Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 28
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) JayJayWhat did I do? 01:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shimun Vrochek[edit]
- Shimun Vrochek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, appears to fail Author, not seeing any awards for this novel when searching and can only find an ebook copy on Barnes and Noble which is dime a dozen. As with any foreign language material if someone fluent in Russian can show reliable sourcing I'm not opposed to withdrawing but for now fails notability standards Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Per Jokestress asking for a withdrawn nom and short of that changing to a Keep vote. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've added some sources - are they sufficient? Samotny Wędrowiec (talk)
- Comment. Why did you consider it for deletion if you're not even willing to discuss this? Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm truly sorry I didn't see it pop up in my watchlist until just now, I have a few thousand in there so it's easy to miss things. Ill review and get back to you today, probably this evening. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have asked for more help frmo editors fluent in the Russian language to help give us a hand Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Russia Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeep - per User:Hell in a Bucket. United States Man (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. No problem, I'm glad you got back to it eventually. I hope these sources are enough - but if not, then I'll try my best to find more.Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just translated missing material. Russian article lists a series of awards. Work has been translated into numerous languages. His novel Metro 2033: Peter has been cited in Europe-Asia Studies as a case study of the fan fiction movement in Russian, which operates differently than it does in English speaking countries. Vrochek created a novel within the universe of another author's work, and instead of being slapped for infringement and what-not, the work was embraced and sold widely. Jokestress (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TOPYX Social LMS[edit]
- TOPYX Social LMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just another LMS that is not very notable by Wikipedia's standards. RBrideau (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NBIZ rationales. Profiles and awards don't help with establishing notability, and I couldn't find any reliable source discussing the subject in more or less acceptable depth. As of now, the article fails to differentiate the subject from other similar subjects, and the sources don't allow to add any encyclopedic coverage to the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N. Article satisfies notability requirements and all content provided is verifiable per WP:V. WP:MILL & WP:NBIZ are essays. Per Wikipedia, "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines." WP:MILL should not be cited without proof or substantial supporting information. I have directly edited this article in the past. Claims originally made differentiating this article from others were denied due to 'Advertisement' rationals which is why such an effort was made to source every statement made as to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines and integrity as best as possible. Any suggestions that do not conflict with Wikipedia guidelines that would make this article 'better' would be taken under consideration. — 108.219.250.209 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- Essays are rationales, and both are perfectly valid and policy-based here. Wikilawyering is particularly not helpful here, as per WP:N if the subject is not excluded per WP:NOT (and it is, as one may see from WP:MILL), and it was covered in non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of topic (no single source of a kind) it is "presumed" to be worth inclusion, though WP:NBIZ rationale rebuts this presumption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are rationales, not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Using your own Wikipedia essay to substantiate your own opinion should not be considered part of this discussion. There have been no examples or detailed information provided to validate the WP:MILL claims. My opinion is that this does not apply as no other Wikipedia articles exist that are similar. None. By definition, this would exclude WP:MILL rationales and your basis for WP:NOT claims. From WP:MILL, "This page in a nutshell: There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles." Not only does this article site additional, unique sources, but there are no other articles that can make similar claims of notability. If there is a constructive suggestion as to how to present this article to more closely reflect different rationales, within the Wikipedia guidelines, please provide them as we are all interested in making Wikipedia the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:SELFQUOTE about quoting own essays. Regarding WP:MILL: the article doesn't make clear whether the subject has at least the tiniest possible differences from generic learning management system, and no reliable source helps to find out the difference. This may also be regarded as violation of WP:CFORK BTW. The awards do not make a valid claim of notability, and there's nothing much apart from those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing WP:SELFQUOTE. I have now read it and we could discuss under another line the section called 'Reasons not to quote your own essay'. The article in question provides unique content relative to social learning management, which is radically different than a commoditized learning management system. This is cited in the article and referenced by the American Society for Training and Development. The "Valid" claim of notability comes from the unique position of what a social learning management system is, not just the awards, and is all referenced by credible sources. That is why this article should exists and provides valuable information to a Wikipedia viewer as no other articles exist that is similar. Besides being one of the 1st social learning management system in the market, receiving some of the best awards/recognitions in the industry for the unique offering, and the only article about social learning management in Wikipedia, what more would you suggest to make this article 'better'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our assessment of sources (other then awards) differ fundamentally. I'm cease further commenting in this AfD in order to make way for other editors, though my position remains unchanged. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for providing WP:SELFQUOTE. I have now read it and we could discuss under another line the section called 'Reasons not to quote your own essay'. The article in question provides unique content relative to social learning management, which is radically different than a commoditized learning management system. This is cited in the article and referenced by the American Society for Training and Development. The "Valid" claim of notability comes from the unique position of what a social learning management system is, not just the awards, and is all referenced by credible sources. That is why this article should exists and provides valuable information to a Wikipedia viewer as no other articles exist that is similar. Besides being one of the 1st social learning management system in the market, receiving some of the best awards/recognitions in the industry for the unique offering, and the only article about social learning management in Wikipedia, what more would you suggest to make this article 'better'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read WP:SELFQUOTE about quoting own essays. Regarding WP:MILL: the article doesn't make clear whether the subject has at least the tiniest possible differences from generic learning management system, and no reliable source helps to find out the difference. This may also be regarded as violation of WP:CFORK BTW. The awards do not make a valid claim of notability, and there's nothing much apart from those. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are rationales, not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Using your own Wikipedia essay to substantiate your own opinion should not be considered part of this discussion. There have been no examples or detailed information provided to validate the WP:MILL claims. My opinion is that this does not apply as no other Wikipedia articles exist that are similar. None. By definition, this would exclude WP:MILL rationales and your basis for WP:NOT claims. From WP:MILL, "This page in a nutshell: There are some items that are very commonplace for which sources verifying their accuracy do exist. But there are so many of these that can be verified given the same sources, there cannot possibly be an article on each one, and only those with additional sources deserve articles." Not only does this article site additional, unique sources, but there are no other articles that can make similar claims of notability. If there is a constructive suggestion as to how to present this article to more closely reflect different rationales, within the Wikipedia guidelines, please provide them as we are all interested in making Wikipedia the best it can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.219.250.209 (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are rationales, and both are perfectly valid and policy-based here. Wikilawyering is particularly not helpful here, as per WP:N if the subject is not excluded per WP:NOT (and it is, as one may see from WP:MILL), and it was covered in non-trivial way in multiple reliable sources independent of topic (no single source of a kind) it is "presumed" to be worth inclusion, though WP:NBIZ rationale rebuts this presumption. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 14:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Many of the sources are by a single publisher. --TheChampionMan1234 01:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the "sources" list is full of self-published material, mirror sites (of self-published material), broken links and non-RS blogs. If you remove everything that doesn't constitute either "independent" or "reliable", the subject would seem to fail WP:CORPDEPTH by a good distance. Fairly obvious promo-spam from what I can see. Article was declined 3 times at AFC for being promo but was created anyway. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter DeLucia[edit]
- Peter DeLucia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails WP:GNG: he is not the actual topic of coverage by unrelated reliable sources, but rather a spokesperson. The topics he is quoted on may actually be notable, but no reliable source gives the subject coverage of the quality or quantity that could support an encyclopedic biography. To boot, coverage that is at all about this person is exclusively local or sourced to the subject himself. This subject also fails WP:POLITICIAN: his elected position on the Lewisboro town board is not inherently notable. This subject also fails WP:ANYBIO because none of his accomplishments, including appearing on TV shows, amounts to a significant accomplishment. There are indeed WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, but nothing by third parties on which to base an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 23:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Standard health inspector/township board member who happens to be lucky enough to be in a market where he's on TV a lot. Nothing more exceptional than that. Nate • (chatter) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 23:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is already well sourced. It would appear that someone has sanitized several of the secondary sources and marked as citation needed, perhaps to aid in deletion. That aside, the person is the subject, or mentioned in, dozens of articles in the Journal News as well as Hersam Acorn Newspapers.[1] Just one would be enough under WP: POL, not to mention the fact that as a recurring character on a major network tv show, would meet WP:ENT. If we followed the line of reasoning set forth in the deletion, we would never have an article on a Paralympian who did not medal - they would be doing something notable without being notable themselves - that is not our policy. Keep. Mrprada911 (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC) — Mrprada911 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment — Passing mention of the subject, especially in coverage of something else entirely, is not the same as substantial coverage of the subject. Contrary to the !vote above, just one of these mentions, especially in local political news, would not meet the burden of "significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources." The local political coverage, which amounts to a play-by-play of town board election, simply does not indicate notability within the meaning of WP:POLITICIAN as a "major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage" ("A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists"). WP:ENT requires significant roles in multiple notable shows; being a recurring guest on the one show does not rise to that level. Nobody is talking about Paralympics or the totally different standards they are held to; let's stay on topic. JFHJr (㊟) 18:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:JNN or WP:IDL aren't valid criterion for deletion. As noted above in tbe lone delete, multiple independent reliable sources exist to verify notabiliy from the TV show alone. Lucky or not, this is the health inspector who is notable enough to contribute to a nationally syndicated show on a regular basis. And if you read through the archive you will note that many of the articles are not just passing election coverage. Mrprada911 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject has appeared in signficant press coverage, as well as having appeared in multiple notable shows. Archivist1174 (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the independent coverage is actually about him, merely mentioning him or interviewing him about other subjects. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is simply not accurate, as several of the articles that are listed above or cited in the article itself from Main Street Connect, Hersam Acorn Newspapers and the Journal News are exclusively about the subject (NOT "None.") You can't move the GNG goalpost for WP: IDONTKNOWIT, which is not a valid grounds for deletion. Mrprada911 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The links you posted above are to Wikipedia's articles on Main Street Connect, Hersam Acorn Newspapers, and the Journal News. Instead, please post links to the actual news articles that go towards supporting the DeLucia topic meeting WP:GNG (similar to how I posted links below). Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is simply not accurate, as several of the articles that are listed above or cited in the article itself from Main Street Connect, Hersam Acorn Newspapers and the Journal News are exclusively about the subject (NOT "None.") You can't move the GNG goalpost for WP: IDONTKNOWIT, which is not a valid grounds for deletion. Mrprada911 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The biography topic does not meet WP:GNG. Most of the reliable sources mention his name as running for office or have a quote or two from him about some topic. No source is writing about his life in any meaningful detail. A politician topic, media appearance topic would not meet WP:GNG either. In general, information on DeLucia can be found in The Journal News. Some early mentions: Journal News August 8, 2005, Democrat and Chronicle September 1, 2005. Those have his name and news articles following that have his name. Journal News February 9, 2006 has several sentences of quotes from DeLucia. Obit info October 5, 2006. Journal News October 25, 2007 has more quotes from DeLucia. Journal News October 31, 2007 has some descent biography information. Journal News October 26, 2009 has more of his political thoughts and perhaps one sentence of biographical information. US State News April 22, 2011 is a first source mention of DeLucia being on the Dr. Oz show, but it is a press release and does not count towards WP:GNG. There is not enough reliable source information independent of DeLucia from which to write a stand alone Wikipedia article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Holding office in a town of 12,000 people does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Reportage in the hyper-local papers about the local elections, local news (rabid raccoon!) and standard public service announcements (sanitary kitchens!) does not meet WP:GNG. Neither does appearing as a guest on a notable nationwide show, which doesn't amount to significant coverage about him. I suppose the article could be redirected to Lewisboro, New York in lieu of deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:36, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daedalus Books[edit]
- Daedalus Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This started out as a highly commercial page, with addresses and greenlinks to the company website in the body of the piece. This was stubbed out the same day of creation back in January 2007 to a piece that very closely resembles the current form. While the Washington Post piece showing absolutely counts as 1 substantial, independently published source towards GNG, a quick Google snoop isn't showing me much else. The Baltimore Examiner piece listed has gone 404; that may or may not constitute a second source towards GNG. I don't think setting a high notability bar on a page such as this started with clear commercial intent is unreasonable. I'd be willing to stand down if a couple more independently published and substantial sources can be mustered, but as of now, this doesn't appear to pass muster for sources. Carrite (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (Added sources.) Multiple independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to the sources are in the talk page, commercial databases. Green Cardamom (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Washington Post article is from a reliable source and has lengthy coverage. Publisher's Weekly is also a credible source. Enough to establish notability. Churn and change (talk) 04:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the article stands now, it clearly has sufficient RS to meet the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notability has been established - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glyn Brown[edit]
- Glyn Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy, but this person does not appear to be notable. -Scottywong| spill the beans _ 22:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Almost all of the sources are unreliable. The Game Seven source makes no mention of him, only making reference to L3NF. No Google News hits. Lugia2453 (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Lugia. GregJackP Boomer! 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing to have in-depth coverage in reliable third party sources, as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Latista Technologies[edit]
- Latista Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. There is still no referencing. The WP:SOLUTIONs section still gives no indication of what the software does. The Notable Projects are indeed notable, although Latista's involvement in them appears not to be. I could find nothing better than laudatory joint press releases with the construction firm who bought their software to back up these claims. Kilopi (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete (found nothing mentioning Latista more than press-releases). Topic's author might be able provide something useful TEDickey (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Plenty of Google hits, but could find not a word from RS. Almost an accomplishment in itself, but no proof of Notability. Celtechm (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete press releases are not enough. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted as promotional and as copyright violation. I tried to find a suitable version to revert to, but there have been source problems for rather some time. Peridon (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focus the Nation[edit]
- Focus the Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable group and I haven't found sufficient sources to establish notability aside from this press release and this USA Today article (although the USA Today article is detailed, this would be insufficient). I also found an event listing here and this blog post by a Focus the Nation member which, unsurprisingly, reads like an advertisement and provides nothing useful for Wikipedia. Google Books only found one result here (scroll up and down to the next pages). Unfortunately, it seems the article has always been edited by COI users causing the article to read more and more like an advertisement. I should note that a sister organisation of Focus the Nation has also been nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green House Network. I should also note that this article was prodded at the beginning but was removed by the nominator after the author provided several links. However, several of those links appear to be insufficient or irrelevant to the group themselves. As I've mentioned there, this is obviously a notable cause but it seems there is few significant coverage to support a proper article. SwisterTwister talk 22:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of secondary sources. Article currently reads like an advertisement. SalHamton (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HueSatLum 21:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11 (spam) and G12 (copyvio) of pages under http://www.focusthenation.org, including http://focusthenation.org/about and http://www.focusthenation.org/quadrants. Goodvac (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nuvvo[edit]
- Nuvvo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Overly self-promotional and not notable. RBrideau (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HueSatLum 21:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LostPoet[edit]
- LostPoet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article, on first glance, has a lot of impressive sourcing. However, upon closer examination, none of them are reliable secondary sources with significant coverage. They are all links to social networking sites, Youtube videos, or trivial listings. This article has been speedied twice before, once as Lostpoet, but I think a more complete discussion will get this settled. —Torchiest talkedits 20:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is linked to an already established page (stub) of his father who is a retired NFL Champion. There are numerous articles I have seen that have little to NO citations at all. For example the wiki page for the Amercian band LPG out of Los Angeles has no sources and is requesting citation. {Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2011) } Why hasn't that page been deleted? Millions of people visit YouTube and other social media sites daily. The mainstream news media use Facebook, Twitter & Youtube posts as credible sources in stories/segments. We live in a digital age where some information is only available online. Correction: This article has only been speedied once by user Amatulic on 11 Sept 2012 not twice as stated by Torchiest. The previous spelling of Lostpoet was incorrect and this version correct LostPoet. — 70.0.234.230 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Please see WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The fact that his father is notable does not make him notable as Wikipedia defines it. The fact that there are other articles here that are no better is not a reason to keep this article. And Wikipedia does not consider social media sites to be "reliable sources" because there is no editorial control or fact checking on what is said there; anyone can say anything they like. There are other places to promote the career of this artist (including all those social media sites), but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia and there have to be criteria for a subject to be included here. The main criterion is significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and that is what LostPoet seems to lack at present. Maybe later, as his career develops and he becomes more widely known. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find any independent coverage at all of this rap artist at Google News archive. It's true that rap artists don't always get as much coverage as other musicians, but at least some external recognition is required for a Wikipedia article, and I could find none. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — per nom, due to an utter lack of reliable sourcing. Going through WP:BEFORE, I haven't found anything better. User-generated and self-published web content do not establish any modicum of notability. And despite the claims generally made in the lead, this subject is far from even approaching WP:NACTOR or WP:CREATIVE. JFHJr (㊟) 19:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge Glen Doherty and Tyrone S. Woods to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi; no consensus on Sean Smith (diplomat). The two guidelines which have been most cited in relation to this discussion are WP:MEMORIAL and WP:ONEEVENT. WP:MEMORIAL says "Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements." This doesn't seem to be of all that much relevance here, as the debate has centred around whether the subjects pass our notability guidelines.
Of the notability guidelines that apply here, WP:ONEEVENT is the most important, and indeed I thought its interpretation by the participants was the key to judging consensus. Its wording is fairly vague: "When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both." Some editors have interpreted this as pointing to deletion of all three articles, arguing that they have no notability outside the Consulate attack; some editors have interpreted it as pointing to keeping all three articles, as the press published general biographical details of the subjects following the attack. As the guideline doesn't give any specific guidance on which of these interpretations is to be preferred, I have treated both of these interpretations as valid.
There were other arguments put forward to keep the articles based on the subjects' achievements, such as Doherty's book and Woods's Bronze Star. However, editors generally did not that that these contributed to the subjects' notability under our guidelines.
With the exception of one "keep all" !vote, all the arguments were at least partially based on the notability guidelines. Because of the high percentage of valid arguments, and the room for interpretation in WP:ONEEVENT, I looked more closely at the numbers involved to find the most appropriate close. From my analysis of the !votes, I get the following:
- Keep all: 8
- Keep Smith, but not others: 4
- Merge/redirect all: 5
- Delete/merge/redirect all: 2
- Delete all: 6
I interpret these numbers to mean that there is a rough consensus that Doherty and Woods aren't notable, but that they shouldn't be deleted outright. Hence merge. In Smith's case, enough editors thought his prominence online before the attack was enough to keep the article that the numbers are a lot more even. Hence I am closing Smith's article as no consensus, defaulting to keep. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Glen Doherty[edit]
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}} . |
- Glen Doherty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also nominating:
- Sean Smith (diplomat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Tyrone S. Woods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial and these individuals are notable for nothing else than for being killed. They didn't hold senior positions and are intrinsically no more notable than anyone else who's died. Yes, they've received a lot of coverage, but that's normal these days for anyone killed in a notable event and doesn't mean they're notable themselves. Smith being well-known on online games doesn't really cut it. He's just a bloke who played a lot of computer games. That's not exactly unusual. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doherty and Woods were both Navy Seals. Doherty coauthored a book. Woods received a bronze star. Ryan Vesey 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a Navy Seal (or a member of any other special forces unit) is not sufficient for notability. Even sole-authoring a book is not sufficient for notability unless that book is exceptionally well-known. Receiving a Bronze Star (or its equivalent in any other country) is not sufficient for notability. The fact he did all three makes him no more notable. This has all been held to be the case many times in previous AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Necro, so according to your standards only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP. You seem to forget that WP:NOTPAPER and that WP is not an enclave for "who's who" for the so-called elite of humanity but that sudden, dramatic and critical events can and do and will bring to the public eye personalities who meet all of WP's heretofore standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Methinks you are arbitrarily raising the bar and it sets a bad precedent. Every minor cartoon character gets a mention on WP with no sweat, and these are more significant and notable especially given the fact it's part of a current serious conflict in Libya. Another point is that these guys were the first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi. IZAK (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What absolute drivel. Where have I said that "only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP"? I have myself written many, many biographical articles on people below that level. I haven't raised any bar - I'm just stating what Wikipedia has already established about notability (i.e. that being a special forces operative, winning the Bronze Star or authoring a non-notable book does not make one notable). The "first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi"? Come again? Are you not aware that Gadaffi has already been overthrown? This had nothing whatsoever to do with the overthrow of Gadaffi. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Necro, so according to your standards only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP. You seem to forget that WP:NOTPAPER and that WP is not an enclave for "who's who" for the so-called elite of humanity but that sudden, dramatic and critical events can and do and will bring to the public eye personalities who meet all of WP's heretofore standards of WP:NOTABILITY. Methinks you are arbitrarily raising the bar and it sets a bad precedent. Every minor cartoon character gets a mention on WP with no sweat, and these are more significant and notable especially given the fact it's part of a current serious conflict in Libya. Another point is that these guys were the first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi. IZAK (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a Navy Seal (or a member of any other special forces unit) is not sufficient for notability. Even sole-authoring a book is not sufficient for notability unless that book is exceptionally well-known. Receiving a Bronze Star (or its equivalent in any other country) is not sufficient for notability. The fact he did all three makes him no more notable. This has all been held to be the case many times in previous AfDs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) The Bushranger One ping only 20:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No branch of the armed forces, whether special forces, catering corps, or vehicle-maintenance technicians, are more notable than any others, according to our guidelines. Bronze Stars are not notable; we routinely delete holders of the Silver Star because only MoH winners are intrinsicly deemed notable. Doherty's worthiness in terms of writing a book does not really pass WP:AUTHOR. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Altairisfar (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Yes, they were killed a few weeks ago in that consulate attack, but nothing here makes these individuals notable, let alone stand out with regards to the attacks. Nothing else can be mentioned aside from their cursory personal and professional backgrounds. As Buckshot06 mentioned above, being a Navy SEAL does not confer notability, and the Bronze Star medal is a commonplace medal, especially in the field. Moreover, being a gaming mod doesn't to that, either. --MuZemike 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, no notability outside of their deaths. EricSerge (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: per ONEEVENT. Mr. Vesey assertions aside, no part of Wikipedia notability criteria allows for the compilation of non-notable facts to somehow froth up a notable whole. Being a Navy SEAL is not notable. Writing a book is not notable. Tens of thousands of soldiers have won Bronze Stars; also not notable. 0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat). WP:ONEEVENT does not apply, specifically "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.". Multiple sources are given that refer to him outside the context of a single event, and give reference to his prominence in the online community. Additionally, he doesn't meet the definition of a low profile individual as it is defined at Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual. Membership of the Council of Stellar Management and a prominent role in the Somethingawful forums are both well documented, and response of both communties to his death lends evidence to his notability. This is exactly the sort of article you'd expect to read on an encyclopedia, and the article has already been viewed 59,000 times. Additionally, the Doherty should be kept as well. The combination of being a Bronze Star recipient, authoring a book, and dying in the manner in which he did combines to confer notability. Deleting a well-sourced, valid, and widely reported article on the subject of a major event because of bureaucracy is stupid. Falcon8765 (TALK) 06:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has suggested we should delete the article on the event! Simply that we should delete articles on individual victims. Are the men who died in this event any more significant than the many thousands who died in the Battle of the Somme, for instance? No, they're not. Should every one of the latter have articles? Clearly, no they shouldn't. So why should these three? They died, that's all. The event in which they died is notable, but they're no more notable individually than anybody else who's died. Redirects to the main article are fine, but not articles on all three individual victims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Err ... that he doesn't meet the definition of a "low profile individual" as set forth in an unofficial essay that hasn't come close to wide currency? Not what I'd call a valid ground to keep. As far as the stupidity of deleting articles goes, if you would like to attempt to swing consensus to overturn ONEEVENT, the proper place to do so is on ONEEVENT's talk page. This is not "bureaucracy," but adherence to our well-founded and consensus-approved notability criteria, however much you believe the subject is important. Ravenswing 19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ONLYESSAY. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat), as per Falcon8765 above: WP:ONEEVENT does not apply in his case. -- The Anome (talk) 08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Falcon. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues! 10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge/Redirect - Per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Sources have covered more than just his death, but it's pretty clear that none of the coverage would have occurred had he not died. I don't mean to sound cold, I just mean it's not like there was a USA Today article lined up for him on that day otherwise, for example. Perhaps he deserves a mention in the event article or something, but not his own. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. Although the subjects meet WP:GNG & WP:ANYBIO, the subjects also fail all but #5 in WP:SOLDIER, and also fall under WP:BLP1E & WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Therefore, the content can be summarized, and a redirect to an appropriate section in the target article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All because there is incredible interest in this episode and in the lives lost. These articles are all well-researched and to the point and meet all the criteria of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOTABLE, WP:BIO. Each of these killed individuals were personalities in their own right, that worked undercover, but have now been thrust into the intense scrutiny of the media and online discussions, particularly since the circumstances surrounding their deaths are a source of debate and controversy. See also the template {{2012 diplomatic missions attacks}} that lays out the importance of all the parts in understanding the "whole" of this complex picture, including all four Americans killed in the attack and the roles they played while in Libya. These were not "doormen" -- they were extraordinarily skilled and highly experienced fighting professionals. IZAK (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And soldiers killed in combat aren't? Either you're saying we should have an article on every one of them, which is clearly impossible and undesirable, or you're saying these people are a special case. Why? What makes them a special case? What makes them notable people as opposed to simple victims of a notable event? Being former Navy SEALs perhaps? Are all Navy SEALs worthy of articles? Are all members of special forces worldwide worthy of articles? Or is it just American special forces? Or is it just Navy SEALs because they're somehow "special"? At the end of the day these were just people doing their jobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a small number of people are killed in a shocking event they can get individual attention that casualties in an ongoing conflict that kills thousands cannot receive. Consider Barbara Robbins, the first American woman killed in the Vietnam War (in a terrorist attack). Certainly the attention that Sean Smith has received from gamers has made him a sort of symbol. GabrielF (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Barbara Robbins was also the first female CIA employee (and the youngest) to be killed in action. The two individuals in question do not have such distinctions. A wild Rattata (talk) 05:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a small number of people are killed in a shocking event they can get individual attention that casualties in an ongoing conflict that kills thousands cannot receive. Consider Barbara Robbins, the first American woman killed in the Vietnam War (in a terrorist attack). Certainly the attention that Sean Smith has received from gamers has made him a sort of symbol. GabrielF (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And soldiers killed in combat aren't? Either you're saying we should have an article on every one of them, which is clearly impossible and undesirable, or you're saying these people are a special case. Why? What makes them a special case? What makes them notable people as opposed to simple victims of a notable event? Being former Navy SEALs perhaps? Are all Navy SEALs worthy of articles? Are all members of special forces worldwide worthy of articles? Or is it just American special forces? Or is it just Navy SEALs because they're somehow "special"? At the end of the day these were just people doing their jobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that these are WP:N for the simple reason that the media is focusing on them strongly, the four dead Americans, killed in a big attack, and their names as individuals is constantly focused on by the media, as each day brings more WP:RS about them. This is not the case when anonymous fighting men die or when tens of thousands of soldiers die, no one knows their names, but in this case, their names are not only known but are being elevated to a higher level of attention with each passing day as the attack is investigated. In the case of Paul Revere, he was just a panicked horseman who deserved no special attention but he became famous and noteworthy because of the subsequent attention that was focused on him. There are many cases like that in military history where specific individuals are elevated above the rest. The world does that and in this case the media is ensuring that this continues with these four killed men, and no one can suppress and push aside the constant flow of WP:V WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply not true. Do a Google search on any British or American serviceman killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and you will find reams of stuff on each and every one of them. That's what happens in the modern information age. It doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make these men notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give some names of these other servicemen killed, so we can compare the amount of coverage on them? I don't think that just one of the many servicemen who died in normal combat would be as notable (and have as many sources) as this attack, which is getting a great deal of media attention. Sean Smith was not just a normal person killed; he had a great deal of influence online. And consider that the virtual reaction to his death is something that is very unique and now well documented with secondary sources. This kind of massive virtual mourning doesn't happen with any normal serviceman who gets killed. It isn't the fact that he got killed in a conflict that makes him notable, but it's this unprecedented virtual reaction by an online gaming community. Merlinsorca 22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast; I can't put it any better than they did. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat), I agree with Falcon8765 in this case. --Shadak (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG. --Nouniquenames 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to a 'Victims' section on U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi. No evidence of independent notability. GiantSnowman 07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Falcon. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Sergecross73. A wild Rattata (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sean Smith (diplomat) due to the unique reaction from online communities concerning his death. I agree with Falcon. Merlinsorca 23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What unique reaction exactly, and how does that help this article meet the WP:GNG exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, his death received a great deal of attention (and was mourned) in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, which I think is unusual. If a normal guy who played computer games were to die in real life, he wouldn't get the same kind of reaction from online communities that Sean Smith did. The fact that the players (and even the game developers) made such a big deal about his death should make it a case that's worth noting. As for WP:GNG, he is definitely notable in that sense as there are a great deal of reliable secondary sources that document him. Merlinsorca 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of reaction exactly has he gotten "from the online world" though? Can you provide links/sources regarding this? Explain a little beyond "reaction" or "attention"? Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, his death received a great deal of attention (and was mourned) in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, which I think is unusual. If a normal guy who played computer games were to die in real life, he wouldn't get the same kind of reaction from online communities that Sean Smith did. The fact that the players (and even the game developers) made such a big deal about his death should make it a case that's worth noting. As for WP:GNG, he is definitely notable in that sense as there are a great deal of reliable secondary sources that document him. Merlinsorca 00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What unique reaction exactly, and how does that help this article meet the WP:GNG exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Falcon and Izak. Meets WP:GNG and is well referenced and organized. --Jethro B 04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi per WP:BLP1E Andy Dingley (talk) 09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sean Smith; not sure about the other two. Smith appears to have been a 'name' in the gaming world, even before this incident, so he passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge to main article Per comments above, I don't see that they have any genuine notability distinct from this one event. Yes there's a lot of coverage but that's because of the attack and their deaths; yes, one of them co-wrote a book and one of them was a known online gamer, but would we have pages on them in respect of those things if they had not died? All sorts of people are killed in notable incidents, and it is then reported that they had done things in their lives and had respect in certain communities, real or web-based. In the absence of any of them becoming genuinely symbolic or iconic in some enduring way as a result of their deaths, I can't see they're notable in their own right. We're shading a bit to close to looking at this as some form of memorial opportunity - there's other places for that, not here. N-HH talk/edits 10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Bennylin (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All - WP:ONEEVENT concerns reliable sources covering the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the event promoted reliable sources to write about their lives, not only their placement in the event, but outside the event - from birth though death in significant detail. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply and arguments asserting it does are focusing on the motivation behind reliable sources reason for writing what they wrote, which is not part of WP:ONEEVENT. While it may be true that none of the coverage would have occurred had they not died the way they did, we all agree that the coverage did occur and that is where Wikipedia steps in to determine whether there is enough of such coverage for a stand alone article on the topic. Also, if the topics satify Wikipedia's notability requirements, then WP:NOTMEMORIAL indicate that the topic satisfies WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As for whether these three are more significant than other who died, that is a WP:WAX argument. As for the topics having to meet some threshold of importance or significance, that was decided by the editors of the reliable sources in favor of the topics being important when the editors chose to publish the information on the topics in their reliable source. While being a Navy SEAL, writing a book, or earning a Bronze Star may not make the people stand out, the reliable sources writing about their lives show how important and significant these topics are despite the lack of position of or status reached by the people behind these biographical topics. The topics meet WP:GNG. Keep all. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ray Stoney[edit]
- Ray Stoney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:TOOSOON; Fails WP:NACTOR. Roles are either minor or in obscure works; references are passing mentions and databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed, several of the references are insufficient and the best one would be the second from the top supporting his basketball career. Google News archives found one link also mentioning his basketball career here (third link from the top). When I added "actor" to my search, I found one small mention here, supporting his Delivery Boy Chronicles role and another small mention for that film here. This actor appears to have several roles through well-known TV programs so I believe this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, there are few reliable and significant sources to support an appropriate article. SwisterTwister talk 19:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ISixes Cricket[edit]
- ISixes Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced article about a cricket tournament which never got off the ground. Few reliable in-depth sources exist. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of notability, and a Google search reveals little of any value. Harrias talk 11:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete unreferenced for 4 years. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robert E. Davis (climatologist)[edit]
- Robert E. Davis (climatologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Six-year-old tiny stub with no content to establish that he is more notable than the typical academic, i.e. WP:PROFTEST. Dragons flight (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Doesn't a Google Scholar using "RE Davis" and climate yield quite a lot well cited papers indicating a pass of WP:prof? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- It might support that conclusion, but none of his peer reviewed publications are mentioned in his article at all. If there is evidence of significance, then by all means feel free to expand the article. Right now there is nothing in the article to indicate he would be more notable than the average professor, and the article is where the evidence ultimately needs to be. Dragons flight (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have made some cleanups to the article. He appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 (e.g. his "Statistics for the evaluation and comparison of models" has over 500 citations in Google scholar, and "Weather and human mortality: an evaluation of demographic and interregional responses in the United States" has 193), and there has been enough media attention to his work that I think he also passes WP:GNG. Some lower-quality sources mention him in the context of skepticism about climate change, but I think we need to be careful about including that in the article; it appears from my reading that his position is more nuanced: he believes in global warming but is skeptical about some of the more dire predictions associated with it. In any case, what he does or doesn't believe shouldn't really affect our discussion about how notable he is, except that it raises long-term BLP concerns about keeping his article neutral rather than using it as a basis for advocacy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on basis of pass of WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Found these non-academic references since others have pointed out academic notability: NY Times; he was the University of Virginia faculty senate chairman, 2003. Churn and change (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Parsimony (CMS)[edit]
- Parsimony (CMS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to Parsimony. This software is a Beta prototype, released less than a month ago. Clearly this article is an attempt at advertising. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article creator hadn't been notified; I've done that now. AllyD (talk) 08:27, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The single reference offered describes this as a start-up with a product at Beta stage in June 2012. Without finding anything further than that, this is at best WP:TOOSOON to meet the Notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per AllyD's comment above, TOOSOON, and insufficiently sourced. Dialectric (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to FK Željezničar Sarajevo. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Maniacs[edit]
- The Maniacs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a fan club. No evidence of significant secondary source coverage and no credible claim of notability. Previously deleted 3 times, first by PROD then by A7 and G12. I don't see anything here that's substantially different from the original version that was deleted in 2007, insofar as evidence of notability or source coverage. I don't have any experience with sports fan clubs, though, and don't really know what kind of coverage would demonstrate notability in the WP sense. IllaZilla (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to FK Željezničar Sarajevo if sources can be found. GiantSnowman 11:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm the creator of the article and I don't see a reason for it to be deleted. First, it isn't the first one in the category and it is closely tied with FK Željezničar Sarajevo. Why should this article be deleted but not for eg. Delije, Ultras Zrinjski, Torcida Split and similar, even Grobari, although having some references, is quite similar to this one. None of them have have been also referenced by significant secondary source, but you can't say that they have no credible claim of notability, because all those groups I have written above are pretty known in Former Yugoslavia, are closely tied with the club they support (when you say FC Red Star, many also immediately remember their supporters) and on the Ultras scene. If you find that the article should be expanded, it won't be a problem for me to do that. I also can find some reliable references, like the one who wrote about the fights between The Maniacs and Torcida Split and similiar. Most of those articles write in negative tone and almost always only write about Ultras groups when they have done something terrible and that's the way in almost every country, especially East Europe. AnelZukic (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:N. The presence of other articles about fan clubs is irrelevant. The only way to show notability is through significant coverage in secondary sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No citations, and no evidence it meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to FK Željezničar Sarajevo, and if sources can be found add the information to the parent article. --Mentoz86 (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - or make this section of another wiki-page (suchg as the main page for the team). There are no independent references (or any references at all) with this page, and not enough for it to deserve a page in its own right. Hairy poker monster (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Fulfills at least one, if not more criteria of WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Skell[edit]
- Philip Skell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deceased scientist who denies Darwinian evolution. Lack of significant coverage per WP:PROF. SalHamton (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Skell was a member of the NAS, which is a strong indicia of notability -- it's been argued all members of NAS are by definition notable. A h-index of 20 in google scholar, which isn't bad for a scientist whose active research appears to have been primarily in the 1950s, given its presentist bias. Two first author articles cited by 142 and 150 in google scholar. Note to nominator -- His denialism isn't relevant to his notability, except insofar as WP:FRINGE issues apply. If you think WP:FRINGE is applicable, then please say so; if it's not, then let's not try to bias the discussion of notability based on the man's views. My assessment of "keep" is based on his chemical research, not his denialist views. --Lquilter (talk) 21:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF#C3 and C5, and probably also C1. The denialism is a sidenote that doesn't affect his notability either positively or negatively. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Member of NAS; named chair at a well-known university (granted not a major research one); his field, graphene chemistry, is in the news constantly, and so it is reasonable to assume he has had academic influence (one doesn't get into the NAS any other way). Churn and change (talk) 04:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Nominator, who started editing on 12 September 2012 and appears to be on a deletion spree, is advised to consult WP:Prof before making further AfD nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Notability has been addressed through the discovered sources. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discworld: Ankh-Morpork[edit]
- Discworld: Ankh-Morpork (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per WP:N FunkyCanute (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources: Wired and Bit Gamer. Also found multiple reviews at other sites: [7], [8], and [9]. —Torchiest talkedits 18:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article requires some extensive work to meet our standards, but there are a number of reviews for this game from reliable sources, particularly the ones from Wired and Bit Gamer brought up by Torchiest, that show that it is notable enough, as far as board games go. Rorshacma (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Wired and other refs. Celtechm (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Also has coverage on websites of MTV[10] and SFX magazine[11]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frederica Jansz[edit]
- Frederica Jansz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
THIS PERSON IS NOT A NOTABLE PERSON IN SRI LANKA ANS SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN WIKIPEDIA, HAS NOT CREATED ANYHING MAJOR IN HER CAREER TO BE REOCNIZED NEITHER BEING RECOGNIZED IN SRI LANKA OR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD Wikious123 (talk) 18:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - while we should assume good faith, this nom was made by a brand new WP:SPA who joined WP to ANGRILY nominate a BLP which has been controversial, and subject to IP vandalism and edit-warring. Suggest there is at least some WP:COI going on, if not WP:SOC. The article has a number of sources that appear to provide coverage of the subject. So in what way are you suggesting the subject does not meet WP:GNG? Are the sources not reliable? Otherwise I would suggest this is a WP:POINTY nomination and perhaps should be withdrawn. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jansz was the editor of a national newspaper. Her newspaper's outspoken criticism of the government has meant that she is known inside Sri Lankan and outside. A Google search results in nearly 100,000 hits. Her recent sacking was even reported on the BBC website. I too have to question the motives behind the nomination.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Fjordman. Sandstein 13:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Defeating Eurabia[edit]
- Defeating Eurabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published book, not reviewed by notable publications Jason from nyc (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnotable. The one reference is about the blogger, who has a wiki article, not the book. SalHamton (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fjordman. I'm mixed over this and if someone could find just one more source, I'd be willing to be persuaded to keep a separate article for the book. It's just that we only have the three sources and for the most part they talk more about Fjordman himself than the book. Most of this information is either already available in the main article or could be somewhat easily added. At this point in time I think that this information would be best served by merging into the main article and having this serve as a redirect to Fjordman. As far as reviews go, you don't always have to have reviews to keep an article about a book- you can have news articles. There just aren't enough and like I said, this could just as easily be merged and redirected.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Fjordman. Not notable per WP:BKCRIT. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Robin Gibb. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robin-John Gibb[edit]
- Robin-John Gibb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Question whether notability is established simply for being a co-writer of one recorded work. JoeBrennan (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep there is some proof of notability from several sources about the one work. SalHamton (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to Robin Gibb, as is often done with less-notable relatives of notable people. Robin-John does not appear to meet the criteria for notability at this time. The links in the article are not about him; they are about the piece he co-wrote with his father. The work itself does not have a Wikipedia article, but it might qualify; however, that does not make its co-author separately notable. We need to see significant coverage about HIM. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Robin Gibb. There is nothing to inducate that this son is notable yet. Notability is not inherited. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The arguments for deletion are persuasive. The sockpuppetry did not help, obviously - but even discounting that, I did not see any arguments for Keeping that passed muster with the GNG. All of the arguments in favor of keeping would be bolstered if the subject were more notable - a clear sign that he is not, as yet, sufficiently notable for inclusion. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Viorel Chivriga[edit]
- Viorel Chivriga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has been expanded since it was first deleted, but I still don't see the subject meeting the notability criteria.
In terms of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, we don't have that. We have a pastiche of passing mentions - here a quote about an opinion of his (on his employer's website), here passing mention of another opinion he expressed during a panel discussion, and that sort of thing. Yes, I know the subject "need not be the main topic of the source material", but it's still telling that no independent sources seem to give him much in the way of significant coverage.
His political career I think doesn't rise to WP:POLITICIAN level. He was once listed in a party manifesto as a ministerial candidate, but never received the portfolio, nor was this apparently reported in outside sources. He's also deputy head of a party that is, by accounts, minor. Yes, its head is notable, but his position there doesn't make Chivriga a notable politician.
As an economist he also seems not that notable. We have a claim that he is "the most known economic expert in [Viitorul] institute", but the attached source doesn't substantiate the claim and, in any case, "best known economic expert at Viitorul institute" does not necessarily indicate notability as an economist. Other than that, we mostly have his views related to us.
I'm not denying that Chivriga has had a successful and respectable career in economics and made a foray into politics as well. But there's a line between, on the one had, a good career and, on the other hand, encyclopedic notability. He makes the first cut but not the second, I would submit. - Biruitorul Talk 02:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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}} . |
- Keep - I actually cringed when I wrote keep. It appears he is a founding member of a political party started in 2011. Thus the lack of history of western English sources. See: Democratic Action Party (Moldova) And in Moldova this person is important and notable. The article needs serious work but I believe it can be made better and more Wiki like.
- WP:POLITICIAN 1.Politicians ... who have held ... national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.
- The following two lines in the article meets this requirement.
- In 2009 he was called to be the Minister of Agriculture in the governmental team of the Liberal Democratic Party of Moldova, locally known as the PLDM.
- On November 6, 2011, the Democratic Action Party's Congress elected Viorel Chivriga as the Vice President of the party and the Head of Chisinau local party organization.
- Jrcrin001 (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contribution misinterprets WP:POLITICIAN. As I noted in my nomination statement, Chivriga was merely proposed for the Agriculture Ministry, but never received the post, nor does the proposal appear to have been covered in any sources external to the platform of the party that proposed him. And no, being among the founders of a political party and its deputy leader (especially one with 8000 members) also does not automatically qualify one under the criterion, particularly as coverage of Chivriga in this role is marginal at best. As I've said, the founder, leader and central figure of the party, Mihai Godea, is notable, not least because he's a member of the Moldovan Parliament. But nothing of the sort applies in Chivriga's case.
- The "lack of history of western English sources" argument also doesn't hold water: nearly all the sources presented here are in Romanian, and a couple in Russian. The article is presumably written by a Moldovan. I myself, who know Romanian, have tried in vain to turn up significant, convincing coverage of the man.
- So no, he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:PROF or, it seems, any of the GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 14:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In order to make an objective and short analysis of whether Viorel Chivriga is notable or not, I will state simply my opinion regarding each point discussed by you before.
- In the main summary, the author gives him the title of an economist and agriculture expert. Thus, his political notability is not of primary importance in this case because the article doesn't develop this topic. As it goes further, the main part relates to his economic and agriculture career. Indeed, Viorel Chivriga is more a local economist rather than a worldwide known one. Nevertheless, it would be a false statement to say that there is not independent coverage of his notability. I will give you some examples. I just googled his name alongside the major Moldovan media and i got the following results: He was quoted by the major newspapers of the country like: Timpul, Jurnal de Chisinau, Flux, Adevarul and major tv channels like PublikaTV, EuroTV, JurnalTV... These examples are not singular, for sure.
- Moreover, this page was given in order to show his activity between 2007 and 2012. To make it clear, I don't see this page as a self-promotion page. The associate Institute is just summarizing his publications and scientific work as any other university or scientific center does. If you scroll through the articles you can observe either scientific papers he authored or his press coverage.
- In regards, to his scientific publications, this link is a good one to see the titles, the dates and the publishers of his papers: here. In case you consider this argument as biased, please google his works and you will get the electronic versions.
About his political notability as you touched this subject, here it is the top 100 of most influential politicians in Republic of Moldova. HERE! Cntrl F, Viorel Chivriga, here it is. BUT, as I said, the article doesn't categorize him as a politician, there is no word in the whole text which says that he is a politician. The author just added the last activities in which he emerged, which is politics. To start a career in politics doesn't make you a politician all of a sudden, in this case, the author had the discretion to not categorize him as such.Alexandru —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Alexandru Ecru has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Domain Flag (talk · contribs), the article's creator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I checked the sources provided by Alexandru related to his media coverage and indeed he is a notable figure. I am for maintaining the article. In my opinion, there is no need of other sources, there are already more than 30. A good article about a Moldovian economist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Radu Bujor (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Radu Bujor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Domain Flag (talk · contribs), the article's creator. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Moldova-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails politician based on the translations I have found. The sockpuppets probably will have brought more attention that they would have normally, so congrats on torpedoing the article yourselves :-) dangerouspanda 20:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I come from Moldova. Alexandru is right in what he is saying. He is a public figure who is present in different media institutions. DangerousPanda can you please write below the translation you found?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Breaking Good (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt Sorry, but there is nothing to add, and the sockpuppet noise here is enough to make one sick to the stomach. It looks to me like the "start new article" hype has just now been striking Moldovan PR spammers. Or is there a LaRouche-type movement growing in Moldova? Sorry dude(s), but this doesn't even help your employer. Publish elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that Viorel Chivriga is not internationally acclaimed person does not necessarily mean that he is not famous in his motherland (Moldova). From the citations I can see that he appeared in many famous mass media releases. I found several interesting articles posted on the official website of the NGO he is working for. After reading the article, I think that the intention of the author was not to highlight the fact that he is a politician rather to present him as an economist who is also involved in politics. Levan— Preceding unsigned comment added by Levan Bregvadze (talk • contribs) 15:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 15:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - from what I can see, most of the articles are by him not about him. But the COI sock-spam is spectacular... Stalwart111 (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ok, let's it make it simpler. Indeed I used two different accounts to post comments. The last one written by Levan Bregvadze, is not mine. If the consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments than I will repeat my comments here and I hope that nobody will delete it:
- In order to make an objective and short analysis of whether Viorel Chivriga is notable or not, I will state simply my opinion regarding each point discussed by you before.
- In the main summary, the author gives him the title of an economist and agriculture expert. Thus, his political notability is not of primary importance in this case because the article doesn't develop this topic. As it goes further, the main part relates to his economic and agriculture career. Indeed, Viorel Chivriga is more a local economist rather than a worldwide known one. Nevertheless, it would be a false statement to say that there is not independent coverage of his notability. I will give you some examples. I just googled his name alongside the major Moldovan media and i got the following results: He was quoted by the major newspapers of the country like: Timpul, Jurnal de Chisinau, Flux, Adevarul and major tv channels like PublikaTV, EuroTV, JurnalTV... These examples are not singular, for sure.
- Moreover, this page was given in order to show his activity between 2007 and 2012. To make it clear, I don't see this page as a self-promotion page. The associate Institute is just summarizing his publications and scientific work as any other university or scientific center does. If you scroll through the articles you can observe either scientific papers he authored or his press coverage.
- In regards, to his scientific publications, this link is a good one to see the titles, the dates and the publishers of his papers: here. In case you consider this argument as biased, please google his works and you will get the electronic versions.
- About his political notability as you touched this subject, here it is the top 100 of most influential politicians in Republic of Moldova. HERE! Cntrl F, Viorel Chivriga, here it is. BUT, as I said, the article doesn't categorize him as a politician, there is no word in the whole text which says that he is a politician. The author just added the last activities in which he emerged, which is politics. To start a career in politics doesn't make you a politician all of a sudden, in this case, the author had the discretion to not categorize him as such.
- For Stalwart111, he is not a journalist to write the articles himself. In the press, Chivriga was cited by the journalists. He was asked about some aspects and issues related to Moldovan economy or politics. He stated his opinion, as Krugmann does for New York time, bloomberg or other media channels and was printed. It doesn't mean that Chivriga is like Krugmann, it means that Chivriga in Moldova has much more authority and is more notable than Krugmann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, at last count, it was at least four different accounts. So for a start, I would strongly recommend you have a read of WP:SOC and have a look at the note on the top of these pages each time you edit - "Be aware that using multiple accounts to reinforce a viewpoint is considered a serious breach of community trust".
- That aside, it doesn't matter whether he is classified as an economist, a politician, a goat-farmer or a circus clown. There are plenty of people who fit into more than one category. But the subject has to at least meet WP:GNG - the general notability criteria for inclusion. My suggestion was that, in my opinion, he doesn't. I'm happy to accept that a couple of the sources provide (minor) coverage of him rather than by him, but a good many of those could not possibly be considered reliable sources anyway, which makes it very hard to wade through them and determine which should be used against the criteria at WP:GNG. One, as an example, is from a bizarre religious quasi-hate-page where other articles include anti-Semitic op-ed rants - suggesting it is a reliable source for "news" is laughable. Strangely, it seems to be from some sort of officially sanctioned think tank. Others are clearly not in English. While non-English sources are fine, given the obvious conflict of interest editing, it is difficult for others to "take your word for it" that the sources meet the criteria for "significant coverage".
- At the moment, the questionable sources, blatant conflict of interest editing and ridiculous sock-puppetry have made it almost impossible to make an educated determination about the article. Most people will tend to assume that if reliable sources did exist and could be cited, the sock-puppetry, COI editing and silly games simply wouldn't be necessary. I'm afraid you have done yourself (and the subject) a great disservice. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's look at WP:GNG criterias and discuss them one by one:
- 1) Significant coverage - As it is said in WP:GNG, the sources should address the subject directly. I included 30 (and something) of sources. All sources provided cite mostly every sentence in the article so no original research issue could arise. If it is still less than you expect, I can provide 100 sources. 10 to each sentence from the article. His coverage in Moldovian Media is huge. To give you an example, see the google result on the 40th page :P Google 40th page(Chivriga) Nevertheless, this idea is not so promising because the same content can be found on different media channels. For instance, Chivriga discussed the issue of droughts in Moldova in PublikaTV and in Flux Newspaper. In both sources, Viorel Chivriga is cited as an economist. In both source, Chivriga expressed his suggestions towards a drought eradication plan. This proves the argument of secondary sources of information.
- 2) Reliable : "bizarre religious quasi-hate-page where other articles include anti-Semitic op-ed rants". Can you be more explicit and provide here in the page of discussions the link to this webpage? Going forward with the criterias I cite once again the so-named WP:GNG. "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability". In my opinion, here it is stated very clearly that a person can be notable if he is present in all forms of media, see the links of media where he was cited: Jurnal de Chisinau is published three times per week with a circulation rate of 25 931 papers, Timpul de Dimineata is published daily with a circulation rate of 30700 papers, Adevarul is a national magazine published 3 times per week with a circulation rate of 13400 papers, he was also cited in other newspapers but it will be a too long post, so if you need more newspaper evidences do it by yourself. The information related to the circulation rate I obtained from HERE!. Let's see his coverage at TV Channels, he was present in the studio of the following Channels: PublikaTV was watched by 4 010 291 people during last month, Jurnaltv was watched by 7,3 million during last month. The info about how many viewing were registered you can see at Metrica.MD. Oh, almost forgot, the central TV Channel in Moldova: TVM. Are these sources anti-semitic? Not at all. Are they reliable? I guess these sources are the most reliable in Moldova from all the media organization the Republic has.
- 3) Sources- It was said already too much on this chapter. Once thing is clear, there are plenty of sources. Google it, Bing it, Yahoo it.
- 4) Independent of the subject: Most articles which I included in the reflist and in this short monologue are mostly written or published by independent organizations not affiliated to Viorel Chiviga.
- 5) Presumed: I like this criteria most because it leaves room for further discussion: Viorel Chivriga is presumed to be notable and now the editors should come up with a definite conclusion.
- About sockpuppets, Stalwart111 try to refute all I just have said and after this, I will give you an answer why did I use them. Cheers to everybody. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domain Flag (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing on television or being interviewed in a newspaper is not conclusive evidence of notability. Neither are search results or videos published on your own political party's website. And you don't get to place conditions on editors to reveal why you created a clutch of sockpuppets to save this article; you refrain from creating the socks in the first place and declaring your conflict of interest if you have one. Which, given that your only activity on Wikipedia has been related to Mihai Godea, Natalia Ciobanu (deleted) and Viorel Chivriga, who all just happen to be figures in the Democratic Action Party, seems a distinct possibility. - Biruitorul Talk 17:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Domain Flag... Absolutely not - I will not help you justify your bad-faith use of sock-puppets or silly COI editing. You should have been blocked and we shouldn't be having this conversation - the fact that we are means an admin somewhere has decided you should have the right to defend your article. I will (begrudgingly, because it's disgusting) highlight at least one of the other "headlines" from www.mdn.md - the very first "reference" provided - "Jewish Supremacist Organization Lights Menorah in front of White House!". It's probably best not to go into the details of the article itself, and I don't think it's necessary. It is not up to others to find sources for your COI article - that's the whole point of the burden of proof. It might be that the article could be improved, and often editors will "pitch-in" and help. I regularly try to fix articles which have been brought to AFD in the interests of improving Wikipedia. But nothing about your efforts, your conduct or the subject (or the disgusting "sources" cited to support his notability) inspire me to trawl Google on the off-chance I might find something worthwhile. You have brought this upon yourself. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Biruitorul are you sure you understood the WP:GNG criteria? Exactly, being cited in press, being present in TV channels, writing scientific papers, means to express your name to the public which gives you in turn notability. As I said I can give you many other newspapers or TV-channels with him being cited there, not only these which I mentioned before. Once again, I see phrases with no logical argumentation, for example, "videos published on your own political party's website". What website? Do you mean PUBLIKATV? It's a national TV channel...In case you have any proof, give it and don't lie. About my activity on wikipedia it's not your business. I write about what I want, as you do it by yourself. And You know why I didn't write any other articles? Simple, my first ones, were deleted for no reason. I will finish this one, and after that, I will write a new one maybe on other topic. Please give me the right to give you a lesson, you write about cats because you like cats, cats interest you, right? I write about the leaders of this organization because I like it, and because I think some of these leaders reached the level of notability to be on wikipedia. End of question.
- Stalwart111 I should have been blocked? This is your argument? Is it indeed all what you can? I wrote five paragraphs, explained in detail why this article stands the notability criteria, and you, instead of refuting them, in case you believe in ur position, you are telling me : I don't want to talk to you because you are bad. Like a 14 years old kid. I USED SOCK PUPPETS BECAUSE YOU THOSE WHO DELETE ARTICLES, INSTEAD OF ARGUING LIKE INTELLIGENT BEINGS, ARE JUST STATING TWO PHRASES : DELETE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET CRITERIA. I used the sock puppets because your arguments were like: "Delete Fails politician based on the translations I have found. ", "Delete - from what I can see, most of the articles are by him not about him.". What translation? What articles? Can you think before posting something? Do you know Romanian? Do you a single thing about Moldovan Economics or Politics to express an objective opinion? About the mdn.md wesbite, indeed you are right, the page is not reliable. I am sorry for this citation, I will delete it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.44.243 (talk) 15:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The source material independent of Viorel Chivriga that I found says things like, "Romania's entry into the EU on 1 January 2007 and its withdrawal from a free trade agreement with Moldova will affect Moldovan exports given the fact that local producers will not be capable of quickly reorientating their exports, economic analyst Viorel Chivriga says", "Expert Viorel Chivriga of the IDIS Viitorul centre criticizes the ruling ...", "Economic analyst Viorel Chivriga said Russia's actions are likely linked to ...", and "Viorel Chivriga, of the IDIS-Viitorul think tank, says that after the 5 September (2010) referendum ..." There is not enough source material independent of the topic for a Biography of Viorel Chivriga Wikipedia article under WP:GNG. You could try a Commentary of Viorel Chivriga article, but such a subtopic usually is part of a biography article and doesn't seem to be justified under WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Personal Storage Table. Numerous options were suggested for redirect targets; the only one that currently mentions this subject is Personal Stoarge Table, so that's where I'll redirect this to. I'm not going to delete the history, so if there is any actual sourced content someone thinks should be merged, feel free to do so by looking at the history. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Offline Storage Table[edit]
- Offline Storage Table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be WP:OR. reddogsix (talk) 09:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not totally sure if this is notable, but could redirect or merge to Personal Storage Table. --10:03, 12 September 2012
- Delete per above --Mediran talk 10:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(UTC)
- Speedy delete per G11 - Unambiguous advertising. This is just puff advertising for this website as linked in the article. Any useful encyclopaedic content can go in Microsoft Exchange Server. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even close to unambiguous advertising. Most of the article has nothing to do with that website and is a factual description of a small (probably non-notable) feature of MS Windows. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the article has changed since I !voted, including removing the advertising link and then removing the AfD notice against process. But now things like "Though you can set the many configurations for Take on life manually" make no sense. What's Take on life? I don't know. And if it's notable, where are the multiple, independent, reliable sources? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not even close to unambiguous advertising. Most of the article has nothing to do with that website and is a factual description of a small (probably non-notable) feature of MS Windows. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:57, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G11 - Unambiguous advertising. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 14:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- did basic cleanup Keep - I agree it was a terrible WP article as first published, but I took 10m or so and gave it a basic format, and now it's at least a poorly referenced article that needs cleanup, but a basic WP article. I don't see how this is any less valid that Portable Document Format (.pdf), which was an Adobe-proprietary file format from 1993-2008. .ost is proprietary MS, sure, but it's a file format known throughout much of the world. I'm not sure of the best way to reference it (not a computer guy), but it certainly seems Notable. I also don't see how this was "unambiguous advertising" even in the beginning, though it certainly ran afoul of WP:NOTHOWTO. Do folks think it's worth developing now that I've cleaned it up? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Personal Storage Table (.pst) is a pretty substantial article, so not sure why this couldn't be. I'm not convinced that they're close enough to "the same thing" to do a full merge, but I'll leave that to the computer wiz guys. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. Relisting as the article has been cleaned up and the speedy delete !votes no longer apply. I would also like to hear more about whether sources exist about this file format that might show it passes WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't find any reliable source information on "Offline Storage Table". Loooking at OST + Microsoft + Prospect (e.g., Microsoft company Prospect, I didn't find anythng. I looked for "OST data file", and found "Provide to OST data files and images of remittance received each day in a structure and format compatible with OST systems and BIA specifications."FedBizOpps May 15, 2009. From that, I looked at OST systems, which brought many hits for Open System Technologies as well as hits for out-of-school time (OST), Open Systems Thinking (OST), Operator System Transmission (OST), etc. I think it would be of value for Wikipedia to have an article on the Offline Storage Table topic, but without meeting even a lower end of the WP:GNG requirement of reliable source material, I don't see a Wikipedia basis for keeping the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I think part of problem is the name of the article. I searched out "ost and pst and offline", and found: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Most of them are press releases, but they do note the OST topic. The solution here seems to be to delete Offline Storage Table and then redirect Offline Storage Table to Computer data storage#Off-line storage. "Computer data storage#Off-line storage" can include a link to a new article, called Offline mail storage, which can discuss ost Offline Storage Table and pst Personal Storage Table. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you specifically discounting all the hits that come up on GoogleBooks? Some are instructional books, others about general concepts in computing, and I'n not tech-savvy enough to know which are substantive and which in-passing. I'm just confused since you mention such a low bar as "they note the OST topic" while ".ost file" gets hundreds of hits on GoogleBooks. Again, note other file extensions like .pdf (Portable Document Format) have full and well-developed and sourced articles. I'd really like to hear from a tech-specialising editor whether this has similar potential. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a link to sources that you would like reviewed? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WilyD 15:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I appreciate MatthewVanitas' efforts with the article, I don't think other stuff exists is a sufficient reason to keep. Notability for a stand-alone article simply hasn't been established in this case. Miniapolis (talk) 02:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Microsoft Exchange. It's not worth a full article, but a brief mention in the Exchange article with a link to some reference on the details of the file format would be appropriate. --John Nagle (talk) 05:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sulaiman Abdulghafoor[edit]
- Sulaiman Abdulghafoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that Al-Arabi is a fully pro club. In the absence of reliable sources confirming that the league they play in is fully pro, this is insufficient for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beijing Institute of Clothing Technology[edit]
- Beijing Institute of Clothing Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability guidelines for non-commercial organisations, as per WP:NGO. FunkyCanute (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep verifiable post-secondary educational institution. SalHamton (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Verifiable tertiary educational institutions are generally held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a real institution. Whoever listed this is wasting people's time and should be told off. prat (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoever listed this thinks that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a listings directory, and has checked the notability guidelines for non-commercial organisations before nominating for deletion, including the need for "multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources." FunkyCanute (talk) 09:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Higher education orgs are almost always notable because they generate lots of third party coverage. There are plenty of independent and reliable (if a tad uninformative) sources in both English and Chinese (loads of higher education admission guides, Chinese govt sites regarding programs and credentials, magazine and journal articles on fashion shows its students participate in, other universities referring to their cooperations, that sort of stuff). I suspect nominator searched for "Beijing Institute of Clothing Technology", its old name, rather than "Beijing Institute of Fashion Technology", the new English name. An article name change may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.157.202 (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move and Redirect to Beijing Institute of Fashion Technology, as that is its current name. The article should also be kept as this AfD continues to support the idea that accredited post-secondary educational institutions are notable. I don't really think AfD is the right venue to challenge this consensus. If the nominator requires a secondary source, here it is, where the school's designs were used in a fashion show in Beijing. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Clear copyvio Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Geometry help[edit]
- Geometry help (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not obey Wikipedia's policies. Welcome to HorrorLand, where nightmares come to life! 14:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete (G12) as copyvio from http://www.helpingwithmath.com/by_subject/geometry/geo_symmetry.htm. --Lambiam 14:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jose Vides[edit]
- Jose Vides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnotable player in a minor national team. SalHamton (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for future reference. It does not matter how minor his national team is, if he played for bloody Bhutan then make it. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for his national team, nor has he received significant coverage. As such, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails NFOOTY and GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marco Morais[edit]
- Marco Morais (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or for his national team, nor has he received significant coverage. As such, the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Has not played in a full international match and fails GNG. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Three whole weeks (including two relistings) without any comments other than the nom and a keep. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Høstmørke[edit]
- Høstmørke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
searched and cannot establish this as Wikipedia-notable - e.g. hasn't been covered in several publications from reliable/notable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - or at least merge CD info to Isengard (Norwegian band). It may be hard to locate reviews for Norwegian music of the 1990s, given that these may be in print only. However, I had no trouble finding reviews at Sonic Abuse (2010), Peaceville: Darkthrone, and Encyclopaedia Metallum, which may alone be enough to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MobShop[edit]
- MobShop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Apparently defunct company article, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. It does have a NYTimes citation, so a bit of coverage in RS, but evidence of notability is thin. Dialectric (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until rewritten to make sense. The article says in two different places "founded in 2008," and yet there are sources talking about it in 2000, when it apparently changed its name to MobShop from an even earlier name "Accompany",[19] and 2001 when it dropped its consumer business.[20] So what is its current business? Unclear. As the article currently stands I would regard everything in it as either unverified or actually contradicted by the available sources. The article could be userfied if there is someone willing to take on the rewrite. Otherwise, delete. --MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cube Technologies[edit]
- Cube Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see anything to indicate this is a noteworthy company. Its website is down, and the references are either dead or don't mention it. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable with no claim of it, no RS, nothing later than 2010, and the company's site seems defunct. Celtechm (talk) 01:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paranormal (video game)[edit]
- Paranormal (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is completely unsourced, makes no claim to importance and appears to be for a non-notable game lacking coverage from reliable sources. The only external link provided is to the game's download page and a video by Pewdiepie is stated to be its only "indicator" of notability. RPGMakerMan (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The rather generic title of the game makes it difficult to search for sources, but I have found none that were not just first party or from other wikis. The only claim to notability in the article is that a youtube personality played it, but that doesn't really cut it as far as passing the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ultimately this is a non-notable game at this point in time. Like Rorshacma said, searching for sources was a bit difficult but I wasn't able to find anything that would show that the game has enough notability to merit an entry. It might get more press when it eventually releases, but it doesn't have it at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lorry Girl[edit]
- Lorry Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reference provided, no notability.
Anish Viswa 11:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Currently spoken of only in blogs or non-RS.[21] Allow back only when WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete could not find any sources that establish its notability. Looks like it is not released yet, the article says, it will be previewed in Dec 2012. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here Today (Sessions Website)[edit]
- Here Today (Sessions Website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not comply to wikipedia standard Not notable Charon77 (talk) 11:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nominated by Charon77. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC , or WP:WEB at this time. Gongshow Talk 20:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John de Trafford[edit]
- John de Trafford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
born, went to school, married with children and has a job- seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHe's a knight and he received an Order of the British Empire. Ryan Vesey 12:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment He is not a knight. Only the two top categories of the Order of the British Empire confer knighthood. The MBE is the fifth and lowest order and is awarded to many each year. His title Sir derives from an inherited baronetcy and we do not assign notability from accident of birth Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, I was aware that the MBE did not confer knighthood; however, I assumed that all those with the title "Sir" were knights. At the same time, how on earth could nobility not confer notability? Ryan Vesey 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not nobility confers notability is irrelevant, as baronets are not noble Crusoe8181 (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For transparency, I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage to clear up this question. Ryan Vesey 19:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake, I was aware that the MBE did not confer knighthood; however, I assumed that all those with the title "Sir" were knights. At the same time, how on earth could nobility not confer notability? Ryan Vesey 18:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is not a knight. Only the two top categories of the Order of the British Empire confer knighthood. The MBE is the fifth and lowest order and is awarded to many each year. His title Sir derives from an inherited baronetcy and we do not assign notability from accident of birth Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to be noteworthy particularly as a trustee, not just an average jo. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or Merge. Material on baronets of minor notability can be merged into the article on the baronetcy (see for instance Dashwood baronets and Agnew baronets). This article can then become a redirect. Some of the sources need to be fixed or removed as they don't work. Tryde (talk) 07:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: baronetcies (one step up from most knighthoods, I'd have thought) are no longer created, so a baronet is a rare and endangered animal and should be preserved and cherished accordingly. 45ossington (talk) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that baronetcies are no longer created means that they are, in the contemporary world, a big step down from most knighthoods, as they are inherited rather than awarded for any personal achievements. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: President of American Express Bank Europe, I think running a major world bank is notable, combined with his title as baronet de Trafford, makes him sufficiently notable. RexGregorian (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Europe, but Northern Europe. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that that makes much difference it is still a very important position running a continental section of a major world bank, plus his role as trustee, perhaps alone these factors might not make him notable but combined they do. RexGregorian (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Europe, but Northern Europe. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't looked into any other claims of notability, but must say that an inherited baronetcy comes nowhere close to conferring automatic notability. What basis does anyone commenting above have for claiming that? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My comments came from a lack of understanding of the difference between baronet and baron. Considering my keep !vote was based on that, I'm striking it and am neutral for now. Ryan Vesey 21:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see that strong views might be held about the relative notability (and indeed merits) of inherited and "earned" honours, but I think that baronets (as well as knights) make it into Who's Who.45ossington (talk) 06:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Moderately notable through baronetcy and business positions (e.g. currently chairman of NS&I). Whatever one thinks about the merits of hereditary titles, in the order of precedence in England and Wales, baronets do rank above knights (except KG and KT). Rupert Clayton (talk) 09:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GCBs also outrank them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A hereditary baronetcy does not confer automatic notability, but the fact he's chairman of National Savings and Investments should. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Role of churches in liberation struggle[edit]
- Role of churches in liberation struggle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unsourced personal essay, with POV and original research issues. The topic may actually be worth having an article on, but this isn't it: the sensible thing to do would be to blow it up and start over. Yunshui 雲水 10:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 22:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Surely this is a notable topic, but the content is quite hopelessly POV against the RSA government's position, and the overall tone is definitely not encyclopedic. A good way to decide when content is too far gone is to consider the benefits of the current page for someone who's going to write a decent article — when there's truly very little salvageable, you're going to have to do a complete rewrite, so there's no point in keeping. I can't imagine a good reason to keep any of the current text, so explode per the nomination's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I agree with the TNT proposal. This is an assignment for Wikipedia:School and university projects/Polytechnic of Namibia that was placed in main space instead of user space. However, I am pretty sure that most of the content could be referenced, and considering that South Africa was illegally occupying Namibia at that time I do not see much POV: That missionaries supported the colonisation of Africa is a well-established, if not mainstream, scientific theory, and certainly the viewpoints of the apartheid regime, violating several UN resolutions, do not need to receive extensive coverage. --Pgallert (talk) 13:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shosei Koda[edit]
- Shosei Koda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:BIO1E Wangxuan8331800 (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Passes WP:BASIC with ongoing coverage. Source examples include, but are not limited to:
-
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 11:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of good sourcing. pass WP:GNG by a mile.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Doesn't WP:BLP1E apply only to living people anyway? (hence Biographies of living persons, but then again I'm not a big fan of the policy anyway) Still, there does appear to be several reliable coverage about him, from the likes of ABC (the Australian one), CBS etc. This isn't the Japanese Wikipedia where they don't mention him by name. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted per CSD A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Terrorism, Television Violence & Innocent Children[edit]
- Terrorism, Television Violence & Innocent Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable topic, has no WP:POV, no significance. Mediran talk|contribs 09:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QBEX[edit]
- QBEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Ummm, I don't know where to start on describing this one! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural KeepComment - No rationale has been presented to delete. See also WP:DEL-REASON. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment From looking at the revision history and comparing the contents of this source to "aims and objectives" subsection it appears the article is basically a copy-paste job. Given several comments in edit summaries, it is likely a page that has been created by the members of the project and this shows plainly in the wording.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete QBEX has received no coverage in reliable sources. The references in the article relate to what the project is researching but not the project itself, and all of them predate this project. The standard Google News and Google Scholar searches yielded nothing of note. Goodvac (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - QBEX is an abbreviation for "Quantifying Benefits and impacts of fishing exclusion zones on bioresources around Marine Renewable Energy Installations". Haven't found significant coverage at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 ICC Women World Twenty20 (Warm Up Matches)[edit]
- 2012 ICC Women World Twenty20 (Warm Up Matches) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete for exactly the reasons outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 ICC World Twenty20 (Warm-up matches), which resulted in delete Dweller (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. As with the deleted men's article, the contents from this page are an unnecessary and not notable duplication of the content included in the main article: 2012_ICC_Women's_World_Twenty20#Warm-up_matches. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because this article contains those un-official cricket matches which is difficult to find , Because in ICC's website we generally doesn't find the result of these warm-up games. And it contains women cricket's warm-up matches results. So it is more difficult for the readers to get the result of these matches. Again you can't find the results of these matches in the main article as those are hidden. So I think it should be kept. User:Pratyya Ghosh —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. As the previous AfD debate, the result was to be deleted. Mediran talk|contribs 11:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that something is "difficult to find" is not a reason for keeping. (In fact, on the contrary, if anything it is a reason for deletion, as it strongly suggests that there is a lack of sources, which means that the subject is unlikely to be notable.) I see no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As of the men's article, this is one is also covered wholly in the main article. extra999 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nomination and precedent set with the men's article. If it's difficult to find on the ICC site (I'm assuming you mean under the archive found here) then there's probably a good reason for it: they're too minor. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unrelated to this debate, I know, but User:Pratyya Ghosh's article on the 2007 Kenya Quadrangular Twenty20 Series which was CSDed, might have some merit for inclusion, as I think some of the matches played had Twenty20 International status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Three votes in favor of keeping; just nom favors deleting. Quality of article not sufficient grounds for deletion; one could even create the list from the category (there is one), and add notes and citations to improve it. (non-admin closure) Churn and change (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of maritime colleges[edit]
- List of maritime colleges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. per WP:DIRECTORY. The page has got a lot of red links and there a re a number of private organisations making it a bit spamish. Also, there are many links to Universities rather than specialty marine collages. Irredeemably bad page. Lets recycle the storage space into something more useful! -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:LISTPURP as a useful navigation aid to find articles about maritime colleges. Also, red-links can encourage article creation in some instances. --Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (though it needs editing). Colleges are generally notable, even if many currently have redlinks. The list certainly contains some notable marine colleges, making it the foundation of a better list. (Perhaps it could be divided between marine colleges and general institutions that teach marine subjects?) It's not such a bad article that we need to nuke it and start again - pruning would be sufficient. Private institutions should be listed if they're notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up. I don't think this is "irredeemably" bad, though it does need a lot of work. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Christian Democratic Appeal candidates for the Dutch general election, 2012[edit]
- List of Christian Democratic Appeal candidates for the Dutch general election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of candidates of one political party for the recent Dutch elections, see WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - The list gives information about the candidates, e.g. are they already an MP, is there mayby already an article about a candidate (a candidate may be a lijstduwer) and - after the election - who has been chosen (it is an open list) and how many votes they've got. Wikix (talk) 09:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The list also consists of a large number of redlinks, that are bound to stay redlinks (people that have not been MPs and have not been elected this time either, hence do not meet WP:POLITICIAN). The list hardly contains any information, it's just a list of names. 21 parties participated in the 2012 elections, do you propose to create this kind of uninformative lists for all of them? And then for all previous elections, too? If anything interesting can be said about these lists of candidates (like fights about rank order, scandals, whatever), then that could be said in the article on the political party itself (which in the present case could use a fair amount of cleanup, too). There is not even a reference for this list: the "references" given are an inappropriate reference to another Wikipedia article (WP cannot be a reference for itself, that's the snake biting its tail) and a note about the party leader. In short, this list is hopelessly unencyclopedic. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have seen WP:NOTADIRECTORY, as requested by the nominator, and can see nothing there that remotely relates to this article. Surely any encyclopedic coverage of political history should include such information? Or are we twisting the meaning of "encyclopedic" to be the opposite of its standard meaning? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even disregarding NOTADIRECTORY, there is not a single independent source for this list, so we even run into WP:V problems. Perhaps some government site or the party site displays this list at the moment, but that info will certainly be ephemeral and for previous elections will almost certainly be unavailable. As for political history, all of these candidate lists in the Netherlands contain many more names than the number of seats that a party can realistically win. I fail to see why the names of these unelectable people (who'll never meet WP:POLITICIAN and therefore most of them will never get an article) add anything to the political history of the Netherlands. Encyclopedic information on political history concerns what some people did and should be added to the appropriate articles. A bare list of mostly non-notable names does not add anything, though. In addition, elections in the Netherlands often have as many as 20 parties participating. Are we going to try to add candidate lists for all these parties for all previous elections? If not, which ones will we include and which ones not? I think we shouldn't include any and only include verifiable and notable information in the articles on the elections and/or the political parties concerned themselves. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Judging by comparable British elections, I would rather expect to find the official full candidate lists for all parties, not just for this election but for at least three or four past elections, on some government site, and probably on several others as well (for instance, the full candidate lists for all parties in all the British constituencies for the 1999 European Elections are still available). I would also note that, here on English Wikipedia, we do at least often include the full party lists for British elections where parties run lists, though we usually do it in tables within an article on the election or constituency (see, for instance, London (European Parliament constituency) and London Assembly election, 2000. And if we want to get full lists for not just the recent Dutch general election but the previous three as well, they are all available on Dutch Wikipedia (according to the main Dutch Wikipedia article on the general election, sourced from here if I've interpreted things correctly - but I'll admit I couldn't get it to work). PWilkinson (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is, although you will certainly find sources on some (but certainly not all) people that are on this list, there are no independent, secondary sources (the ones you mention, government and party, are primary) that discuss this list as a group, as required by WP:LISTN. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I find the nominator's comments confusing, because there's no way that we absolutely require a list to be discussed as a list in order to qualify. Have you found any source for the entire contents of pages such as List of Albanians or List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, both of which are used by policy as examples of permissible lists? This topic is clearly something that will get coverage down the line (in fact, I'd expect something like this to get more coverage in stable print sources than in the media), because political historians pay attention to major political parties and their candidates for national office. In the mean time, this topic isn't by itself a problem: membership is clearly defined, it's not an NPOV problem, and many of the items on it are likely to have articles. Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused, too. On what do you base your assertion that this list "is clearly something that will get coverage down the line"? One elections are over, nobody pays any attention to these lists any more. And many of the people on these lists are not and will never be independently notable: if you study this document, you'll see that some candidates from even the largest parties got no more than a couple of hundred votes nationwide, some as few as 118 (for some of the lesser parties, figures go down to 2 votes nationwide). Political historians will pay attention to the important players on these lists, not those who only get a handful of votes. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Youssef Allam Group. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Youssef Allam[edit]
- Youssef Allam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The last AfD ended in "no consensus". The only policy-based keep !votes on the prior AfD were "weak keeps" on the basis that the article could be changed from a bio article to one on the company started by the subject, as the subject did not appear to be independently notable. In the three years since the last AfD, nothing has really changed. No one has shown any interest in changing this article to one about the company, and the subject remains non-notable (that is, he has not been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources). Therefore, it is time to re-assess whether there is now a consensus to delete. Singularity42 (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The previous AfD can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Youssef allam. Singularity42 (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The suggestion that an article on the company might be more sustainable than one on its founder was raised in the previous AfD; there is now an article on the company: Youssef Allam Group. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence found that the subject meets the notability criteria for a biography. But, as was raised on the previous AfD, this position could change if suitable Arabic reliable sources are located. AllyD (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Youssef Allam Group, at least until such time as sufficient sources for a standalone article can be found. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of secondary sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - One source is CPI Financial December 31, 2009. There isn't much else. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Many thousands of University Societies exist and very few of them are notable, this is not notable. For one, none of the allumni or allumni group are notable. Also, the article has been written primarily by independent research. Thelonious McCabe (talk) 09:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I suspect a CoI from the nominator here. Also suspect this might be nominated in some sort of retaliation to try to make a point about his own articles being removed through CSD. Ridernyc (talk) 13:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IQ Press[edit]
- IQ Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. Refs are mainly from the subject. Contested PROD. PROD removed by the SPA who created the aricle. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The provided refs are primary and I can find nothing elsewhere to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a small, young, niche publishing house. Nothing notable about it. PKT(alk) 16:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete appears to be a promotional article with no reliable independent sources. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CDS#G7 article blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JoshCartu[edit]
- JoshCartu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable individual. Multiple Google hits suggest a talent for self-promotion, but I can find no independent references. . . Mean as custard (talk) 07:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 07:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yasunize[edit]
- Yasunize (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Rarely used neologism. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:33, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yasunize Wikipedia and delete a neologism that has gained no traction whatsoever. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compit educational centre[edit]
- Compit educational centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable private school. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to be a verifiable secondary school, which we almost always keep. No good reason given for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We make a differentiation between privately owned and govt run schools. This one is the former. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't know where you got that one. No we don't. A secondary school is a secondary school. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We make a differentiation between privately owned and govt run schools. This one is the former. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Necrothesp. Try bringing a Catholic or other non-state secondary school to AFD, and you'll get the same reactions that you'd get with a comparable state school; I can't remember ever seeing someone's comments at AFD being influenced by the private or state status of a school. Nyttend (talk) 03:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by User:Yunshui under criterion G7 due to the author creating the page at the wrong title. (Non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 10:30, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2013 NRL Grand Final[edit]
- 2013 NRL Grand Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete or move to user namespace. It has insufficient content at this stage. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd made a typo when creating 2012 NRL Grand final.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, just blank it, or ask an admin to delete it. I'll have a look into this.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is simply a placeholder with hardly any substantive content-- no opposition to recreating the article when sources have provided the necessary info. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weimin Fan[edit]
- Weimin Fan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Complete mess. Only reference is to own Web site. Given that the article also previously blatantly contained e-mail address, appears to be advertising. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any references to Weiman Fan other than refs to Wikipedia and own site. May be notable in non-English sources, though. --John Nagle (talk) 07:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GaiaEHR[edit]
- GaiaEHR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software, no reliable, independent, verifiable sources. No GNews, GBook hits. GHits limited to company self-published sources and non-reliable sources. Promotional. CSD tags repeatedly removed. GregJackP Boomer! 04:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - Non-notable software and "no reliable"? GaiaEHR is just getting started but, we have provided downloads, git repositories to allow other developers to contribute.
- As for the, "No GNews" and "GBook hits", not sure what is this.Vela1606 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable means that there are no secondary sources, such as books, magazines, or news coverage of the software. Reliable comes from the type of source. Social media such as facebook, myspace, blogs, youtube, etc., are considered to be not reliable. Reliable comes from an established source with a strong editorial control policy, such as the NY Times, PC World, etc. GNews is Google news and GBooks is Google books, meaning a search turned up no sources that could be used to show notability.
- If GaiaEHR is just getting started, I doubt that it will be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article on it. Wikipedia is not designed to promote or provide information about new products. The download links will be removed as they are against Wikipedia policy (see WP:ELNO). Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 05:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I miss spoke, the first beta version just came out, but the project have been under development for more than 2 years. Our intention is not to promote, but to inform.
- Gnews - I understand, GaiaEHR doesn't have any source like that for now. As for the download, I apologized for that. Vela1606 (talk) 05:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it "doesn't have any source like that", then it likely won't meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines WP:GNG. Articles on Wikipedia need to be notable (WP:N) and notability must be verified (WP:V) by reliable sources (WP:RS). It doesn't matter how long the product has been around because notability is not temporary - it either is or it isn't. However, it might be that an article for the product has been created too soon (WP:TOOSOON) - if that is the case you can userfy the article (have it put into your own space where it is not visible to the public) and you can continue to develop it by adding reliable sources to verify your claims (if / when they exist).
- You should also have a read of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Guideline (WP:COI) if you have a connection to the product or company selling it. COI editing is strongly discouraged. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - for all the reasons outlined above. Stalwart111 (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand. just to clarify, this software is not for sale (is an open source project).Vela1606 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Megan Nicole[edit]
- Megan Nicole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to establish notability in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO. Previously deleted four times, but at this point, subject signed with Bad Boy/Interscope, so bringing it for discussion. At this point, subject is merely signed and has not released or charted. Cindy(talk to me) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Redirect to List of YouTube personalities/Protect and salt. This is just a case of WP:TOOSOON. A search doesn't bring up enough sources to show that Nicole is ultimately notable enough at this point in time to warrant an article. There's some mention of her here and there, but never really big enough or in sources that could count towards notability. At present the biggest mention of her is that she was signed to a label. Will she become notable? Maybe, but we can't guarantee that she will. For every one person that gets signed and makes it big enough to warrant an article, there's at least four who are signed and never really get that level of attention and/or the contract fizzles before anything is actually recorded. Being signed in itself is not enough to warrant an article, which is why people have to have released a few albums on the label to pass WP:MUSICBIO on that front. That being said, there might be merit in including her on the list of YouTube personalities and redirecting there for the time being. Whatever the decision is, I recommend that the closing admin protect the article name in order to keep someone from re-adding the article to the mainspace before the singer passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of coverage in secondary sources. SalHamton (talk) 18:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect to list of YouTube personalities and sysop protect for 6 months or so - Not quite notable for Wikipedia at this time, having 1 million YouTube subscribers is not notability as several users have thousands of subscribers. The best source I have found is this Billboard article mentioning her Twitter, YouTube and Facebook fans, her Bad Boy/Interscope affiliation and one iTunes single. Although the article mentions that she plans to release a debut album, this is not written to stone and may be cancelled therefore it's better to redirect the article for now. I know today's social networking world introduces several well-known personalities and artists but not all of them are going to establish themselves as serious individuals. Google News provided several mentions of the Bad Boy/Interscope signing and Google News archives provided several mentions for collaborations with other YouTube personalities. EDIT: I have now added "sysop protect" to my vote after viewing the deletion log which contained two copy violations, one from Megan Nicole's website and the other from her Facebook page. It's better to protect the article to prevent new users, especially her fans, from starting the same content. SwisterTwister talk 21:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brethren Reformed Church[edit]
- Brethren Reformed Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Un-noteworthy church among many in the world. Wikipedia is not a guide to churches or church advertising portal. Nyttend (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm certainly leaning delete on this. I can't find third party sources. This is a special case in that it seems to be its own church and denomination. If it has a wide enough following, it might be notable, but I'm not seeing anything to show that right now. Ryan Vesey 04:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. "Independence" is not really a meaningful distinction when it comes to churches. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, not notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pardon my original research, but I grew up not all that far from where this church is and I can assure you there is absolutely nothing inherently notable about an "independent" church. Southern Ohio is part of the Bible belt, I am sure you could find dozens of similar churches within 50 miles of this one. Nothing about this one seems exceptional. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said there was anything inherently notable about an independent church. I just meant to state that if the belief system this church held was widely followed, that would create notability. A Methodist church is not notable by virtue of being methodist, a church that is an ofshoot of a denomination or a new denomination might be. That being said, I find nothing to show that this one is. Ryan Vesey 19:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Founded in 2007, it has hardly had time to become notable and nothing that is said in the article gives the impression that it is anything but a "run-of-the-mill" church community Jpacobb (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like WP:SNOW, almost as if a simple WP:PROD could just as easily have handled this... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Author accepts that it is OR. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One-based numeration[edit]
- One-based numeration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A fork of Decimal without a zero, i.e. Bijective numeration#The bijective base-10 system, which doesn't add or expand on that in any meaningful way, and mostly consists of unencyclopaedic examples and calculations. Numerous formatting issues. Unreferenced and no indication it's independently notable, and the definition is basically the same as that in Bijective numeration, for the case k = 10 JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi John,
- 1. What do you mean by "meaningful way"? Please point it out.
- 2. Which specific topics are required here? Please point it out one by one.
- 3. As for citations, since this is my own work, I don't see any available citations on Google. Maybe I need to write a blog as the citation ...
- Thanks, kitiiy 02:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. The definition is NOT "basically the same as that in Bijective numeration" and the radix is also NOT limited to 10, please reread the original article carefully.
- Thanks, kitiiy 03:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. It's neither "A fork of Decimal without a zero" nor "Bijective numeration or even Bijective numeration#The bijective base-10 system", have you really read the article? ... I will remove the template due to there's no reason for deletion.
- Thanks, kitiiy 04:18, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, removing the AFD tag from an article not only does not end the AFD process, but it risks you getting blocked. Deletion discussions must run their course until they are properly closed, and they may not be unilaterally closed by the article's author just because he disagrees. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process. Doing so is considered unacceptable conduct and disruptive. I've accordingly reverted your removal of the AFD tag from the article, as well as your inappropriate, and incorrect, notice claiming the article is protected from editing, and you can consider this your one warning.
You also wrote: "As for citations, since this is my own work, I don't see any available citations on Google. Maybe I need to write a blog as the citation ..." Before you do anything else here, please read Wikipedia:Original research, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Notability. We do not accept content that has not already been published elsewhere by a reliable source, as Wikipedia is not a platform for original thought. postdlf (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, removing the AFD tag from an article not only does not end the AFD process, but it risks you getting blocked. Deletion discussions must run their course until they are properly closed, and they may not be unilaterally closed by the article's author just because he disagrees. See Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Deletion process. Doing so is considered unacceptable conduct and disruptive. I've accordingly reverted your removal of the AFD tag from the article, as well as your inappropriate, and incorrect, notice claiming the article is protected from editing, and you can consider this your one warning.
- Delete WP:OR --John Nagle (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - whatever its mathematical merits, this is admittedly pure WP:OR created by the author, with admittedly no sources, reliable or otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is definitely an important topic, but the author should cite sources first, not formulate his/her own thoughts and, even worse, introduce a self-made notation. Also, I think that adding a section to the article "positional notation" was a mistake – it is only tangentially related. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The author seems to have spammed this stuff to several articles. -- 202.124.73.136 (talk) 00:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the fact that the article author admits to WP:OR. No sources found for the version of bijective numeration presented here, using "0" for the radix (and even if such sources existed, it's only a trivial variation). -- 202.124.73.136 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Something like this is not OR. Or at least, making one be the smallest digit and having a digit of value equal to the radix is not unknown in the scientific literature, whether or not the person who posted here knew about it. Foster wrote about this for decimal in 1947 and I have used the same idea in binary (cited to Foster) in my own research. That said, it's a somewhat obscure idea that may not justify an independent article, so I'm not !voting keep for now unless more sources turn up. Also the current article is really unclearly written so even if this does turn out to be notable enough (of which I'm not yet convinced) we may be better off deleting anyway and starting from scratch. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't the fundamental idea adequately covered in Bijective numeration? -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet
- 1. Bijective numeration is unrelated to this One-based numeration, i.e. The decimal number 16 is 16 in Bijective numeration's decimal, but is 26 in One-based numeration's decimal. So again, 202.124.73.136, please reread the original article carefully, your assertion is ill-founded.
- You're saying leading 1's are treated as leading zeros. That seems a trivial (and unsourced/WP:OR) variation. -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. As for citations, I've seen a lot of articles created several years ago on the Wikipedia don't contain enough citations, but still haven't been deleted. Instead, just a Template:Original research or Template:Reliable sources was added, so please explain.
- See WP:WAX and WP:N. -- 202.124.75.93 (talk) 07:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. A lot articles such as Numeral_system only contain little "indirect" references or external links, is it also acceptable?
- 4. "... introduce a self-made notation"--Incnis Mrsi
- I added a "definition" to the article just because the user JohnBlackburne required me to add some non-example content and to refer to the style of Bijective numeration article.
- Thanks, kitiiy 02:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the last point is unclear I previously prodded the article when it consisted of a paragraph and some examples, and it is that proposed deletion that must be being referred to.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 5. I do NOT always have enough time on such meaningless issues, I've requested WP:CSD for that article. Thanks, kitiiy 03:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church[edit]
- Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is on a non-notable congregation. Google search shows that the it fails WP:GNG. The congregation is not tied to a Church so there is no architectural notability in that regard. Ryan Vesey 02:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Do you mean that the church doesn't have its own building? Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the distinction is that it is a Church (a congregation of people who worship together), but not a Church-building like Notre Dame de Paris. This Church congregation meets in a community centre. If the article was about a congregation and their building (with the same name) then it would have to be considered against notability guidelines in both contexts, eg. WP:NPLACE and WP:GROUP, in case it met either. At least I think that's what's going on. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct and I apologize for the confusion. I knew what I was thinking but not how to say it. Many congregations are not notable; however, the church building is notable (for architectural or other reasons). Most discussions of this sort would come down to the notability of the building. In this case, the church "has not held a dedicated edifice for the majority of its history". Ryan Vesey 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, they meet in a community centre also used by a couple of other churches. Most of them moved there from other buildings damaged or destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. There are plenty of mentions in blogs, travel guides and the like, but not in reliable sources. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct and I apologize for the confusion. I knew what I was thinking but not how to say it. Many congregations are not notable; however, the church building is notable (for architectural or other reasons). Most discussions of this sort would come down to the notability of the building. In this case, the church "has not held a dedicated edifice for the majority of its history". Ryan Vesey 03:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the distinction is that it is a Church (a congregation of people who worship together), but not a Church-building like Notre Dame de Paris. This Church congregation meets in a community centre. If the article was about a congregation and their building (with the same name) then it would have to be considered against notability guidelines in both contexts, eg. WP:NPLACE and WP:GROUP, in case it met either. At least I think that's what's going on. Stalwart111 (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, not notable. ukexpat (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I had no problems finding reliable sources which is easier in the light of searching under "Metropolitan Community Church" and "New Orleans" rather than the link at the top of this page. This also represents the organization's new name per the group's own website "The members of our congregation met on January 22, 2012 and voted to change the name to the Metropolitan Community Church of New Orleans, to solidify our devotion to the beautiful and dynamic city we call home." A LGBT-welcoming church in the Deep South that's been around for decades is guaranteed to generate news and controversy. Even a good portion of the fire reporting covered the church as well. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL has some but there are better search engines available. Insomesia (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've followed the link you provided. Can you provide some of the reliable sources you have found? Ryan Vesey 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll work on it. If it looks involved I may just add them into the article. Insomesia (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to step out but will add more. Of note is 15-20 articles in The Advocate which I have to go through Google Books to see. Will add appropriate ones as I get to them. Insomesia (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge and redirect to UpStairs Lounge arson attack for reasons that are clear from reading both articles. Since this apparently notable incident (of which I had never heard before) took place in conjunction with the lounge's use as the home for the church, it would be reasonable to include something about the church's subsequent history and renaming in the article about the incident. Another candidate for merger-redirection would be Metropolitan Community Church of which this church apparently is a local affiliate. Neutron (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC) Stricken per subsequent changes to article, now keep. Neutron (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article pretty much rewritten, and sources added. I'm still finding more as the search churns different (and too broad) results when just doing MCC and "New Orleans". Obviously we're missing anything that doesn't include those but I think that gets more of the national news items. Presently I'm in the first pages of 200+ book search but will add appropriate ones as I find them. Insomesia (talk) 02:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep - I understand why the article was nominated, but since the article was expanded, there is clear and abundant notability. Here are some additional references:
21 Additional references
|
---|
|
- Keep - Now, obviously meets WP:GNG from the article itself. Comment - If the tone of the Wikipedia article reflect a summary of the reliable sources, fine. But the article presents this Church as nothing more than a victim that continues to strive and overcome attacks and use its past victimization as a platform on which to grow. I don't think the people attending the church go there to become a group for others to attack or to sit there each week to listen to the preacher reminisce about the forty-year ago UpStairs Lounge arson attack or how the next attack is just around the corner. The topic is not Attacks on the Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church. The topic is the Big Easy Metropolitan Community Church congregation and if you want to write about them as a group, it should be less about others attacks on the group and more about the group itself. Others actions do not define the group, the group's actions define it and that is how the article should flow. It's website says it was "founded by Rev Troy Perry in 1967 to proclaim God's love and redemption to those who had previously been denied a place in Christ's church." The Wikipedia article isn't even close to that and instead is all about victimization. Also, the term "Church" in the article name usually is reserved for a building structure within which the congregation worships. I suggest moving the article to something like New Orleans Metropolitan Community Church congregation[22] since they appearantly do not have an notable building like those listed at GA-Class churches. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You make some good points. However, the word church has implicit meaning as congregation. As examples, we have Catholic Church, First Unitarian Church of Honolulu and Presbyterian Church of Wales. – MrX 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But both of those are refering to a larger body. Metropolitan Community Church is a church, and there is a church on the corner next to my house. In this case, there is no building (the latter) and this congregation is much smaller than the former. Even note the article for MCC, which says "many local MCC congregations". Ryan Vesey 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I concede that the MCC is a small church, and even smaller on a local level. I would point out though that the first Christian church didn't have a building and had only about a dozen members. – MrX 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Many if not most churches start out not owning their own building. Part of this churches history is that they have had to rent and borrow for much of their history due to arson and natural disasters. That doesn't mean the name of the article should not reflect who there are or be saddled with some qualifier that they don't own a building. They simply are doing their business in a shared space. Once this discussion is over the article should be moved to Metropolitan Community Church of Greater New Orleans, the name the congregation has chosen for itself. Insomesia (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But both of those are refering to a larger body. Metropolitan Community Church is a church, and there is a church on the corner next to my house. In this case, there is no building (the latter) and this congregation is much smaller than the former. Even note the article for MCC, which says "many local MCC congregations". Ryan Vesey 15:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You make some good points. However, the word church has implicit meaning as congregation. As examples, we have Catholic Church, First Unitarian Church of Honolulu and Presbyterian Church of Wales. – MrX 15:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge/redirect to UpStairs Lounge arson attack. The point here isn't how many members the church has, or whether it has a building. The point is whether it has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Based on the sources in the article, I would have to say that this church has not. Most of the sources provided are from special interest publications such as The Advocate and Ambush Magazine. The mainstream sources provided are either dead links or else are about something else (e.g. Hurricane Katrina). BTW I was living in New Orleans at the time of the fire and it was reported entirely as an attack on a bar or lounge; I can't remember any of the coverage ever mentioning a church. --MelanieN (talk) 22:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sourcing disagrees with your assessment. And LGBT sources are often considered reliable, especially in the context that they are used here. The Advocate is a well-respected national news magazine, for instance. Insomesia (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Keep, sourced. --Nouniquenames 04:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia Bitner[edit]
- Georgia Bitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. The article is presently sourced entirely to a blog, and Googling for "Georgia Bitner" on Google Books, News, and News archives didn't turn up anything that would satisfy WP:BASIC, only this (which is behind a paywall but appears to be an obituary with only a passing mention of Bitner) and this (which looks like a false positive). CtP (t • c) 19:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - She may have been a well-known actress at her time but I haven't found any evidence of this with modern technology and I'm surprised I haven't found anything with Google News archives. However, considering that she is African-American, there may have been little or few news coverage at her time. The nearest relevant mention I have found is to a Georgia C. Bitner who died in 1991. Unfortunately, delete. SwisterTwister talk 22:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is a really tough one. There's an obvious (and I think valid) argument to be made that the subject is notable (given the assertion that she had "38 film roles and 87 television credits") but not necessarily notable in a manner that can be verified. I don't think its an imaginative stretch to suggest that a white actor with similar credits might have received more "significant coverage" in mainstream media. Many of the most high-profile African-American "celebrities" (in all fields) of the 40s and 50s received far less "coverage" than their white co-stars / colleagues. Unfortunately for the subject in question, gradually increasing press coverage of African-Americans through the 70s, 80s and 90s coincided with the end of her career and her retirement. Retrospective coverage of the career of a non-headlining actress is unlikely, regardless of the extent to which might balance out historically skewed reporting. Every argument I can give for keeping it would be resoundingly WP:ILIKEIT in nature and I won't insult your intelligence by trying. But I would ask that any closing admin give consideration to whether or not a strong and obvious consensus has been reached, in making their determination. Thanks all, Stalwart111 (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete as a probable WP:HOAX. That many roles, yet IMDb has no record of any of them whatsoever and refuses to list her as an actress? The Best Years of Our Lives, her alleged debut, has dozens of uncredited actors listed in IMDb, but not her. Same with the other very high profile films claimed. Very, very suspicious. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although there are few sources about the subject, it is possible that IMDb may not have a record as a result of lost films or archives. However, it is suspicious that older actors from the 1900s and 1910s are featured through IMDb, and yet not this one. Suspicious indeed. SwisterTwister talk 19:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Leaning towards the hoax conclusion as well, but there's some strange info out there. Much of the text is a copy of this finadgrave.com entry. The Wikipedia article was created 13 Sept 2012 by a now-blocked user (with the same last name as the subject), and the findagrave entry on 14 Sept 2012 by a user there named Babe, the profile says this woman has been a user there for 7 years, so it's not a one-off troll account. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete diffidently a fake person no information can be found every actress can have and IMDB page its not hard and their are no sources to back up the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.60.150 (talk) 07:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ishtiaq Hussain[edit]
- Ishtiaq Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete due to absence of secondary, independent, reliable sources about the subject under Wikipedia:BASIC Q1445 (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:18, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:BIO. The majority of sources are YouTube , no in-depth reliable coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The mainstream media coverage of the subject shows the notability clearly though not in detail. Anyhow the subject establishes and passes the notability as these sources; 1 2 3 4 5, should be read and accessed thoroughly.Justice007 (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarity, reference 4, is the book written by the subject but the "Foreword" is about him too, by an academic on page 3. Justice007 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient enough to pass WP:GNG per Justice007. Mar4d (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the references in the article are written by the subject or are his youtube videos. He is mentioned in passing in several other articles. In my POV he is interesting but I'm afraid to say that is not yet reflected in the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability clearly established as per Mar4d and Justice007. Subject is prominent in a growing area of international interest. Jzero1 (talk) 23.05, 05 October 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HM Kansal[edit]
- HM Kansal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. Does not seems to be notable as per wiki standards. Bharathiya (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As you all know, that I created a page titled 'HM Kansal'. As some users have discussed about the references of the page being unreliable, I would like to know the reason behind the references not being good. It has almost been an year since this page was created & I as well as other members of Wikipedia have regularly added references to it. I have rechecked all the references provided and according to me, there are a sufficient number of sources to support this article. I went through the Wikipedia 'guidelines for creating a page' again and according to them, "at least one reliable source should be present to support the article". I definitely think that this article follows the Wikipedia rules. These are just my views. I would now like the suggestions of the users involved in this matter. I will still definitely try my best to provide some more suitable references for it. For the time being, removal of the deletion tag is my kind request and if not possible I request for some more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikicreator508 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of the references confirm to the WP:RS, at present. We need multiple reliable sources as Primary and secondary references. -- Bharathiya (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails BIO. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another spambio. Ok, the guy may have some coverage in a non-English newspaper once, which they even scanned and posted here. Not convincing it passes WP:BIO. 21:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: Notability not established. Looks like an ordinary businessman; none of his activities look notable. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Genetics Policy Institute[edit]
- Genetics Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is this WP:ORG notable? They surely put out a bunch of press releases, but I wasn't able to find much else... The related article on Bernard Siegel (not surprising created & edited by the same set of SPAs) has a bunch of claims of importance, all of them vaguely referenced to two books. My impression is that of the two entities Siegel is more notable than his org, which is basically indistinguishable from him in those stories and mentioned less often. A bunch of contents in this article, especially towards the end, seems related only very strenuously related to this org. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They got one brief mention in Wired in 2004 [23], but that's about it for non-press-release material. --John Nagle (talk) 07:24, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like the others here, I could not find significant coverage of this organization by independent reliable sources. I was going to suggest a redirect/merge to Bernard Siegel but I found his notability rather dubious as well. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Siegel has more coverage in Eve Herold's book [24]. Herold actually wrote most of the Wikipedia article on GPI and that on Siegel. But she was associated with the GPI herself at the time, at least that's what I gathered from her 2006 appearance on The Daily Show. [25] (Very boring, by the way.) I see you discovered that yourself from another source [26]. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I can't find any significant coverage of this group by independent reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hotel Le Meridien Limassol Spa & Resort[edit]
- Hotel Le Meridien Limassol Spa & Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically an ad for a hotel; the only "awards" listed are by non-notable organizations and publications. I see no credible assertions of notability exceeding those of an ordinary Hyatt. Orange Mike | Talk 00:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability asserted, quite adverty, and all unreliable sources. Electric Catfish (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Meets neither WP:GNG nor WP:CORP. These awards in particular do not seem additive. JFHJr (㊟) 03:43, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and nothing but an advert for the subject. ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.