofrinchian (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed all biased speak and call to action language. There is little online about our company as of right now but this article will be edited later when I can add more sources and case studies. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreymeyers (talk • contribs) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another solutions provider of products and services for product visibility and traceability and supply chain optimization. Is there a back office tech startup that doesn't imagine itself an encyclopedia subject? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the thousands of Wikipedia articles on this site, it is apparent that Acsis Inc's entry offers proper information and relevance that many on this site simply do not have. With upcoming serialization mandates rapidly becoming the norm, Acsis solidifies itself as the leading company helping organizations make this transition seamlessly. We understand the saturation of supply-chain software companies on wikipedia, however we feel as if we stand out from the herd in more ways than one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coreymeyers (talk • contribs) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. Note that I've removed material from the article that was copied verbatim from web pages as copyright violations. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nominated by mistake. Peridon (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lambda olive oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously deleted and reinstated for improvement. No improvement yet made. Previous to this, advert tags removed by SPA editors. Bringing it to AfD for consensus. For me, it's spam. Peridon (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Miniature Siberian Husky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources covering the Miniature Siberian Husky. Entirely unnotable -- they're claimed to be "mutations", and if that's the case, they should be covered in the Siberian Husky article, at least for now. — anndelion (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any third-party reliable sources discussing this purported breed. No reputable kennel club recognizes it either. I would point out, though, that being a "mutation" of another breed has no effect on notability - the German Water Spaniel may have originated as a mutation of the Portuguese Water Dog, but both breeds are notable. --NellieBly (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting, do you have any further info on it? They're thought to have common ancestry, but I've never read that the Poodle arose as a PWD mutation. Even if that's the case, they've been separate recognized breeds for decades and developed, for the most part, independently. — anndelion ※ 01:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Can't find any reliable sources for this. Miyagawa (talk) 22:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SoldierKnowsBest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP. Cannot find coverage in reliable secondary sources. doomgaze (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. There is also some peacock terminology being used such as "Mark Watson is a big name in the YouTube tech community." but there is/are no reference(s) to back up such a claim. Golgofrinchian (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have removed all unreliable sources and peacock material and expanded the entry, I thought 200,000 subscribers and 50 million video views was enough to backup the claim, It was also the first entry and I said I would expand on it. User: KennyMataz
- Video views and subscribers is not a criteria of notability, we need (generally speaking) significant coverage from third party sources, see WP:GNG. Rehevkor ✉ 17:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless anyone can find coverage in reliable secondary sources to show he meets WP:Notability (people). I had a brief look but couldn't see any.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An article by Chris Pirillo about SoldierKnowsBest Link
- Has won 2 Shorty Awards in tech.
- Article on TechRepublic about his iPhone App and a bit about him Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyMataz (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really do believe he is a notable person KennyMataz (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The techrepublic 'review' is user-sumitted, thus is not a reliable source. It does not appear to be a review so much as a copy-and-paste of a press release or similar. I am not familiar with either Mr Pirillo or these awards, so I would appreciate other editors input about whether these additions meet our guidelines. doomgaze (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Regarding the Pirillo link, generally blogs aren't considered reliable sources (see WP:RS). (The exception is "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."- does that apply to any extent here?)
- Sorry if this all seems very bureaucratic KennyMataz, but the rules on sourcing biographies of living people are, sensibly, pretty stict. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Single corps? The army has a unit for soldiers without significant others? Or perhaps just one solitary unit it does not have another name for? Or is that supposed to be Signal Corps? Anarchangel (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that Anarchangel, I have fixed the mistake. Chris Pirillo is most definitely a professional in his field, he has worked alongside Leo Laporte and his blog network is very well known as a major tech resource. I get it Physics is all gnomes thanks, but I do believe that he deserves to be in wikipedia, I'm a big fan, and you may say subscriber count doesn't mean anything, but it means he has 200,000 fans, some of which are new fans and want to know more, everybody turns to Wikipedia to learn more about something and I'm sure this article would be a good contribution KennyMataz (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by MrKIA11 (talk · contribs); rationale was "for the same reason this article was previously deleted: this is a hoax. The last edition of the tournament was the 1998–99 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1999-00 UEFA Cup Winners' Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cup Winners' Cup finished as a competition in 1999, so this page is pure fabrication and obviously should be deleted NapHit (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. In fact this should probably be speedy-able somehow as it is just fiction. Keresaspa (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 20:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gary Martin (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has had a CSD (A7) declined and BLPPROD removed recently, both by Y (talk · contribs). There is no evidence of notability, and this article fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Icelandic football is not fully pro, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is no indication he passes WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep the whole shebang. It's been snowing here since day 2. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Writer (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lights (Ellie Goulding song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A proliferation of WP:FANCRUFT violating WP:NSONGS. NSONGS is crystal clear: While "[s]ongs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts… are probably notable," "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." The presumption is that individual songs will be treated in an article about the artist or album unless there is something outstanding about the song that warrants treatment in an independent article. Because there's nothing invidually distinctive about these singles that lifts them up from the mine run, nothing warrants a separate article and they should be deleted (or merged into their parent album). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FD: I recently proposed a merge and encountered a bunch of self-selecting WP:ILIKEIT resistance; the tags were just removed by another editor and rather than reinstate them, it's time to try it this way. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep — You're reasoning for the deletion of this article (and the other ones by Ellie you nominated) don't make much sense to me. Every article you nominated passes WP:NSONGS. The songs have been 1) released as a single 2) have charted and 3) the articles itself are very well sourced. Yes, the articles are fairly bare, but in no way should these be deleted off of Wikipedia. Just because not many people edit the articles doesn't mean it is it is WP:FAN. From what I see, she is not an extremely known artist, so her articles would not get as many edits, as say Lady Gaga's would. The articles are notable, so I see no problem with them being here on Wikipedia. ℥nding·start 00:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? None of them pass NSONGS. None of the singles have anything that makes them stand out above the mine run of singles, as NSONGS requires. They're just singles, and the articles simply recite their charting position and fancruft descriptions of the video and song content. Plainly NSONG. Also: "You're" means "you are." You mean "your."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they do. WP:NSONG states; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Two things to note, the first being if the song charted it is allowed a page as long as it is not a stub. None of these articles are stubs, all articles contain information notable outside the parent album, such as music videos, reviews, charting, and background information. Myself and 5 other users (so far) are telling you they meet guidelines. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but you're wrong. NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear: songs don't get individual articles unless something about them rises above the norm. Otherwise they are dealt with in the article about their parent article. I already explained that in the nom—if in doubt, re-read it and read NSONGS more carefully. Your position amounts to the claim that what NSONGS gives with one hand it takes away with the other, creating both a rule and an almost unlimited exception. It doesn't. Such a conclusion would be absurd and would defeat the entire point of NSONGS, which is to prevent the proliferation of mindless fancruft like this articles. Nothing about these singles warrants a separate article, so they should be deleted (or merged) and redirected to the parent article. If you disagree, your beef isn't with the nom but the policy—take it up on WP:NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thats your view. But you are correct, "NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear" yes it is. It is clear, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Meet any of those guidelines as long as its not a stub means it gets a page. As you can clearly see below what i have just stated is the actual guideline, not your interpretation. Im walking away now, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NSONGS is crystal clear: It gets more so if you don't stop reading at a convenient point. Notability is NOT enough for an independent article—read the part that starts "notability aside." And your argument that any article that isn't a stub is a valid article is absolutely absurd.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Are you saying there isn't enough information in these articles? Now that is absurd! The articles are all average size, and once again, GAs have had much less substance. Unless they are stubs, which they are absolutely not, they are fine. How many song articles have you seen anyway? Let me show you some. this and this here. Both of these are about the size of these articles above and they are GAs. Furthermore, you keep going on and on about fancruft, when there appears to be little, if any. Music video sections are part of almost all song articles and they mostly are unreferenced and just give a synopsis of the song's video. I suggest you drop this AfD, as it is snowing like there's no tomorrow. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NSONGS states "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." All these songs have enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. All are already beyond stubs. So NSONGS is crystal clear that these songs are appropriate for articles. Rlendog (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NSONGS is crystal clear: It gets more so if you don't stop reading at a convenient point. Notability is NOT enough for an independent article—read the part that starts "notability aside." And your argument that any article that isn't a stub is a valid article is absolutely absurd.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, thats your view. But you are correct, "NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear" yes it is. It is clear, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Meet any of those guidelines as long as its not a stub means it gets a page. As you can clearly see below what i have just stated is the actual guideline, not your interpretation. Im walking away now, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but you're wrong. NSONGS is absolutely crystal clear: songs don't get individual articles unless something about them rises above the norm. Otherwise they are dealt with in the article about their parent article. I already explained that in the nom—if in doubt, re-read it and read NSONGS more carefully. Your position amounts to the claim that what NSONGS gives with one hand it takes away with the other, creating both a rule and an almost unlimited exception. It doesn't. Such a conclusion would be absurd and would defeat the entire point of NSONGS, which is to prevent the proliferation of mindless fancruft like this articles. Nothing about these singles warrants a separate article, so they should be deleted (or merged) and redirected to the parent article. If you disagree, your beef isn't with the nom but the policy—take it up on WP:NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually they do. WP:NSONG states; "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article [...] Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Two things to note, the first being if the song charted it is allowed a page as long as it is not a stub. None of these articles are stubs, all articles contain information notable outside the parent album, such as music videos, reviews, charting, and background information. Myself and 5 other users (so far) are telling you they meet guidelines. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? None of them pass NSONGS. None of the singles have anything that makes them stand out above the mine run of singles, as NSONGS requires. They're just singles, and the articles simply recite their charting position and fancruft descriptions of the video and song content. Plainly NSONG. Also: "You're" means "you are." You mean "your."- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep pointy WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Tbhotch* ۩ ۞ 00:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - WP:POINT-ish, i read the merge thing weeks ago and consensus (including admin consensus) told you that the merge was clearly against you. All articles pass in full, WP:GNG, WP:SONG and most important, WP:NSONG. This is a silly nomination and should be closed as keep. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep.Diddo. Not only are you trying to make a point, but you've made it snow in April. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:53, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, its going to be snowing. Clearly the nominator knows nothing about music articles on Wikipedia or WP:SONGS. Candyo32 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy KeepStrong Keep Pointy as Tbhotch and Lakeshade stated. The articles have a fair amount of sources, and not fan cruft. Novice7 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CANVAS problem? User:Ending-start, would you explain how you selected the 11 users you asked to participate in this AfD this evening after your first !vote?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will gladly answer this as well. WP:CANVAS; "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Appropriate notification; "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who [...] who are known for expertise in the field," <--- Check, we are all music editors and know the guidelines. "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion". Also check. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like a pretty clear WP:CANVASS problem to me. Prodego talk 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What part of WP:CANVASS is being violated? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Based upon what? State what part of the policy, as i explained above, what is allowed according to CANVAS are neutral notifications of users with experience in the field, which is what Ending-start has done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And as the guideline says—again, if you bothered to read guidelines before spouting about them instead of cherry-picking the parts that help your case—some motivations for and patterns of notification are not appropriate, most importantly vote stacking: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion." If the users are all inclusionists whom Ending-start happens to know will reliably show up and vote to keep—which is exactly what's happened here, making a pretty good prima facie case for vote stacking—that's a CANVAS violation. Hence the request for Ending-start to explain him/herself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear WP:SNOWBALL consensus that article in full meets WP:NSONG. I am done here, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does your userpage imply anything other than that you write music articles? Yes, it does. It implies that you are strongly in favor of an exceedingly lax interpretation of NSONGS, as your comments here demonstrate. Your user page shows that you have an inexplicable affinity for editing utterly worthless articles that should be deleted from any serious encyclopedia. And the bottom line is far from a SNOWBALL situation (and if you had read SNOWBALL, you would know that it observes that the validity of a SNOW close is, paradoxically, never known until after the debate has run); it appears to be a case where a fifteen year old editor who's been here less than a year notified a bunch of reliable votes for music articles, they showed up and voted as a block, and then a seventeen year old editor claimed a snow close. As Wayne's World might have said (look it up, you're too young to remember) "Yeah, right!" Dude, you can't even write properly (the number of errors on this page alone are frightening: "you're" for "your", "i"), how can you possibly ask to be taken seriously as a contributor? This is is a project for adults and adult subjects, not childish nonsense.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay you pick and choose the parts you like, continue reading "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinion. (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)". Does my userpage imply anything other than that i write music articles? no, doesnt show my opinion on rules or anything similar, only thing it imply is that i am a music editor, which is what this discussion is about, hence why i am here, as stated by CANVAS to invite users "who are known for expertise in the field". Tho i admit he invited too many people but thats a different matter. Bottom line, clear WP:SNOWBALL consensus that article in full meets WP:NSONG. I am done here, have a nice day. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That looks like a pretty clear WP:CANVASS problem to me. Prodego talk 04:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Will gladly answer this as well. WP:CANVAS; "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Appropriate notification; "On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who [...] who are known for expertise in the field," <--- Check, we are all music editors and know the guidelines. "Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion". Also check. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifying specific lists of users (particularly a list as long as 11 users) is always a canvassing problem. Prodego talk 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never once said on a message on any user's talkpage stating "Please support me in this." I asked them to take part in this discussion. Yes, I agree I could have just left a message on the songs/albums Wikipedia, but I'd much rather contact them personally. The only reason I left comments in the first place is this discussion had no replies within 2 days of posting, and I felt as if since not a lot of people edit Ellie's articles (seeing from the singles), that no one would stumble upon the deletion tag and come visit. If you check out the "please see" template, and compare it with what I said: "I would appreciate it if you took part in this discussion about the deletion of all of the articles of Ellie Goulding's singles", there's not much difference. I didn't even realize how many people I actually posted on. D: That part is my mistake. But I was not campaigning, votestacking, or stealth canvassing. ℥nding·start 10:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure looks like votestacking to me. You notified users with a specific interest in singles who could be reliably expected to show up and take an anti-NSONGS position (a policy which restricts precisely the category of articles you seem to like). And any doubt is dispelled by the result: one by one, everyone you notified has showed up and voted "speedy keep!" "Strong keep!" "Obviously keep!," all while utterly failing to engage with the relevant policy. Votestacking.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never once said on a message on any user's talkpage stating "Please support me in this." I asked them to take part in this discussion. Yes, I agree I could have just left a message on the songs/albums Wikipedia, but I'd much rather contact them personally. The only reason I left comments in the first place is this discussion had no replies within 2 days of posting, and I felt as if since not a lot of people edit Ellie's articles (seeing from the singles), that no one would stumble upon the deletion tag and come visit. If you check out the "please see" template, and compare it with what I said: "I would appreciate it if you took part in this discussion about the deletion of all of the articles of Ellie Goulding's singles", there's not much difference. I didn't even realize how many people I actually posted on. D: That part is my mistake. But I was not campaigning, votestacking, or stealth canvassing. ℥nding·start 10:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notifying specific lists of users (particularly a list as long as 11 users) is always a canvassing problem. Prodego talk 04:41, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Articles meet WP:NSONGS. Seems to be WP:POINT. All of these can be greatly expanded, especially Starry Eyed. I suggest you take the time research the topic and do so. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Writer (song)
SpeedyStrong Keep, - It is (at least) a fairly well constructed article and is certainly not a stub. It has charted and is sourced. There are unfortunately many music articles in existence that are no where near this good! - Starry Eyed (Ellie Goulding song)
SpeedyStrong Keep, but - It is certainly notable, but I would like to see an actual source for the release date. The ref in the LEAD currently just goes to what appears to me to be the artist's site landing page. There is no date of Release seen there. It probably did appear there at one time however. There should also be sources shown for the Track listing section. - Under the Sheets
SpeedyStrong Keep, - Notable song. Some other observations...Please use the 'ref name' or multiref function to also include the sources in the Track listing section. Ref is not needed in the LEAD for 15 Nov as it is in the Release history section. - Lights (Ellie Goulding song)
SpeedyStrong Keep, - notable, sourced, no stub here either. - Guns and Horses
SpeedyStrong Keep, - once again no reason to delete this one either. Comment...perhaps the LEAD could be a bit more expanded.—Iknow23 (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very nice, well rounded referenced articles. Obviously enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. RxS (talk) 04:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The song has charted and is therefore notable. Dolovis (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep — per Ending Start. Jivesh • Talk2Me 08:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nominator's arguments. Nominated as a whole, Keep as a whole. While the part of SONGS that the nominator claims is pertinent is disturbingly vague ("enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", even more so than most of the inherently subjective notability guidelines, nom has made insufficient effort to show that these articles lack enough to pass it reasonably. Articles presented as a group are usually a slam-dunk delete; this is just laziness.
- To the Speedy Keep voters: See Wikipedia:Speedy keep#Applicability; Speedy Keep is not a measure of how valuable the article is, but a specific description of procedural violations. I have seen none here (and trust me, I have a good eye for it) and I suggest you amend your votes with strike notation <s>
like this</s> to a regular Keep vote or Strong Keep. - I suggest that Lights be amended, with the sections Background, Critical reception and Chart performance rolled into one section or even a one-paragraph section; I have used that technique on numerous articles and it makes articles with short sections look a lot smoother. Anarchangel (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; all the articles appear to have a reasonable level of detail and critical reception to warrant inclusion as seperate topics. The nominator talks about "mine run"; i.e. that the songs should be distinctly notable compared to other songs. This has never been our criteria in any aspect of notability. Certainly the portion of NSONGS that he quotes does not directly imply that we are looking for some notable facet of the song before it warrants it's own article - indeed it seems explicit in saying that if a reasonable length of material can be found we are good to go, as it were. Nominator claims it is accepted practice for songs to be kept within the artist or album article, but has not demonstrated the existence of this practice. --Errant (chat!) 10:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyStrong Keep, i had to actually pinch myself to see if this is a genuine request or not. Ellie Goulding is one of the most important UK artists of 2010, holding the same prestige as Adele (Brit Award Winner). There is not rational to delete any of the articles. All satisfy the conditions at WP:NSONGS which state that if a song has charted and received independent coverage they are notable. Agreed they could all do with expansion but all have sufficient enough detail which could not be merged into the parent album. Songs with multiple national charts are notable. This is actually a waste of project time. Hence I recommend closing this a discussion as soon as possible. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 11:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Strong Keep. All singles by one of the most prolific singer-songwriters of 2010, plenty of sales for each of them to warrant WP:NSONGS. Look, I'm fine with articles on unreleased songs being shoved up to AfD, but not ones that made the top five. I'd close this discussion but there are some canvassing issues which prevent that, so I'll simply give my support for keeping these. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 11:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Per all other keep reasons in this discussion. It is obvious that these are notable and only someone who has no clue about song articles would say otherwise. All of these have charted, and while they might not be the largest articles, I have seen GAs with much less content. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 12:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Projection. Notability is irrelevant, as NSONGS explained, and the rest of your comment is simply an elaborate WP:OTHERSTUFF argument: "If we applied NSONGS properly to this article, why, we might have to delete many other articles... but... but... but I like those other articles!" Okay, stipulated that there are a lot of articles that violate Wikipedia policy. Is that a surprise to anyone?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay, so I can use such argument as much as I wish, and I should, as it is effective. Second, I don't understand what you are saying. You are really not making any sense with the rest of your reply. I like this? I have no clue who she is. I just know enough about WP:NSONGS to know that these are all obviously notable articles. They have all charted and none of them are stubs. A valid argument please? If these were stubs you might have a case. --ĈÞЯİŒ 1ооо 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I can't really see anything wrong with this article at all - sourced, npov, notable artist, etc. Bob talk 12:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you bother to read WP:NSONGS? The bar to clear is not "sourced, npov, notable artist." You can't !vote keep without explaining why if these singles warrant an article, every single doesn't warrant an article—a result which is the upshot of your position and which violates letter, spirit, and purpose of NSONGS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts [...] are probably notable." All have. Get off the high-horse. 狐 Dhéanamh ar rolla bairille! 13:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reading. It goes on to say, "notability aside..." Notability is a necessary condition for a standalone article, NOT a sufficient one. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What that is saying is firstly that songs ranking on a national chart are usually notable. That means there is a valid argument for creating a standalone article, and in this case I don't think any of the songs can be disputed in that regard. It then goes on to say that if there is not enough information to create an article of reasonable length, then a redirect is more appropriate. Let's take "The Writer" as an example; there is a reasonable length of critical commentary on the work. Now I could be convinced of the argument that it is still worthy of merging into the album; but we have a few songs off the same Album with the same length of commentary, and merging them starts to bloat the album article. So really we are choosing one of two approaches; a longer Album article, or shorter individual articles. I'm in the latter camp FWIW. --Errant (chat!) 13:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in the camp that applies NSONGS—its letter and spirit—and eliminates meaningless fancruft. As to the former, you are badly misreading NSONGS. (If you want to tell me that NSONGS has been underenforced for a while and applying it threatens a number of other articles that some of the editors canvassed above really like, I will happily stipulate that point.) What NSONGS says is this: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Okay? That's the premise. That's the background assumption. Now: "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts … are probably notable," but, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article…." And there is the problem, for there is nothing in these articles (or which could be added to these articles) that warrants a standalone article.
- What you are failing to recognize is that NSONGS exists for the purpose of limiting the number of articles on individual songs, and you are interpreting it in a way that suggests that it does absolutely nothing, in a way that suggests that a limited exception swallows the rule itself. That's almost WP:GAMETYPE g1, except it doesn't even stick to the letter of the policy! It elevates a misreading of the text over both the text itself and the purpose of the policy.
- As to the latter, you say that we have to choose between short singles articles or long album articles, but that's a false dilemma when much of the length is padding: A section describing a song's video? I would argue that if you rip the bloated fancruft out of these articles, there is little added length to the "singles" section of the parent album.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eeek, no. I think we just view this from different perspectives. I see some OK, sourced material that should probably be around somewhere. And my view is that it is best to split it into individual articles. The music video sections account less than a third of most articles (and apart from the description does contain some pertinent factual detail about the filming). Padding? I don't know about that, there isn't anything specifically I would cut. Bottom line; I see some reasonably detailed articles *shrug* -Errant (chat!) 14:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep all - These are notable songs and there seems to be a reasonable level of commentary available to comply with WP:NSONGS. Note that NSONGS does not require that the material be already in the article, just that it is verifiable and available to be used - Goulding has conducted hundreds of interviews not to mention the ammount of critical commentary of her work out there. The task required here is locating the best of those sources and improving these articles based on them. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Lights (Ellie Goulding album):I'm about as strict of an interpreter of WP:NSONGS as there is. Many consider me to be excessively strict in its interpretation. First, Simon Dodd is correct on one point: the intent of WP:NSONGS is to limit the creation of song articles. The public relations and marketing arm of the music industry is unique in its ability to generate apparently sourced information on nearly all songs, no matter how trivial, and, if not limited, we would have unexpandable stubs on every album track ever released. That said, these articles are not unexpandable stubs. They are roughly the size of a typical single article, with the kind of material that is typical of the area. They each have crossed the bright-line test in WP:NSONGS by charting. More reviews could be added. So, deletion isn't really the answer. The articles are permitted by WP:NSONGS.
- That said, Wikipedia is not well served by our practice of having individual articles on singles. The reviews and release dates could easily be incorporated in a single table in the album article. Most of the production information could be added to the existing tracklist information. The cover images represent a long-standing abuse of WP:NFCC, and the argument that an individual article allows us to incorporate copyrighted information in the infobox is actually an argument against separate articles, not for. The overall intent should be to incorporate as little copyrighted material as possible.—Kww(talk) 17:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said everything about the policies and barely anything about the articles. This is not the place nor time to discuss polices, with all due respect. I Help, When I Can. [12] 03:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep these articles seem well written, and more importantly for the purposes of the AfD, well sourced. --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 20:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Starry Eyed for sure, it has sufficient charting and coverage to be individually notable. These songs are not all equal, so bundling is inappropriate. Simon ignored advice to this effect, so this is inevitably a WP:TRAINWRECK. Fences&Windows 22:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Articles meet appropriate guidelines, are well sourced, and fleshed out. Denaar (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- note someone pointed out earlier... there is scope to significantly increase the information contained in all of these articles. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 22:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for all of the reasons I previously contributed to the previous debate about merging the singles. Plus a ditto to most of the other against arguments on this page. Pafcool2 (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These articles look well-sourced to reliable third parties. None of these articles are crufty. --NellieBly (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - All these songs meet WP:NSONGS, including sourced information specific to each song. As the nominator says, "[[WP:NSONGS is crystal clear..." Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The strongest arguments here in terms of Wikipedia policy reflected the lack of reliable sources, either in the article (or, had there been any, sources advanced by the participants in the discussion). Such sources are required to establish notability under our notability guidelines, as stated most clearly at WP:NRVE. --joe deckertalk to me 20:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rebecca Anstey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probable hoax. IPs (most with long lists of talk page warnings) are spamming this model's name in various articles, such as Victoria's Secret, Supermodel (in both cases, the IP claims she is a Victoria's Secret Angel, which is not true), Sex symbol, and Model. Article is pure promotion. G-news returns nothing and none of the websites for the magazines she has supposedly been on the cover of do either. Mbinebri talk ← 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The links do lead to the correct websites, and it is clear on the shakedownmodels website that she is the director of it - it also states that charlotte devaney is also a director so that link is relevant also - the writer also gives links to the modeling agencies which she is with so that is varified. There is also a press release link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modelmagic (talk • contribs) 18:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)--Modelmagic (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - possibly a G11 candidate. This article is a completely promotional puff piece on a model who does not meet any notability requirements. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable person. As above, possibly even a speedy candidate. doomgaze (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Brooke Anstey is a notable person and is famous in Greece and many oountries in Europe. Her links lead to the correct sources, and there are press releases published in her name. Also she has been in the newspapers recently for the same story - Rebecca Anstey is known as a model by many mens magazines including the super famous Playboy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.88 (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. IP user 82.132, please DO NOT delete other peoples contributions to this discussion as you did here, this is considered exteremely bad practice and it will not help your cause. I have restored the removed text. doomgaze (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - regarding the two keep arguments above, a press release in no way establishes notability for an individual. And if she is "famous in Greece and...Europe", why is there no significant coverage on her other than promotional press releases? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- +1: Press releases are irrelevant, and the article still lacks third-party, significant coverage or really anything that demonstrates notability at all. Mbinebri talk ← 14:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have we made a decision yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.201 (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is normally open for 7 days, sometimes longer if no consensus can be reached. You can find more info about the process by clicking here. doomgaze (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Historic Derby Street Chapel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Despite it's "official" name and a sign stuck out front, it isn't particularly noteworthy. It is an ordinary tiny church. It is not on any official list of historical places. The article does not claim the members have ever done anything notable. The church isn't, except for the marker. Nothing in reliable sources. Student7 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep. It's on the Florida Division of Historical Resources list[14] and it was important enough to the town to fix it up and badge it as historic[15].--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Changed my mind above to "Keep." Student7 (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Issued Xusisheng a {{uw-coi}} warning. (non-admin closure) Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 02:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Claire Huangci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability per WP:NMG seems unclear. The article lists a number of "reviews" (could be counted as sources) but does not link them. Main contributor Xusisheng (talk · contribs) might also be in a conflict of interest (WP:SPA). bender235 (talk) 14:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She did win the National Chopin Piano Competition, and has a reasonable amount of press coverage[16] going all the way back to a mention in The New York Times in 2000, when she was 10.[17] Examples [18][19][20]
- Keep per sourcing found by Arxiloxos. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per sourcing found by Arxiloxos. This sourcing should be integrated into the article, which should be rewritten in a less promotional style. Xusisheng (talk · contribs) should be given a stern warning about conflict of interest. (FWIW: The Alice Sara Ott article needs a rewrite as well.THD3 (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Arxiloxos. GNews search shows sustained coverage of the subject's career. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sky Patrol (G.I. Joe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It's currently nothing more than character summaries, which are already included in the alphabetical lists of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters Fortdj33 (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if that's the case, why not merge or redirect there? BOZ (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The characters have already been merged into the lists, but I'm not really sure where this page should redirect to, since it involves multiple characters. If deleted, the character links will need to be redirected as well, to their respective entries in the lists. I didn't want to make all of those changes unless there is a consensus that this page is no longer needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe a List of G.I. Joe teams article? Mathewignash (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The characters have already been merged into the lists, but I'm not really sure where this page should redirect to, since it involves multiple characters. If deleted, the character links will need to be redirected as well, to their respective entries in the lists. I didn't want to make all of those changes unless there is a consensus that this page is no longer needed. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero. If necessary, a limited merge may be appropriate, at least to the extent of noting that there was a collection called sky patrol released in 1990.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters . 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added a reliable third party source to the article, so hoping you can merge the information, not deleted or redirect it. Mathewignash (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dominik Aspeck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography of a living person, and pretty obviously an autobiography by Tommy-1-at (talk · contribs). A jobless cook describing himself as a philanthropist, this might even qualify for speedy as hoax. Clearly no notability whatsoever. bender235 (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable unemployed 'philanthropist', but thanks for the laugh. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a resume for a non-notable unemployed 21 year old cook. Nice try, though, Dominik. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Also slightly concerned that the wiki puffs 'cohabitation' from age 12-13 when the age of (homosexual) consent in Austria is 18. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Why the debate? Brumak (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clinton Road (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Various rumors about a road in NJ, entirely sourced to "Weird NJ" and a booklet self-published on "CreateSpace." Intending to improve this rather poor article, I discovered the subject doesn't even satisfy notability requirements. No reliable sources found that either verify original research or establish WP:N. ("Weird NJ"'s editorial policy consists of publishing rumors, stories and claims sent to them via email.) LuckyLouie (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This is vaugely notable, Wierd NJ is .. a weak source, and it isn't Wikipedia:Hoax worthy. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Places that have attracted a great deal of folklore about them are notable. The verifiable facts here are not those alleged by the folklore; they are the existence of such rumors when they have been reported in a reliable source. In addition to the Weird NJ book (which was all I had years ago when I started this article) Weird NJ devoted an entire issue to Clinton Road at one point, going into the historical basis of the folklore as well as aggregating all the stuff people sent them. A simple search on Google Books uncovers this on the exact same subject. This and this and this about the body that Richard Kuklinski had left. I think there's other sources.
You know, you could have looked at the history and tried to see if anyone takes an interest in the article, then talked to them, before nominating it for deletion with some snarky comment about how it's "rather poor", thus subjecting me to completely unwarranted public humiliation. (OK, I admit I have been too busy with other content to really put all this stuff up). When I saw you put the tags on I honestly thought that you were the sort of responsible editor who wasn't going to just throw up his hands and nominate something for deletion for the sake of nailing another trophy to the wall. But I'm not perfect, I suppose ... (And we wonder why new editors don't stick with Wikipedia!). Daniel Case (talk)
- The Linda Zimmermann book ("true stories of haunted places" etc.) is not a reliable source for folklore or for fact[citation needed], and the road's connection to Richard Kuklinski does not warrant a separate article about the road. Also, WP:NPA please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On what do you base your judgement of the Zimmerman book? Do you have a reliable source that says it's not a reliable source? (note tag) And I am quite taken aback that you would attempt to dismiss my criticism of how you have handled this as a personal attack. To do so implies that it was without foundation, when I clearly stated my reasons for that criticism, which was a criticism of how you handled this, not you personally. Daniel Case (talk) 16:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. The website for West Milford Municipal Court mentions the "the 'haunted' Clinton Road." I'm certainly not suggesting this is a source, but argues for some further acknowledgement that Clinton Road is notable for this reputation ... almost judicial notice, in fact. Daniel Case (talk) 17:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And the township has something about Clinton Road on its own website. Daniel Case (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also find it difficult to consider Zimmermann overly credulous when she begins her chapter, "I generally only deal with cases that have reliable eyewitnesses and as many verifiable facts as possible.". Like us, she reports the legends but doesn't suggest that they're true just because she's heard them. Oh, and here's the newspaper article she alluded to. In a paper published outside of New Jersey, yet. Daniel Case (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further addendum: This hiking guidebook has a full-page sidebar about Clinton Road on p. 146. However, for entirely obvious reasons, I will refrain from arguing it's a further source (although if someone else feels it meets the criteria, I'll be flattered :-). Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. In addition Daniel Case's book, Clinton Road is mentioned for its hiking excellence in a number of other books[21]; the New Jersey Audubon Society website has a detailed page describing it as a prime birdwatching site.[22] A briefer mention in the NYT is here[23].--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further addendum: This hiking guidebook has a full-page sidebar about Clinton Road on p. 146. However, for entirely obvious reasons, I will refrain from arguing it's a further source (although if someone else feels it meets the criteria, I'll be flattered :-). Daniel Case (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Linda Zimmermann book ("true stories of haunted places" etc.) is not a reliable source for folklore or for fact[citation needed], and the road's connection to Richard Kuklinski does not warrant a separate article about the road. Also, WP:NPA please. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Weird NJ is a reliable (and well-known) source for Jersey legends. The legends don't have to be true to be notable. Here's a newspaper article (reprinted in the Seattle Times!) that reports the Weird NJ stories and adds some[24]. Also, and unrelated to the legendary material, there are news stories (including The New York Times) about the "nation's longest traffic light" at the intersection of Clinton Road and Route 23.[25][26][27]--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Weird NJ does not appear to be a reliable source (described by Publishers Weekly as "a kooky compilation"[28]). And the article's "exceptional claims require high-quality sources", per WP:REDFLAG. Beyond said exceptional-but-poorly-substantiated claims, this road does not appear to have much claim to notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is saying "lots of people believe X" an exceptional claim? You are confusing claims of belief in the existence of the paranormal with claims of factuality of those claims. If the article was claiming that there really are evil spirits/whatever out there in the woods, then yes you'd be right. But it isn't, and you're not. So find a better argument. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strange creatures, and ghosts from hellhounds to monkeys and unidentifiable hybrids, have been caught in the glare of headlights crossing the road at night." This is NOT a claim that "lots of people believe X" -- it is a claim that hellhounds have been seen. The claim that hellhounds (supernatural creatures) have been seen is an EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we should edit the article to reflect that people are claiming to have seen these things. Don't delete when editing would do the trick. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There. Was that so difficult? Please feel free to bring to my attention any other deletion-worthy wording in the article. Daniel Case (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still essentially tabloid journalism -- not in the least bit encyclopaedic content. What's next? People who were abducted by aliens and had Elvis' love child? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I allow that the article, despite my keeping out some of the more marginal claims over the years, is a bit too loose and indiscriminate. I will be tightening it up some. But even though we may wish something weren't notable, or weren't notable for the reasons it is notable, it is still notable. I acquiesced in the deletion of The Devil's Tree because I could not credibly argue it had established notability even statewide. This is not the case here, where all the exposure Weird NJ gave it expanded its legend to not just North Jersey but most of the tri-state area.
I mean, if the local police had to put something on the town's webpage FAQ about it ... doesn't that suggest a greater than local notability? Daniel Case (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I allow that the article, despite my keeping out some of the more marginal claims over the years, is a bit too loose and indiscriminate. I will be tightening it up some. But even though we may wish something weren't notable, or weren't notable for the reasons it is notable, it is still notable. I acquiesced in the deletion of The Devil's Tree because I could not credibly argue it had established notability even statewide. This is not the case here, where all the exposure Weird NJ gave it expanded its legend to not just North Jersey but most of the tri-state area.
- It's still essentially tabloid journalism -- not in the least bit encyclopaedic content. What's next? People who were abducted by aliens and had Elvis' love child? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Strange creatures, and ghosts from hellhounds to monkeys and unidentifiable hybrids, have been caught in the glare of headlights crossing the road at night." This is NOT a claim that "lots of people believe X" -- it is a claim that hellhounds have been seen. The claim that hellhounds (supernatural creatures) have been seen is an EXCEPTIONAL CLAIM! HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to note that PW calling the book "a kooky compilation" does not make it an unreliable source; all it means is that the topics covered by the book are kooky. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since when is saying "lots of people believe X" an exceptional claim? You are confusing claims of belief in the existence of the paranormal with claims of factuality of those claims. If the article was claiming that there really are evil spirits/whatever out there in the woods, then yes you'd be right. But it isn't, and you're not. So find a better argument. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Having the nation's longest traffic light wait makes it an easy keep. The road's spooky reputation is also widespread enough to be valid too. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WeirdNJ (the book, not the site) is a reliable source for some local folklore within a pre-existing article, but it does not rise to the level of establishing enough notability to give any topic it covers its own Wikipedia article. Arguments for something being a notable legend in a tri-state area is not the same as notable for this site. This is an encyclopedia, remember, not just a random collection of local trivia and rumors. DreamGuy (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point. However, I think that when the Travel Channel devotes a segment to it, we can argue it's gone beyond metropolitan area notability. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I'm torn as to the notability of this article after reviewing WP:N. However, I want to register strong opposition to deletion, as there is content in this article that should not be lost from the encyclopedia, per WP:FAILN. If the consensus is not to Keep, this material should be preserved, perhaps at Weird NJ with a redirect. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, in that event, West Milford, New Jersey, would be the better merge. Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of reliable sources to meet GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 April 2011
- Keep First of all, I agree with the assertion that Weird NJ is a reliable source. Second, as established above, this road has been discussed, for various reasons, in several books. And third, the Travel Channel segment is, in my opinion, yet another good indication that this passes WP:N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g11, blatant advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Legend Boats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on a non-notable company - only sources I can find show that they sponser a boating tournament. WormTT · (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 advertisement. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Deco Affair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable corporate media event. No news coverage to be found for this event or any of its predecessors (if any occurred). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WikiDan61. Article sounds like a WP:G11 speedy candidate as well. Mbinebri talk ← 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to September Six. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Avraham Gileadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable academic, fails WP:PROF, no significant coverage in non-scholarly sources, etc. PROD removed by IP editor. There are some additional sources that could be added here -- but nothing sufficient to establish notability (one set describes his excommunication). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet notability standards --יום יפה (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Negligible cites of his books on GS. Has been excommunicated from and received back into the Mormon Church, but few details are available. This would be a WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete and merge content to September Six - The notability here revolves around the September Six incident. We should take the few relevant bits of info and merge to that article as appropriate.--Descartes1979 (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. He continues to pop up in stories and books about LDS understandings of Jewish/Hebrew influence in Mormonism.[29][30] Not a lot, but enough to get past the 1E threshhold. Merger to September Six could be discussed, but I think that would need to be a keep result here, to preserve the editing history.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to September Six. 1E doesn't demand deletion; merger to the event is more appropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - His story is in the other article. No need to merge, he is already mentioned there.--Effingcrazy (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) --Dylan620 (t • c) 01:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Readercon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not think it is possible the nominator might have researched all the articles first, and having done so and decided which ones appeared notable and which did not, only then filed the AfD requests? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the absence of tagging or edits to the article by the nominator, and given his statements in this and other discussions, I have strong doubts that WP:BEFORE was followed to any degree. - Dravecky (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, yes, looking at things a little more, I doubt my suggested scenario is correct -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the absence of tagging or edits to the article by the nominator, and given his statements in this and other discussions, I have strong doubts that WP:BEFORE was followed to any degree. - Dravecky (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you not think it is possible the nominator might have researched all the articles first, and having done so and decided which ones appeared notable and which did not, only then filed the AfD requests? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - this is absurd!!!! ReaderCon is one of the most distinctive science fiction conventions on the planet, with a emphasis on science fiction as a literary genre that has given it a global reputation. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith when I see some of the conventions that this nominator has hammered away at. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't know anything about sci-fi fandom, but it doesn't take long to see that Readercon is most definitely notable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - see http://techland.time.com/2009/07/13/some-important-thingspeople-that-i-sawmetlearnedheard-about-at-readercon/ for an example of possible sourcing. Seems clear from that that it's well-established and notable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www.locusmag.com/2002/Reviews/VanderMeer07.html might also be useful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Readercon is a small, but very influential convention, drawing authors, editors, and publishers disproportionate to its size due to its focus. Shsilver (talk) 14:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep covered in independent sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article subject has received extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources. It passes the notability requirements easily. --NellieBly (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The event is long standing and is global wide known,
it goes from one country to other, several books about it or from it have been published, several scientifics article as well. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eduemoni, you seem to have Readercon confused with a different convention. Readerson does not move "from one country to another," but stays in Burlington, MA. Not sure about the suggested documentation you refer to, either. Shsilver (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, because I've made a preliminary research about the subject, and I came across the ReaderCon official website phrase "across the U.S., and from Canada, the U.K., and occasionally even Australia and Japan"', so I made a short bias, but after I posted my vote I correctly read the site and didn't fixed my vote. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems plenty notable; Google books in particular turns up a large number of sources. —Torchiest talkedits 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy/snow keep. One of the most prominent and widely-covered events of its type. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, per arguments mentioned above. This is one of the most important of the literary science fiction cons, with an international reputation. /Julle (talk) 20:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the part where it states with the goal of focusing exclusively on science fiction in the written form does a rather good job at establishing what makes it stand out from the other conventions. Milkfish (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not a terribly-strong keep but not a week keep either, somewhere in between. It has longevity, it appears to be stable as such events go, and it has coverage by multiple third-party sources - the Time ref above may have pushed me over the edge. Arguments against inclusion: It appears to be fairly small in attendance. I've said elsewhere that we need to establish a threshold on notability of cons - what differentiates a truly notable event from a couple of hundred people in a meeting room down at the local Marriott. Alas, this was held at a local Marriott, and the attendance number isn't included. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seriously Readercon? If this con isn't notable, then I guess none of them are. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ConCarolinas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject. 1 source in total. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources, and being chosen to host DeepSouthCon would seem to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Diversicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the article can be improved (which articles can't), this article does show how Diversicon is notable among sf conventions by its specific focus on social issues (ethnic and gender diversity) as well as its focus on more traditional science fiction. Shsilver (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SpoCon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—Nominator is conflating the Wikipedia notability criteria with importance and distinctiveness. They are not the same and thus I find the criteria faulty.—RJH (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. SpoCon is a critically important event in the area, as the revival of activity of the science fiction fan community in eastern Washington. Avt tor (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was snowball keep. lifebaka++ 15:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Icon (Iowa science fiction convention) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - oldest science fiction convention in Iowa, well-known in the field; like most such articles, could use some more references. I too feel that a WP:POINT is being made by these nominations. (Full disclosure: I was Fan Guest of Honor at this convention one year, along with Harry Turtledove.) --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Orange Mike Tentontunic (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per added sourcing showing this to be one of the oldest cons in the country. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's also the largest sci-fi convention in the state, per the source I just added. —Torchiest talkedits 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I'd never seen that article before. blushes --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now we know why they call you Orange Mike. :) —Torchiest talkedits 18:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I'd never seen that article before. blushes --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable, especially with new refs added -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient coverage shown to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient third-party coverage, event has longevity and isn't just a one-time con down at the local Marriott meeting room with a few hundred fans. I'm afraid I may have precipitated this action with my AfD nom of MystiCon, a new con in Virginia that split off from a previous con. At the risk of being "pointy," there are some cons which are notable and others which are not. We apparently have a great need to establish notability parameters specific to science fiction conventions. Anyone who wants to start this off (Hello, Orange Mike!), let me know. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- standards for SF cons - well, you've got a point. The sneer-phrases like "down at the local Marriott" don't help: not everybody can afford to meet at expensive conference centers or get hosted by universities; I can point to where taverns once stood here in downtown Milwaukee, where the APWU and the NALC were founded. Age/frequency of occurrence is more relevant than attendance numbers (commercial shows often get the raw numbers); meaningful coverage in the mundane press (harder to get than you'd think), and the SF press (Locus, Ansible and File 770, with maybe SFSite a weak fourth); mention in prominent fanzines (repeated Hugo winners and nominees); lengthy discussion (not just, "Hey, I'm Pro GoH at ThisNewCon next weekend!") in websites and blogs of particularly notable authors, editors and critics; status as an independent event run by an ongoing non-commercial organization, rather than the throwaway commercial shows run by companies: these are the standards that come to mind. I really think we need to watch also for a bias agains non-U.S. conventions; in some countries, that they exist at all is itself slightly notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All-Con (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dravecky, your logic is hard to grasp—the research could have all been done prior to the first nomination—that's certainly how I work with a batch of articles. Bongomatic 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The complete absence of any tagging or prior edits to the nominated batch of articles by the nominator strongly indicates that the principles of WP:BEFORE were not followed but the nominator can clear up this matter with a simple declaration. - Dravecky (talk) 06:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dravecky, your logic is hard to grasp—the research could have all been done prior to the first nomination—that's certainly how I work with a batch of articles. Bongomatic 01:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient mainstream press coverage shown to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very weak keep. The sources are decent, but it comes close to my barbershop quartet convention rule of thumb: Would a convention of barbershop singers of a similar size, attendance factors and venue be considered notable as well? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - mass-nominating articles on weak grounds doesnt work. as in this case.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcon (convention) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory and the article serves primarily to promote the subject «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He could very well have done his research en masse prior to nominating articles - time between nominations and research time are not necessarily going to be one and the same. That said, this does look like a WP:POINT to me too. --Viqsi (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - notable convention, one of the oldest on the books; like most of these, could use further sourcing, but again an example of Promethean running rampant. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and I have to ask, how many articles in this area has the nominator put up for deletion? Tentontunic (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 in less than 20 minutes. - Dravecky (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep convention has a lengthy history, is very large, and is a model for conventions which combine aspects of fan-run conventions and professional run gate shows. As OrangeMike notes, more sourcing would be desirable. Shsilver (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is the oldest and largest sci-fi convention in Ohio, per the source I just added. —Torchiest talkedits 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: while it is commendable to point out articles that need expansion and/or cleanup, I kind of doubt AFD is the way to do this. --Viqsi (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" arguments are mostly based on the idea that it should be possible to prove the notability of this event. The "delete" arguments point out that despite that feeling that apparently isn't the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mecon (science fiction convention) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember Wikipedia:Civility, please. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". With 13 articles nominated for deletion in 19 minutes, I'd like to assume in good faith that the nominator thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, but at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears the nominator is making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may very well be a good reason to close some of the nominators AfDs, if they were in bad faith. This one, however, has at least one other !voter who feels it should be deleted, and therefore it's still a valid discussion. You're still more than welcome to !vote keep, of course, but your comment at this point is no longer a valid !vote since it doesn't address why this article should be kept.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute the invalidity of my rationale above but, in the interest of clarity, Keep as Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others" and MeCon was host to Unicon 22, one of an international series of university-based science fiction conventions. Sourcing does need to be improved but my access to offline sources in Belfast, Northern Ireland, is constrained. (Also, after this AfD closes, the file needs to be moved from Mecon to MeCon, the proper capitalization.) - Dravecky (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no sources (present or evident via Google News), or other indication of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have since expanded and improved this article, including some limited sourcing. - Dravecky (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They get notable guest year after year to go there. We don't have a guideline specifically for conventions yet, but probably should. And science fiction conventions aren't covered in mainstream media, just like many bestselling science fiction novels aren't reviewed. Because the media is bias against nerds, doesn't mean we should start hating as well. Dream Focus 16:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. They could get the pope to come visit, but it wouldn't transfer any of his notability (although that would probably get coverage).
- Delete Fails the GNG, so reliable and independent significant coverage to show notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay you link to isn't a policy or even a suggested guideline, its just an essay. And its not even relevant in this case. Hopefully everyone can see the difference between a famous person's family member getting an article just because their brother is famous, and an event being notable because notable people in their industry are there. Having Stephen Hawking speak at a convention for world famous physicists would prove it was notable, just as having all the creators of notable webcomics come together for a convention of webcomics makes the event notable. Year after year, they have a notable person hosting, and notable people attending. Dream Focus 11:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a conrunner (arranger of events like these) I'd have to say that you don't really have to do much to get more or less notable writers to turn up, though. They don't necessarily have to feel that it'll be worth their time from a professional perspective: you can get pretty far by simply convincing them that they'll have a good time, a sort of free vacation. (This, of course, doesn't go for every writer. But for enough that "hey, notable persons are attending" isn't a good argument.) /Julle (talk) 05:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay you link to isn't a policy or even a suggested guideline, its just an essay. And its not even relevant in this case. Hopefully everyone can see the difference between a famous person's family member getting an article just because their brother is famous, and an event being notable because notable people in their industry are there. Having Stephen Hawking speak at a convention for world famous physicists would prove it was notable, just as having all the creators of notable webcomics come together for a convention of webcomics makes the event notable. Year after year, they have a notable person hosting, and notable people attending. Dream Focus 11:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, despite the fact that some of my most favorite authors have been guest of honor there (James White, Peter Hamilton). However, as has been pointed out, notability is not inherited. If this meeting is (was, it seems moribund) so important, then why are there no sources? (Those currently in the article are indeed "very limited"). Are there not even articles in local newspapers covering this event? There are SF sources that are WP:RS (Locus, for instance). Didn't they ever report on this event? It is not true that mainstream media will ignore this kind of events, although their reporting sometimes is more like "look what those nerdy weirdo's have come up with again"... But that is still coverage and even that is missing here. --Crusio (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep As my latest edits show, Locus mentioned it at least in events listings. I would be surprised if there wasn't any mainstream media coverage - despite being student-run, MeCon was the main (only?) Northern Irish science fiction convention during its existence - but it is likely to have been local to Northern Ireland. PWilkinson (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprising it may be, but it looks like there isn't.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dravecky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 16:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dravecky improvements. --DThomsen8 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Alright, basically the issue here is whether this convention meets the WP:GNG, since there is no form of inherent notability given to science fiction conventions, nor is there inherited notability from famous people attending something (there are god knows how many charity functions, conventions, and events that can get a notable keynote speaker but are still utterly non-notable. So basically it comes down to the sources here, including the ones which have been added by Dravecky. I'll try to go through them one by one.
- 1 and 2 are simply listings of the convention in a list of other conventions, which obviously does not qualify as significant coverage.
- 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 are also just directory listings. They provide no depth of coverage, and also don't confer notability.
- Source 5, [book that can be seen here], has one mention, saying " Harry Harrison is Guest of Honout (sic) at Mecon, in Belfast," and nothing more. No significant coverage here either.
- Source 9 is also a listing.
None of these show the notability of the subject, even at the most basic level allowed by the GNG. While I do believe all of the keep !votes came in good faith, none of them are actually acceptable keep arguments. I'm not trying to sound like I'm dismissing the views of others, but the standard this is being held to is not very high, and this clearly does not meet it, and therefore can't be kept. Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stellarcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep rates a mention in Amazing stories: Volumes 52-53 Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6 (if it is good enough for Asimov it is good enough for me) Screenwriter's & Playwright's Market have a nice write up on it as well. Tentontunic (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This one is more of a borderline case, and the article clearly needs better sourcing. But the nominator's rationale fundamentally makes no sense whatsoever -- if "not important" wwere grounds for deletion, we could reduce the size of Wikipedia by 99%; and "doesn't stand out" from a group makes sense only if there's a strong case to be made, which there isn't here, that members of the group are strong presumed not notable. As someone memorably, and acidly, commented a while ago, "no more notable than the average King of Spain" isn't a rationale for deletion, either. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Swecon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Swecon is the annual Swedish science fiction convention (well, at least the way Worldcon is: it's a title lent to a con, making that con the national convention that year), and thus in a way the center of Swedish science fiction fandom. It stands out on a national level, bringing members of Swedish science fiction fandom from all over the country (and to some extent from Norway and Finland). I fail to see how the article could possibly "designed to promote" a certain convention, since it's a title used by different cons with different committees in different cities. I'll see if I can update the article to reflect this. /Julle (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can't quite see see how the nominator could have missed the fact, stated in the article when it was nominated, that the convention is the one that hosts national awards, which unarguably makes it stand out from all other Swedish conventions. This is the annual, national Swedish science fiction convention, as reflected in the article. References could still be improved. --bonadea contributions talk 11:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Åcon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convention. There is nothing in the article that establishes why this convention is important or what makes it stands out from all the others. Wikipedia is not a Directory. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition to "stand out from all the others". - Dravecky (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the sourcing is not that weak, if you admit that we permit articles with non-English-language sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: small con receiving only local (and fairly superficial) coverage. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has indep sources x 2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GEOSCOPE would appear to apply for these sources: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." The only "indep sources" cited are local to the Åland Islands (population 28,000). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the event draws from two countries, plus others from across Europe, it does not only affect 'a local area' except by a strained definition of local. - Dravecky (talk) 09:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an event held in Åland and reported on only in the Åland press. There appears to be no evidence supporting your grandiloquent claims of pan-European significance. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is however not a local event, and this is stated in the sources. (Understandably, the sources are not immediately accessible to everybody as many of them are in Swedish). The target group for the convention is people from mainland Finland and Sweden, rather than local people, and it is not locally arranged either; indeed, this source interviews the only person from Åland who attended that year's Åcon. --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While not a particularly large convention, there is notability as there are sources reporting on it, including both major newspapers on Åland. Not a local happening, as participants are mainly mainland Finnish and Swedish people, with a few Norwegians and occasionally other European participants (excluding the guests of honour, who have tended to come from the UK - but inviting a foreign guest doesn't confer notability, so that's not an argument in either direction). --bonadea contributions talk 11:33, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gets some news mention which has been found thus far, and has had notable people attending it. Dream Focus 14:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reminder - notable attendees is not sufficient; notability is not contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A convention is notable if it brings people famous in that industry over to it. They wouldn't waste time showing up at a show that wasn't notable. Dream Focus 15:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reminder - notable attendees is not sufficient; notability is not contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep as a frivolous nomination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of science fiction conventions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Direct violation of Not DIR. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus this list), apparently as a result of this discussion. WP:NOTDIR is not a prohibition against lists. - Dravecky (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My same what now? You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "The same inclusionist shitter argument that you normally do"? I haven't been following Wikipedia deletion arguments or Wikipedia policy changes lately. Did it become OK to make personal attacks and ad hominem slurs recently? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. I also wish to point out you'll be using the same inclusionist shitter arguement that you normally do. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Promethian, please moderate your language. There is no need for it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - obvious "pointy" behavior and lack of good faith; if we have lists at all here, this is clearly one to keep. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fulfils all the requirements of a list on Wikipedia - it is a list of Wikipedia articles on a particular topic. Nominator misunderstands NOTDIR. Nominator isn't Gavin.collins is he? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)ETA Gavin didn't like lists, but he was never that rude. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Elen. Tentontunic (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Not only is this the sort of list found all over Wikipedia, but it contains useful information aside from just being a list. It certainly doesn't violate NOTDIR, which is the rationale behind the nomination. Shsilver (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SFContario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Un-notable convention. There is *nothing* that convention notable, its not the largest, people wernt shot during it and it hasnt recieved any major coverage. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as nominator is mass-nominating a long list of science fiction conventions with the same cookie-cutter rationale, not grounded in facts or policy, without regard to content or sourcing (plus List of science fiction conventions), apparently as a result of this discussion. Notability is not a competition and, um, I was not aware that an event was only notable if it involved people being shot during it. - Dravecky (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated 13 articles for deletion in 19 minutes so while I'll assume in good faith that you thoroughly investigated each article, searched for sources, and worked to improve the article, as per WP:BEFORE, at less than 2 minutes per article nominated I do have to question how thorough any research might have been. It appears you're making a WP:POINT. - Dravecky (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually you will find I am chery picking the ones which fail to indicate why they are notable events, not just nominating them all. The category is full of articles designed to promote thier various conventions and im merely using the shot example to demonstrate that ive gone through everything and found nothing. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only item in this laundry list with a valid deletion rationale, even though not well-stated, and clear indicators of non-notability. Just started last year, with no significant independent coverage shown. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does an event have to have a lot of media coverage to be notable? I don't think so. Some famous writers attended the first one, including Robert J. Sawyer and Michael Swanwick. It's new, not as well known or established as Ad Astra, another Toronto convention, but it is comparable to it. Give it a few years, and it will be covered more in the media. Flow (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've always found the idea that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball fairly compelling. We should judge things for what they are, not what they might become. Note that I'm not arguing for deletion, merely pointing out that we can't know what media coverage the event will have in five years. /Julle (talk) 15:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't vote here because I have a conflict of interest, so I'll just provide information for this discussion:
- SFContario 2 is also Canvention 31, the site of the Aurora Awards, Canada's national science fiction awards. It is also hosting the ballot for the Canadian Unity Fan Fund, which will bring a well-known fan from Western Canada to Canvention (i.e. SFContario) this year.
- I don't think mundane media are good at or even relevant in covering the science fiction community. A simple Google search shows thousands of hits, with pages of con reports from attendees (including well-known writers and fans) talking about the convention as a noteworthy event.
- I had a list of a couple dozen media hits on the blog, but the blog is temporarily down due to a problematic web migration, and everyone's getting ready for Ad Astra this week. We'll have more references this week. When I was active in editing Wikipedia, I would put a notability tag on a page first, to give people who did know the subject time to do research, that's just basic etiquette. I believe most science fiction conventions are generally noteworthy as important community events; obviously some are better known than others, but I thought the Wikipedia standard was "notable", not "relatively more notable in the subjective judgement of a couple of editors". Avt tor (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that SFContario hosted the Aurora Awards makes it notable. Simonm223 (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is hosting the Auroras this year actually. Though last year we hosted the Aurora nominee pin ceremony, presenting pins to everyone in Ontario who had been nominated for an Aurora in past years.Avt tor (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I suppose there might be a valid argument for deleting something that came rapid-fire and without proofreading, but I really hope we're not at the point that armed violence is necessary to make a cultural gathering worth a Wikipedia article. As for "it's not the largest," size isn't everything, and we aren't that short on space here. Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Unscintillating (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Forza Motorsport cars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- List of Forza Motorsport courses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The concensus at the videogames wikiproject is not to have lists of gameplay items (WP:VG/GL, based on WP:NOT#INFO). Disclaimer: This article brought to my attention at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Gran Turismo cars (2nd nomination). Marasmusine (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cars unless someone can demonstrate multiple reliable independent sources covering the list itself with critical reception (not just a stand-alone list). The car implementations in the game don't have notability on their own. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete tracks. Same argument -- The track implementations in the game don't have notability on their own, even if the tracks are notable themselves (wp:notinherited). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See below As a former maintainer, the size (over 500 entries) is simply too large to track and reliably maintain. Perhaps smaller lists (only cars available in all three base games, only downloadable cars) might be maintainable and relevent, otherwise simply linking to a source of complete car lists provides the same information without our burden to maintain. In addition, tracking the performance value of the car in game is better suited to a dedicated wiki, not WP. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cars, Improve Tracks Since the tracks article was added to the discussion after my first comments, I vote to keep the tracks article. While it's clearly fancruft to track what 24 versions of Porsche 911 are in any of the three games in a list of over 500, the track listing is much smaller and maintainable. As well, the tracks (particularly real-world tracks) are of much more importance to the average user, while the model year of the Audi S4 in the game will only be important to the 'hardcore' fans. As well, being a much smaller list, the article is much more easily maintained (nobody needs to cross-reference 3 lists each 200+ entries long to determine if an addition is accurate or not).
- If it is agreed that the article is maintainable, the question is whether it belongs. I feel it meets notability guidelines (or, at least the real-world tracks meet the guidelines), so the question is whether another similar list of the entire franchise's track listing exists somewhere else on the internet (GameFAQs, for example). If not, then I believe there may be an argument to leaving it up and improving in order to revisit later. I am moving the list of real-world tracks in each to the main game's articles so the important information would be retained if this article is deleted. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The size of the articles has no weight in this discussion. We are discussing notability and what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a game guide for lists of items in video games, regardless of how small or large that list may be. The359 (Talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with your point of view, though if it were up to me I still might keep the article. That said, I expect that you are right, and such an article doesn't stand on its own. I have moved the important information to the relevent game articles so nothing of value will be lost if the articles are deleted. 13:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The size of the articles has no weight in this discussion. We are discussing notability and what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a game guide for lists of items in video games, regardless of how small or large that list may be. The359 (Talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have now added List of Forza Motorsport courses to the AfD - I don't think that will be controversial. Marasmusine (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the AfD link on that page as well. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Both articles are WP:FANCRUFT and are not notable enough to stand on their own. The359 (Talk) 19:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. And then I will make List of Wikipedia articles about railway stations in Guinea-Bissau. postdlf (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Railway stations in Guinea-Bissau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no railways in Guinea-Bissau bobrayner (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We really don't need an article Railway stations in Guinea-Bissau when there aren't any - the one piece of information it contains is not about railway stations and duplicates the content of Transport in Guinea-Bissau -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's pointless to have an article about a non-notable null set. At least the redirect at the equally null-set Snakes in Iceland has a point, as the topic is a notable incident in the Life of Samuel Johnson. Who is writing about the lack of railway stations in Guinea Bissau? --NellieBly (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Speedy?) this is just completely absurd, Wikipedia is not a list of things which don't exist. Bob House 884 (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there is any applicable speedy criterion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SNOWBALL rather than the CSD, I can't honestly see anybody standing up and saying we need to keep this Bob House 884 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, gotcha - but maybe they'll build a railway and a station in the next couple of days ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SNOWBALL rather than the CSD, I can't honestly see anybody standing up and saying we need to keep this Bob House 884 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree with some above that we shouldn't need to go through the whole AfD process for Railway stations in Guinea-Bissau, Rail transport in Guinea-Bissau, and similar articles, but that's because, as NellieBly says, there can sometimes be a point in having a redirect for a null-set. The point is that retaining the articles as simple redirects may prevent their accidental recreation, preserve history showing why they are not needed until the railways are built, and as grounds for speedy deletion of similar named articles. I would therefore favour posting them with a
{{merge to}}
tag instead, and so any useful information (ie that which is not duplicated) can be copied into the "Transport in xxx-land", and the original null-set page a simple redirect. Tim PF (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Railway stations in the Central African Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no railways in the Central African Republic. bobrayner (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We really don't need an article Railway stations in the Central African Republic when there aren't any - the very short Transport in the Central African Republic is the obvious place to document any sourceable plans for any railways development -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable null set. --NellieBly (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we don't need an article about something which doesn't exist, I support some merging per Zebedee though Bob House 884 (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Railway stations in Yemen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no railways in Yemen. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We really don't need an article Railway stations in Yemen when there aren't any - the bit about proposed railways is not specifically about stations, and is topic duplication of Rail transport in Yemen (which itself is of debatable value, considering Transport in Yemen is such a short article and can easily accommodate it) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable null set. --NellieBly (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there are no railway stations in Yemen. I would suggest deleting Rail Transport in Yemen too and merging both into Transport in Yemen per Zebedee Bob House 884 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Railway are proposed for Yemen, at least they were until the recent unrest. Tabletop (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have details of any of the stations? Note that "station" is not the same as "town". I have found no source, reliable or otherwise, for any stations at all, for this supposed future network - and unfulfilled grand plans for infrastructure in developing countries are two a penny. bobrayner (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have just removed links to two irrelevant maps and some WP:COPYVIO,tidied up the two references and added a
{{crystal}}
tag. I think it leaves a couple of lines that would be quite at home in Transport in Yemen. Once done, I think this can be changed into a redirect to Transport in Yemen to prevent its accidental recreation. Tim PF (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Railway stations in Niger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no railways in Niger. bobrayner (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We really don't need an article Railway stations in Niger when there aren't any - Transport in Niger already has a better developed section on proposed rail transport than this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable null set. There might be an article in "proposed railway lines in Niger" if the proposals are a) serious, b) covered by multiple reliable sources, and c) expected to make a notable change to Niger (as most railways do in newly connected countries). But as is there's simply no notability. --NellieBly (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Flooj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. COI issues, self-published content, self-promotion of web content. StrikerforceTalk Review me! 08:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
- Delete, article is about a website: ....leading portal which covers updates on Technology, Men's, Mobiles, Heart In Cc, Travel/Food, Ayurveda and Feeds. Now I must visit it, if only to find out what "Heart in Cc" is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable company. non independent coverage --Sodabottle (talk) 07:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 12:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trey Diggz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that singer is notable. Singer has not yet released an album. Article claims singer has won awards, but my best guess (since uplaya, the host site, seems to be down) is that these are not notable awards (seem to verify a certain number of downloads). The article has only one other "reference", which is a dead link. A search of Google news produces no hits. Given everything, this looks like an artist who is not yet notable, although he may be some day. Until that time comes, the article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE
This artist has won awards, the links are very much active from Uplaya. Also ICN is very reputable in blogs and local media outlets and represents Trey Diggz. Our references abide by the standards set for a reputable page. Also, this guys working with KANYE WEST's producers, how is he not worth a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docdasuess (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its funny, I know him through mainstream media, the article BADLY needs a re-write because it reads like an ad, but he is notable, working with other people in the hip-hop community does not mean he isn't notable. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page isnt real. Has no album yet. awards are not real and actually just a novelty service for independent artist. Not from new york or chicago. Has not worked with Kanye west producer. No album currently listed in best buy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.33.91 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in response to Docdasuess's comments above. In fact, none of those are reliable sources--if you look at the article's talk page, I explained in detail why each one either has nothing to do with Diggz, or doesn't meet WP:RS. In response to your point about Kanye West, 1) Notability isn't inherited (that is, working with a notable person doesn't make one notable), and 2) no sources confirm he is working with West. After digging in deeper, I have little doubt that this is a person who is not currently notable, and instead is trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Keep it. Working with reputable people doesn't make you famous, but it does count for something. You say blogs are reputable, but the fact is in wikis guidelines, you specificially say blogs can and are reliable. It is worth keeping up, given all that the artist has planned for the future. There is no album listed on the best buy, but if you look at the website, thats how they are going to release their album. I think this is definitely worth keeping. It has NEWS MEDIA SOURCES from the manager Ben Leinen, showing how reputable he is and that he's managing Trey Diggz. 00:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.3.248 (talk)
- Actually, I don't think you read WP:RS, because the exception for blogs is extremely slim, and certainly doesn't apply here. Please re-read that section; if you still think the blog writer is an "expert" in the Wikipedia sense, please post it on the article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relevent sources, objective writing. Honestly, it feels like you guys are just NITPICKING and DECONSTRUCTING nearly every aspect of the guy. Leave it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justmusicent (talk • contribs) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No significant evidence of notability, persistent process disruption, NFCC violations, and likely sockpuppetry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Is this a hoax? Can't be far off it. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everyone that has said keep it, has a vested interest in seeing this page stay up ie. Docdaseuss is his producers and justmusicent is a prop company for Ben Leinen. He is using Wikipedia to get attention on the artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.2.253 (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. this guy has a little notabilty, let him spread his wings a lil further. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.3.248 (talk) 03:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment 2nd keep !vote from IP previously (above, removed) impersonating an admin. IP's three-day editing history involves only this subject. So... socking, deceptive, IP SPA. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 12:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia does not exist to spread others' wings; let him gain notability on his own first. --NellieBly (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" it looked good b4 the changes i think. Whatever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.241.162 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment another SPA IP !vote. With syntax issues. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero hits on Google news, 111 hits on all of Google, none of them reliable sources. Corvus cornixtalk 00:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
""Keep"" because of these new links:
http://www.idjfirstlook.com/music/trey-diggz Has def jam distribution with first single on iTunes now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98XOkXMvbDU first official music video out
http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/she-diggz-into-me/id431307189?i=431307355&ign-mpt=uo%3D4 she diggz into me, avilable through DEF JAM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.3.248 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment third keep !vote from SPA IP. The phrase 'less is more' seems apposite here. --82.41.20.82 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes any of those sources a reliable source from which to write a biography? Corvus cornixtalk 20:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per these new links we can establish that Trey diggz is on ISLAND DEF JAM, this is thru the reputible iTunes that you can see this. Also the video, while many people have music videos, few are done by a reputible label such as DEF JAM 173.29.3.248 (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Ben Leinen[reply]
- What part of a biography of the artist can you write from a video of a song? Corvus cornixtalk 19:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Artist is not on or neither is the video done by Def Jam, Artist paid a 9.99 fee to have music distributed through a new service offered by Tunecore and Island Def Jam called Island Def Jam Digital Distribution. http://www.idjfirstlook.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.0.20 (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jail Bharo Andolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, notability not established. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 08:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Many books and magazines in India regularly mention jail bharo - you can try searching google books for examples. 61.8.139.218 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a standard form of protest in India, from the days of Indian independence movement. Search using just "jail bharo" (the andolan part is often substituted by campaign/agitation/protest etc), to find references to this form of protest in Gbooks and gnews --Sodabottle (talk) 06:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a very common type of protest in India. More than 70 Billion people use that phrase.Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure there are 6.5 billion people living on this planet, so I guess the other 64.5 billion people must be from Gensokyo or something, but I see what you mean. Would help though if you could establish the notability of the phrase in the article - I can't take your word for it, nor anyone else's; I'd prefer to see that detail proven within the article, with sources to back up the prose. That's all I'm asking. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 09:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree some content is not referenced and the article is not complete, but given Wikipedia objectives, we should keep this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.201.47.11 (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable form of protest used since time of Gandhi in a country which is expected to become the most populous on the planet soon. a simple google search of the term turns up loads of references. article needs to be improved and expanded though.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm afraid the delete !voters carry the day on this one but if somebody does find some supersources let me know. I'll be glad to userfy or incubate this article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cat (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to pass the GNG or meet other basic notability guidelines. No sources provide independent and significant coverage to establish notability. More specifically, all of the sources are either written by the language's designer or are not about the language. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And, not that it alone is a valid reason for deletion, this article seems to have been created by the language's creator.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I can't see a valid reason to delete this article, but the same goes to as to keep it, however I've found books and scientific publications about it, but they do not reinforce its notability at all. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no big deal if the article's creator is the language's designer, as long as he/she keeps the WP:NPOV it is very acceptable, many members from HP and Microsoft, like CEO's, Designers, Engineers, Developers, among others contributed to articles of the ranging area, so the is no big deal. The factor that should be discussed is either if the article is notable, relevant and not-spam like. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 16:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I know, you'll notice I prefaced that second comment with "not that it alone is a valid reason for deletion." But it can often help speak for a lack of notability when both the sources and the article itself are written by the creator; its much less likely that the subject has been recognized.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep and work for better references, references are hard to isolate because of the ubiquity of the word "cat". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those are valid keep votes. "I can't see a reason to delete" is not a reason, although that does look like a good faith vote. And "references are hard to find" is absolutely not a valid keep reason, as you should know. It's not like this is a new article; it's been around for 4 years or so. Do either of you have more valid arguments?--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's really not that hard to search for. Throw in the name of the creator or the words programming language, and everything's pretty relevant, although not notability establishing.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I've had classmates in the past that have developed similar languages with perhaps more coverage than this. The creator's own webpage here doesn't help its case either. Bulldog123 17:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I don't want it to sound like I'm being dismissive of keep !votes. But unless you're bringing sources which establish notability to the table, keep arguments will have to give reasons for why this non-notable programming language should be an exception to the minimum notability requirements that the GNG asks for. This isn't a case of an article that was just created or where sources are very likely to exist; it's existed for four years, and has been through an AFD before; we're far past the point of "give it more time". Thank you.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm not a fan of notability as a primary criterion for deletion, but the language author's involvement in writing this article raises the bar a little bit. —Tim Pierce (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- it is true that finding sources is complicated because putting "cat" into a search gives you a lot of irrelevant stuff about (amusingly captioned) furry carnivorous quadrupeds. But that is no reason to exempt the article. Reyk YO! 04:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hard to search through so many results to find the valid ones. Found this one: [31] Not sure if that counts though. Dream Focus 17:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blog post by the article and language's creator, not acceptable per the GNG, sorry. Not sure what your argument is; you couldn't find any sources so it should be kept? You bolded keep, but your argument says delete, if the best source that can be found is the creator's blog. I think it's become pretty clear at this point that no acceptable sources are gonna be turning up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can only find trivial mentions. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- N. G. Vartak High School Staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD'd with the rationale "Completely non-notable list. Unsourced and no coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources so does not pass WP:N." PROD removed by author and a source was added, but the source is published by the school in question so is not independent. PROD rationale still stands, no indication of passing WP:N. Jenks24 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Don't think an article on the list of faculties of an intitution is notable enough. —Abhishek Talk to me 11:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Listing some key staff members would be appropriate at the school's article, N. G. Vartak High School, but even there the whole list including all those assistants does not seem notable -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not-notable. The key members of staff are already listed in the school article. TerriersFan (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable list. Salih (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable list, should be included in school article if covered at all. FieldMarine (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Counterpoint (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:Notability (books) A search on the book and the author produces nothing. Absolutely no sign of notability whatsoever. Strong Delete. Safiel (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't even find any evidence that it exists, much less that it satisfies WP:NBOOK. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BK. Deor (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE, which is coincidentally the most expected result. postdlf (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of most expected tamil films 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of films ranked by a subjective assessment of their "expectation among audience, Star and director values, etc." without even a cursory attempt at reliably sourcing how that audience expectation and those star and director values and all that et cetera were actually measured or quantified. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BALLS, etc.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—WP:POV, just what the user expects to be the most expected films. Johannes003 (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BALL. —Abhishek Talk to me 06:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -OR and CRYSTAL--Sodabottle (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Geocraze(talk) 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above; also see WP:HAMMER and WP:NOT. This is someone's blog or essay, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The note left on the talk page was "I have just nominated this page for deletion according to WP:AIRCRASH, Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 4:45 am, 3 April 2011, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC+3)" procedural relist. Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This AfD was opened as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 April 4#Southwest Airlines Flight 812 (closed). —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Um, why is it being nominated? A synopsis perhaps?--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH: "The accident involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft". Not meeting WP:AIRCRASH was the original motivation for the deletion nomination. Jarkeld (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - this AfD should be allowed to run the full seven days. Mjroots (talk)
- Keep - Per discussion on the talk page, this incident meets WP:AIRCRASH due to the large number of unreskinned 737-200s withdrawn from service by Southwest Airlines. Worldwide coverage means it meets the WP:GNG. Mjroots (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dear editors. What would Wikipedia be like if we make it a collection of every single aeronautic event that takes place in the sky? Yes sure, it is true that this aircraft suffered some damage for reasons that are yet to be determined. It is true the plane was subject of coverage by mostly 24 hours a day news channel that are eager to fill every minute with information. But the reality is that this event is likely to go to the annals of history as one of those moments that will be forgotten in few months (if not weeks). In addition, we have to analyze how subjective the concept of serious damage we are talking about here. In my opinion, the damage was not serious and experts have downplayed the damage with statements such as -Friday's accident gives no cause for concern about the structural integrity of airplanes in their early years of service, say some air safety experts.- as sourced from Christian Monitor website here. So I conclude that as scary I am sure this flight must have been for the passengers we need to draw a line over what stand alone articles do give our beloved Wikipedia more quality and which one will likely become an archive of information relevant for the next couple of weeks. Sincerely yours --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an aircraft mechanic and former field engineer and accident investigator for an aircraft manufacturer, and having had responsibility for recommending AD action to the FAA on behalf of that manufacturer, I feel qualified to say that a 3-6 ft hole in a pressurized cabin would be considered a serious hull breach if not hull loss on further inspection and economic determination, and definitely "serious damage to the aircraft." It's time to end the discussion and just keep the article on the basis that it meets WP:AIRCRASH. Dgriffith161 (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WikiProjects informed. Mjroots (talk)
- Keep - This incident prompted a mass inspection of hundreds of aircraft [32] and already 3 more were found to have cracks. The "every single aeronautic event that takes place in the sky" delete argument above is simply a straw man as this is far more significant than most aeronautical incidents (blown tire, bird sucked in engine, etc.). --Oakshade (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gladly will take your reference of straw man as trolling. Above I simply decided to elaborate. I don't believe in my opinion the article adheres to WP:AIRCRASH. Now, let's go down to the facts why don't we?. My suggestion to delete the article went through a talk page and then a DRV. There must be some weight on my rationale if the discussion made it this far don't you think? I might not be right, that's ok, but to disregard my opinion as "straw man" or fallacy is an insult. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK guys, shall we keep this to the topic in hand please. Camilo Sanchez raised the issue of notability in good faith at the article's talk page. Due to his being logged out whilst not realising it (it's happened to me before), the first AfD listing was malformed, and completed by NH419 in good faith. TenPound Hammer speedily closed the AfD in good faith. After further discussion at the article's talk page, the AfD went to DRV, where it was speedily closed with a recommendation to relist so that a full debate can be had. This course of action was supported by myself and BilCat on the article's talk page. It is up to those who wish the article to be deleted to show why it should be deleted, and those who wish the article to be kept to show why it should be kept. At the end of seven days, an uninvolved admin will weigh up the consensus and make a decision. So let's keep to the issue in hand, and not who is arguing for and against deletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I never had any issue with the manner Camilo Sanchez attempted to AfD or his subsequent DRV. That's purely Camilo Sanchez' invention (ironically another straw man argument). I think his "every single aeronautic event" is a straw man argument as absolutely nobody is advocating that "every single aeronautic event" have an article. And I did a pretty darn good argument of why it should be kept too. --Oakshade (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK guys, shall we keep this to the topic in hand please. Camilo Sanchez raised the issue of notability in good faith at the article's talk page. Due to his being logged out whilst not realising it (it's happened to me before), the first AfD listing was malformed, and completed by NH419 in good faith. TenPound Hammer speedily closed the AfD in good faith. After further discussion at the article's talk page, the AfD went to DRV, where it was speedily closed with a recommendation to relist so that a full debate can be had. This course of action was supported by myself and BilCat on the article's talk page. It is up to those who wish the article to be deleted to show why it should be deleted, and those who wish the article to be kept to show why it should be kept. At the end of seven days, an uninvolved admin will weigh up the consensus and make a decision. So let's keep to the issue in hand, and not who is arguing for and against deletion. Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gladly will take your reference of straw man as trolling. Above I simply decided to elaborate. I don't believe in my opinion the article adheres to WP:AIRCRASH. Now, let's go down to the facts why don't we?. My suggestion to delete the article went through a talk page and then a DRV. There must be some weight on my rationale if the discussion made it this far don't you think? I might not be right, that's ok, but to disregard my opinion as "straw man" or fallacy is an insult. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This was a notable incident that had (and is having) serious repercussions across commercial aviation. It can only become more notable as the investigation continues. Frankly any incident that leads to the grounding of a significant number of airplanes has a certain amount of notability. (Of course, if this turns out to be a simple case of poor maintenance on the part of Southwest Airlines, I would support merging it into the Southwest Airlines article. But we haven't gotten to that point yet, and as it stands it passes the required notability threshholds.) WP:GNG passed; see also Mjroots above. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 06:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG and because "...a six foot hole appeared in the top of the airplane's fuselage...", it easily passes Wikipedia:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles. Also, unlike other controversial AfDs such as Ted Williams (voice-over artist), the information in this article will likely become more valuable, as it can be collated with data from other incidents in the future, and used for statistics and other research purposes. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my rationale at the original (brief) AFD discussion. N419BH 07:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article clearly meets WP:N on the basis of the wide coverage indicated by the references, I don't know if it meets WP:AIRCRASH or not, but as it clearly is notable, an essay on what is generally notable is not really useful. Remember that most of the ancillary notability standards are meant to inform on what likely passes WP:N not to set stricter standards an article must meet. Monty845 08:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am on the fence as far as notability but according to this stat the page has been viewed more than 15000 times in the past few days so with that in mind I think we should keep it at least for now. --Kumioko (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it's apparent where this discussion is heading. Generally an early AfD nomination of an article while press coverage is still high is a futile exercise - it's often too early to really tell if the effect will be long lasting (as no investigations have been conducted yet, and early information is often inaccurate); there can be drive-by editors on the case and emotions are usually running high between the usual 'keep' and 'delete' factions. Once an article has survived AfD, it's harder to change that subsequently when things may be clearer. So ideally, I'd like to see nominations like this put on hold for at least a week or so, but I'm not sure how that would be possible. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a major incident that is having serious implications for commercial aviation. wackywace 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More like a minor accident, as there's no way that aircraft would have been considered airworthy for continued flight operations without repairs. And it looks at present that it illuminates a problem on the entire product line built with similar joints, there's no cause to assume it is just the Southwest units. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The incident clearly doesn't fall under the purview of WP:NOTNEWS, given that this wasn't some minor incident that will be forgotten about, or some sort of tabloidy story without encyclopedic value, since the story has a clear lasting impact already. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy, strong and urgent KEEP As I noted before, this is comparable to the AQ-243 accident in more ways than one. They both occurred on aging aircraft that had metal fatigue, both nearly resulted in explosive decompression, both were saved by fast acting pilots, both occurred on LCC aircraft used on short-haul point-to-point hops that resulted in the airframe having higher compression-decompression cycles (when compared to traditional carriers) due to higher daily utilization rates. --Inetpuppy (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - apart from the fact that this counts as "hull loss", it's beginning to look like there are going to be huge reprecussions from the incident, both for Southwest and for airlines at large. Lots of groundings, numerous planes found with fuselage issues - this isn't going away any time soon. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 15:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant incident with widespread implications for Southwest and other 737 fleets.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unsourced BLP and almost an A7 Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Geoff Aspel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
5-year unsourced BLP, can't find reliable, secondary sources which provide coverage of this radio personality, even a mention. The talk page comment (from 2006) provides a link to an unreliable source; I suspect our thoughts on the minimum bar for sourcing BLPs have changed a bit since then. Additional sources, as always, are welcomed. There is a book out there with an author of the same name, but no reason I see to suspect that that's the same person. --joe deckertalk to me 03:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, borderline speedy A7. Pburka (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of big ball crossers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia may be a lot of things — but I'm sure we don't need an unsourced list of every non-notable contestant on a game show who successfully completed a particular challenge. Delete; I would actually have speedied it if it fit any of the speedy criteria. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced, unencyclopedic gameshow fan cruft. Carrite (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if this list were endowed with a source, it would be hard to see how it could meet the notability requirements for lists. --NellieBly (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- James Carroll (Football/Soccer Player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely non-notable 15-year-old. Plays in the "4th tier of the Victorian Football Structure", which is definitely not professional, so does not meet the sports notability guideline and has no significant coverage in reliable sources, so doesn't meet general notability guideline. Perhaps the kid will be notable one day, but he definitely isn't today. Jenks24 (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. I'd go so far as to say this is an A7 candidate: no credible claim of significance or importance. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, you may be correct. I thought it was a borderline case so decided to bring it to AfD, but if you or another admin want to delete per A7 (or tag the page as A7 for another admin to review), I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Jenks24 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, doesn't bother me either way. There's no harm in letting this run seven days and it's usually best to avoid A7s if there's any doubt. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, you may be correct. I thought it was a borderline case so decided to bring it to AfD, but if you or another admin want to delete per A7 (or tag the page as A7 for another admin to review), I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Jenks24 (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 15 year old kid, fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 20:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete premature article on youth footballer who is still a long way from notability at this stage. fails NFOOTBALL, no GNG coverage.--ClubOranjeT 11:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This kid is 15, and he doesn't even play at a national level of football. In fact, he plays at the FOURTH TIER of an Australian state league. – PeeJay 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 00:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. However, I do see the nominator's point. Some supersources would really be helpful, otherwise we'll be back here again in a few months. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Akers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person may have played ONE cup game of professional football and thus meet the supplementary Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guide, however has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One professional appearance is enough, as per WP:NSPORT. JonBroxton (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you read WP:NSPORT you will see it is a guide to who will meet the WP:GNG, in this case it would appear not to so unless you (or someone else) can provide links to the significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:GNG then it has no place on an encyclopaedia. Mtking (talk) 02:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The 2006–07 Football League Trophy was a fully professional competition and he played in it. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 23:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GiantSnowman and Argyle 4 Life. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per the overwhelming consensus below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kellenberg Memorial High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previously PRODed under the description "A unremarkable, original, conflicted, self-published peacock." Unbeknownst to me, the move was undone shortly after by a dubious user that only has that edit under their belt. By the time I found out, it was too late. Basically, the description I gave earlier still stands. Not only that, but I think that snowballs were the motivation behind the revert. I Help, When I Can. [12] 01:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep according to well-established consensus that secondary schools (high schools) are presumed to be notable. This one is fairly large, and well-covered in reliable sources. Any shortcomings in the article should be addressed by normal editing rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was this "consensus" reached? I Help, When I Can. [12] 02:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much every previous discussion that AFD has ever faced when someone has nominated a high school... Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep - If it's a High School, which this is, which exists, which this does, absolutely rock-solid community consensus is that a school is notable per se. I've taken the liberty of removing a mass of bad faith flags from the top of the article. Administrators should take note that there are shenanigans going on here and take action appropriately against evil-doers. Carrite (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment For a discussion of that consensus, see WP:HIGHSCHOOL. Cullen328 (talk) 05:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep if that idea really exists. if there are problems with the article, trim it back. hell, even trim it back to only the first sentence, and its still notable, per overwhelming consensus.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedySnow Keep In addition to the it's a high school argument, this one does clearly meet WP:N on its own merits. I don't see anyone way this article will be deleted. Monty845 08:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I don't see how this page is eligible for Speedy Keep. I guess those !votes will just be taken as standard keeps. Stickee (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Point taken. Stricken. Let it snow. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per long standing consensus that high schools are notable. Stickee (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What.. This is one of the most notable private schools in Nassau County, if not downstate, if Chaminade High School is notable, then so is Kellingberg. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was the one who took the Proposed deletion off this article. It seems more dubious that the article was marked for deletion. Reading the article, to me, it meets WP:N and I did not see where it did not meet WP:Verifiability. If you did not like the overall language of the article why not try and edit rather than an outright delete? Sirach73 (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a high school and it seems to have received plenty of coverage by independent reliable sources. --Orlady (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nomination is devoid of merit - apart from being a high school it clearly meets WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per precedent that high schools are notable if their existence is asserted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- David C. Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:V. Long-term unsourced BLP, unable to find reliable, secondary sources which mention this British officer. Additional sources, as always, welcomed. joe deckertalk to me 01:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.'[reply]
- Keep. General officers are usually considered to be notable. Who's Who confirms that he does exist and details his career, which answers the non-verifiability claim. Needs sourcing, but certainly should not be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added a couple of good sources, General officer who had a busy life after his service career ended. Kernel Saunters (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Withdraw as nom based on sources added by Kernel Saunders. While Who's Who (at least many such books) are not considered reliable, the sources KS provided certainly are, and I never questioned notability, only verifiability. Thank you, Kernel! --joe deckertalk to me 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I think the British Who's Who can most certainly be considered reliable. One is invited to be included; one does not apply or pay for the privilege as in some vanity publications with a similar name. It's generally considered to be a reliable source in the UK. As to verifiability, if one can verify he existed and he was a general officer then one has established his "right" to be included on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Necrothesp, fair enough. In any case, we seem to have agreement now, and are just waiting for an admin to close (this is eligible for an early keep close) --joe deckertalk to me 15:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I think the British Who's Who can most certainly be considered reliable. One is invited to be included; one does not apply or pay for the privilege as in some vanity publications with a similar name. It's generally considered to be a reliable source in the UK. As to verifiability, if one can verify he existed and he was a general officer then one has established his "right" to be included on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Withdraw as nom based on sources added by Kernel Saunders. While Who's Who (at least many such books) are not considered reliable, the sources KS provided certainly are, and I never questioned notability, only verifiability. Thank you, Kernel! --joe deckertalk to me 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Diego Benzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
appears to fail WP:NFOOTBALL Mayumashu (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Has not played in a fully professional league, failing WP:NFOOTBALL, and has not received any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 21:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've informed the article's creator of the AfD. In future, please let article creators know when their articles have been nominated so they can defend their work if need be. Cheers. Delusion23 (talk) 10:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The CSL is not fully pro, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT, and there is not enough significant coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This nomination was missing step 3. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've updated the log link to reflect April 5 as the start date. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If anybody thinks there's anything here worth merging let me know. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apollo Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tone is ad-like, not notable. Perhaps merge with Aegis Group? Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge with Aegis Group, the article is basically an advertisement and I couldn't find any reliable source to reinforce its notability. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Aegis media, all the different subsidiaries have their own article - hence I thought that Apollo should of had one as well. Tried to remove some of the ad-like language and reduce the links so it would be more relevant... fail or success? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qitaz (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Tone is still no good. See WP:Notability and WP:MOS.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination. Yet another online advertising business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Elektra (2005 film). Stifle (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Elektra: The Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not show notability. Unreferenced. I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Non notable album, merge with Elektra_(2005_film)
- Merge with Elektra (2005 film) - Non notable, there is one ref in the infobox.--Crazy runner (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" arguers do not cite policy other than WP:IAR, which seldom makes a compelling case at AfD in the absence of evidence that accepted policies are somehow in conflict with each other. I do not see how this article is necessary for understanding the articles Diego Garcia or Lee Harvey Oswald, as one editor suggests. On the other hand, the simple fact that there do not seem to be reliable, independent sources to support this article is essentially unchallenged, and is given further credence by the article's being unedited during its nearly three weeks at AfD. Chick Bowen 05:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bolshevik Current for the Fourth International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I created this years ago, when standards of notability were less clear. I can only find two Google Books hits; one a brief listing in Spanish, the other a French source which calls it obscure. Warofdreams talk 11:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Part of a mass deletion campaign against articles on small Trotskyist political organizations. I've previously made a defense of 20 like articles based on one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" — also known as "Ignore All Rules," or, in layman's terms, "use common sense." (continued)
- To wit: "This is an encyclopedia. Certain things are considered automatically encyclopedia-worthy at Wikipedia: degree-granting universities, secondary schools, numbered roads, towns, species of plants and animals, and so on and so forth. In my earnest belief, political parties and their youth sections passing the standard of WP:Verifiability should automatically meet the standard of encyclopedia-worthiness, without regard to size or ideology. These are the subject of serious scholarship. The Hoover Institution, closely linked to Stanford University, in 1991 published the 25th annual edition of its Yearbook of International Communist Affairs, recording the history and activities of left wing parties like this. The scholar Robert J. Alexander authored an 1100 page volume called International Trotskyism, 1929-1985: A Documented Analysis of the Movement, published by Duke University Press and held by something like 180 libraries worldwide. There have been monographs written on Trotskyism in America (Constance Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941, Greenwood Press, 1977; Breitman, LeBlanc, and Wald, Trotskyism in the United States: Historical Essays and Reconsiderations, Humanities Press, 1996) and Trotskyism in the UK (John Callaghan, British Trotskyism: Theory and Practice, Basil Blackwell, 1984). Yes, little sects such as this are tiny; no, you're not going to find stories on them in the New York Times. But they are the subject of scholarly inquiry and deserve notability per se on that basis, just like insects and professional football players are instantly notable if their existence is verified. There is no point to this mass deletion effort. It will annihilate information to no good purpose — serious information that BELONGS in a comprehensive encyclopedia. It's time to Ignore All Rules to defend the quality of the encyclopedia and further, to amend the inadequate current notability guidelines for such organizations. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist and I don't play one on TV, if there were a similar series of attacks on right wing fringe parties I'd say the same thing. * * * We are discussing application of the General Notability Guideline as it relates to organizational histories. Here is what Wikipedia says about its policy and guidelines: "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia... Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-known practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." This effort to annihilate such articles that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia by the rigid and draconian application of ill-fitting GUIDELINES violates common sense. 'Ignore All Rules' means nothing more or less than 'Use Common Sense to build and improve the encyclopedia.'" Carrite (talk) 01:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failure to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. There is no guideline providing "Inherent notability for tiny splinter political parties lacking multiple reliable and independent references with significant coverage." Edison (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Nor is there an ironclad rule requiring such deletion. Guidelines are........ guidelines. Carrite (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I go along with Carrite in accepting a relatively low threshold for articles about political parties of the left, right and center. In the case of the faction-ridden Trotskyist movement of the far left, understanding that movement is essential to understanding artists such as Diego Garcia and Frida Kahlo, understanding paradoxically the neo-conservative movement around the National Review and James Burnham, the early history of the Teamster's Union in Minnesota, Lee Harvey Oswald who killed President Kennedy, the anti-Vietnam war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the cult around Lyndon LaRouche and the politics of Sri Lanka. Encyclopedic understanding of this bizarre (in my opinion) political movement is important to an understanding of the political history of the last century. Keep such articles, and equivalent articles on far right movements. Cullen328 (talk) 04:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Edison. Didn't The Life of Brian settle once and for all that the left will endlessly splinter and recombine into less and less interesting or notable forms? There is absolutely no need for us to indulge a "series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism"; cover it briefly at the parent article if it needs to be covered at all. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article does not meet general notability criteria.--יום יפה (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While I am in favor of having articles about minor political groups, RS requires that we have some third party sources that provide a description of them. Some of these sources may be difficult to access, but there are are editors who have access to them. In the meantime, If the article is deleted, then of course it can be brought back provided rs are found. TFD (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep listed at marxists.org. [33] appears to be SPS by the group, which is RS for stating the positions of the earlier group. And I favor minor international political groups representing "interesting" political positions having articles. Realistically, it at least should be an interesting footnote in the Fourth International article under, possibly, "successor organizations." Collect (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:ORG. Sources provided do not provide significant coverage of this organization. A search for other sources doesn't come up with much, therefore fails WP:N. Auseplot (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Canvas Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Notability claims hang off persons associated with project. References do not prop up independent notability of this topic. Hasteur (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Premptiveley tagging with Not A Vote based on people associated with the subject Hasteur (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep There are at least a dozen strong, exclusive sources if you look on Google News -- for example, I just added one story from the print edition of The New York Times, and would be happy to add others from Wired, PC World and others when I have a little more time. Notability is clearly not just inherited here: it comes from the reliable coverage of the site itself and its founding. WP:WEB's criteria clearly dictates that a site with this much comprehensive coverage is notable. Steven Walling 22:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At most 2 of those references (Digital Trends and NYT) are primarily focusing on the site. The others talk primarily about moot and mention in passing that he's starting a new site. Hasteur (talk) 02:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I'll add some more then. There's a lot more than two that are about the site. Steven Walling 02:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Five more references added. Steven Walling 02:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep – Per Steven Walling's efforts at improvement, although I believe that a poor time was chosen to create the article (eg. too soon). --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While the irony is not lost on me I have to wonder if the {{notavote}} tag is needed. Aside from the name of this article is there any evidence of "canvasing"?--Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Hasteur assumed that because it was sort of 4chan-related, there would be a flood of IP participation. Not a crazy guess, but clearly this has been less dramatic than it could have been. Steven Walling 01:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep Significant coverage from more than enough highly reputable sources, no credible chance this does not merit an article. Skomorokh 19:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snapistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A photography magazine and blog in Pakistan. Article created by an intern at the mag. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 10:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- fails WP:WEB. — anndelion (talk) 10:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in reliable sources. doomgaze (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB, no evidence of notability. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:04, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 213 discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is a content forking list. This group (213 (group)) has only released two singles and one album. The singles could be easily merged The Hard Way (213 album). The "Other appearances" are appearances by the group members but not by the band. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Merge back to 213 (group). – Ajltalk 07:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or delete and merge per nom. Trivial fancruft.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Christian Laurin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreated speedy. I'm not sure that this actor meets the notability criteria at WP:ENT; one passing mention in CBC news and a few database-type entries don't seem enough in the way of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources to me. EyeSerenetalk 08:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: So far the subject does not satisfy WP:ENT; he does not have "significant roles in multiple" productions (italics mine). The sources given only list his appearance in minor roles with nary a scant of coverage on him (no interviews, no focus on his performance, no coverage of his background, etc). Even the one-sentence backhanded reference by the director of a play, recalling a talk they had, in one of the source falls well short of the necessary material to qualify notability. Jappalang (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect there seems to be a bit of a double standard as far as what are the notability creterias, especially when i see articles like these Eli Gabay, Shiraz Adam, Cameron Ansell, Michael Cohen, Pete Cugno ...and i could go on and on. There are actually hundrends of other articles like these about canadian and american actors presently on Wikipedia and in my view they establish a precedent. The credentials of the actors mentionned above are almost non existant yet their notability criterias are not put into question. Moreover the authors neglected to ad any Newspaper references. Notwithstanding his other crediantials Christian Laurin appeared on the season's premiere of The Sopranos "the most financially successful series in the history of cable television and is acknowledged as one of the greatest television series of all time".The Sopranos is seen by millions of people worldwide. I rest my case. Rutabagan —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of those articles probably should get tossed; I accept personal responsibility for Pete Cugno, but in my defense it was 2005 and Wikipedia's sourcing and notability standards weren't a patch on what they are now. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I can't and won't vote to delete an actor I'm personally familiar with, who has a recurring role in a TV show I've personally seen. The sources aren't great, I admit, but I can also guarantee that given his most recent couple of roles (including the show I know him from), they'll almost certainly bulk up quite easily if somebody puts some effort into tracking down French ones. Weak keep, although that shouldn't be construed as permanent support; if those better sources don't start turning up eventually, I'd revisit this sooner rather than later. Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as well, similar rationale to Bearcat. The actor has left passing traces in a breadth of reliable sources (I added one to Playbill), and I suspect there are more. Were this article much less verified than it is, I'd lean towards deletion, but the article doesn't seem to be reaching much beyond what we can reliably verify, and I'm happy to give this a bit more time, with due respect for the delete arguments. --joe deckertalk to me 03:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Bruch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:ENTERTAINER as his most substantial role to date was in a 1994 independent film that was lampooned on Mystery Science Theater 3000. Pinkadelica♣ 10:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any info in reliable sources, therefore this individual does not seem to meet basic notability requirements, lacking reliable sources Chzz ► 14:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER/minimal evidence of notability. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Phineas and Ferb (season 2). Stifle (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Beak (Phineas and Ferb) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable episode. very few references exist. JDDJS (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has production and notable guest star info, already referenced at time of nom. Besides that, per WP:ATD it should be merged into a series or show article rather than being deleted outright, if it is determined to be insufficiently independently notable. Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notable guest star information is available at Phineas and Ferb (season 2). It can be redirected to there, but no merge is necessary. JDDJS (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Phineas and Ferb (season 2) - There are some editors which make good Phineas and Ferb episode articles. This is not one of those articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SmartQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Software product without claim or credible indication of notability. Created by a representative of the company that created the software, judging by the username. Their rationale for creating it was to inform the community about new Kanban apps out there, which is understandable but not part of what Wikipedia is intended for. One review on an independent website (I think it's independent anyway), but that's not really enough to show notability. bonadea contributions talk 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually, make that two reviews - I thought the DreamCSS one was a press release at first, but it appears to actually be a brief review of the product. Still not enough to keep the article IMO. --bonadea contributions talk 20:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another web-based ticket tracking and project management system. Article is unambiguous advertising, with nothing more than a feature's list. No showing that this one product in a crowded field has had significant impact on history, technology, or culture of the kind that makes for long term historical notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above and WP:NOTADVERTISING.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dusk and Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not really an ambiguous phrase, as none of the examples provided on the page include "Dusk and Dawn", or even come passingly close enough to justify disambiguation. bd2412 T 21:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not a phrase that needs disambiguation. DAB pages already exist for "dusk" and "dawn". --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No matches at all. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing here requires disambiguation, because all the phrases are different from each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.