Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 27
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Negative DYK hooks and the BLP policy
- 2024 RfA review, phase II
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. While I am as skeptical as anyone about whether there can be a non-blank "list of honest politicians" (or of honest people tout court), the "keep" opinions make the valid point that whether a political leader is indeed "renowned for their integrity", as the list is now entitled, is a matter of collecting reliable sources to that effect, and not of editorial opinion (read: original research). There is therefore no compelling reason to delete this article in the absence of a clear consensus for deletion. Sandstein 08:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of political leaders renowned for their integrity née List of honest politicians[edit]
- List of honest politicians (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)
Attempting to compile a list of "honest" politicians implicitly requires Wikipedia editors to make a value judgment about each politician, which unavoidably violates WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY, and WP:NPOV. Sure, we can find sources that say "Abraham Lincoln was an honest politician" (after all, his nickname was Honest Abe), but we can undoubtedly find sources that say he was also dishonest (just google "Abraham Lincoln dishonest" for plenty of examples). How do we reconcile these conflicting sources to determine if he was sufficiently honest to appear in this list?
This is true of any politician, or any person, for that matter. No one is 100% honest for every moment of their life. How honest must someone be to appear on this list? 90% honest? 75% honest? Are white lies ok? How do we quantitatively measure their honesty level without original research?
This list is fundamentally flawed and not feasibly maintainable, because its inclusion criteria requires us to inject our own opinions. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 23:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Complete POV on how politicians get on to such a list. what next List of honest mayors, List of honest tennis players? LibStar (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
DeleteMuch better than I thought it would be from the title. (I thought it would be a joke article.) However it doesn't quite make it to the level of encyclopedia article. OR pulls the people together, not discussion in reliable secondary sources.With a new concept and new title it now seems to present a notable topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides we don't really know if it was Cincinnatus' honesty that made him resign emperorhood twice. Maybe he just preferred life on his farm. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Cincinnatus and the Disbanding of Washington's Army which explains that "At issue here is not what the absolute truth was, but what the tradition was, for it is the tradition, and not what modern scholars have reconstructed, that had effect upon later readers and thus upon later events." Warden (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides we don't really know if it was Cincinnatus' honesty that made him resign emperorhood twice. Maybe he just preferred life on his farm. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: For obvious reasons, the article can never satisfy WP:NPOV and it most likely would devolve into political partisanship and WP:COATRACK when contemporary politicians get added to the list. Not an encyclopedic topic. --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per nom. I also think it would inevitably become a target of edit warring, where supporters of one party list their guys and supporters of the other party remove them again and substitute their own. That kind of headache isn't worth it. Reyk YO! 02:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I thought that this was going to be a blank page :-) not a list of people called honest. Either this is going to be a target of massive edit-warring, or it's going to be a thoroughly useless list. Neither of them are good, and we're never going to have a useful list on this topic, so there's no good reason to have a page with this title. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination. Enos733 (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As an honest politician I object to my name being omitted. LOL. Therefore it must and does fail WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. BTW The creation of this article was pointy, see Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron_-_Rescue_list#List_of_American_public_officials_convicted_of_crimes - Not good practice. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I was working on Cincinnatus three weeks ago well before I saw that AFD. I got on to the topic of Cincinnatus because of Carrite's RFA which seemed similarly admirable. Cincinnatus was a major political exemplar and it seemed fitting to have a list of these. The result of the later AFD made a nice counterpoint or contrast but there is otherwise no connection between them. This is not the first time I have worked on a topic of this kind - see historical figure, for example - another page about the great men of history which went to AFD but developed well and subsequently adorned our mainpage. Warden (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
but blank and protect the page first, thus ensuring the list will be 100% accurate both now and in the future. pablo 09:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)The new title is a vast improvement and neatly avoids the problems both of honest/dishonest being presented as a binary choice and the POV issues as renown can be measured by press and literature coverage. So we should end up with a list of candidates who fit the title. (or at least have managed to fool most of the people most of the time). pablo 09:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Possibly merge to Honesty, retitling as a section "Figures renowned for their honesty" or similar. The existing page "honesty" is not good, and it would be an improvement to list paragons of honesty. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many topics about which people do not agree and politics and morality are high on the list. This does not mean that we do not or should not cover them; we are just required to cover them in a neutral way, giving due weight to the balance of respectable opinion. Per WP:NPOV, "Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." As an example of a source which provides case studies of exemplary politicians, see Understanding Politics. The topic is a fresh one and the work of assembling such sources has just started. The concerns listed above seem quite hypothetical as the content is neither blank nor yet subject to any edit wars or significant controversy. The topic should therefore be allowed time to develop and mature, per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, on a positive note it's not as if the list is ever going to grow more than a dozen..... I mean, how many politicians are really honest... About the same number of nuns who are sex addicts.. There of course dirty whore-like nuns who shame the church with their antics but there aint many of them... Roman Catholic clergy and small boys on the otherhand....♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per Richhondo's point about this being created because List of American public officials convicted of crimes was deleted. Also per nom's comment about it not being feasibly maintainable, and in general, violations of numerous provisos of WP:NOT pbp 17:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have explained the true origin of my interest in this topic above.
The pointiness here is with those, like yourself, who seek any occasion to attack the ARS in general and myself in particular. This AFD seems to be a roll-call of such types, starting with the nominator who has long pursued this vendetta. You guys don't have any genuine interest in the topic, do you? Tsk.Warden (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Genuine interest in the topic is not required for participation at AfD. And furthermore, I don't think I've had contact with the ARS for several years, nor did I find this article via the ARS rescue list (which I haven't checked for a very long time). ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 20:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Watch your tone, Warden.ScottyWong has already reminded you that interest in a topic is, and never will be, a prerequisite for voting in an AfD.Your accusations border on a personal attack, to say nothing of being inaccurate and unfounded. If you have some problem, hash it out on some noticeboard, not herepbp 20:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have explained the true origin of my interest in this topic above.
- Keep Honest Abe and others were in fact known for their honesty. Reliable sources confirm this, you able to just look in a college level history textbook, or a printed encyclopedia to confirm the information. Showing a list of such people throughout history is quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 22:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because Lincoln's honesty can be sourced doesn't mean we have to build a whole article around people like him. Lincoln was 6'4"; that can be sourced. A lot of other people with Wikipedia articles are 6'4". Does that mean we have to create an article List of people who are 76 inches tall? <sarcasm>Oh, and how the hell did you get here? Have you been WikiHounding me?</sarcasm> pbp 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was something they were famous for, not just some random arbitrary thing. Warden's talk page is on my watch list so I saw mention of this. Anyone curious about his wikihounding comment, see here: [1] Don't want to leave people confused. Dream Focus 23:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an AfD to discuss the deletion of an article. Accusations and denials of wikihounding do NOT belong here, but elsewhere. Let's stick to the subject at hand, please. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This was something they were famous for, not just some random arbitrary thing. Warden's talk page is on my watch list so I saw mention of this. Anyone curious about his wikihounding comment, see here: [1] Don't want to leave people confused. Dream Focus 23:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because Lincoln's honesty can be sourced doesn't mean we have to build a whole article around people like him. Lincoln was 6'4"; that can be sourced. A lot of other people with Wikipedia articles are 6'4". Does that mean we have to create an article List of people who are 76 inches tall? <sarcasm>Oh, and how the hell did you get here? Have you been WikiHounding me?</sarcasm> pbp 23:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I arrived at this AfD expecting an easy "delete" vote; now, I'm not so sure. Having reviewed the list, I am uncertain what to do because I see potential merit if the list is developed and sourced properly. I would feel far more comfortable granting the authors more time to develop the list if it were moved to a more NPOV title such as "List of politicians renowned for their honesty" or "List of politicians renowned for their integrity." The current title strikes me as a subjective endorsement of the listed persons' honesty; a slight rephrasing of the title would allow us to properly put the burden on multiple, independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG, WP:NLIST, WP:V, WP:RS -- and WP:BLP, to the extent applicable. I remain curious to hear the further informed comments of other editors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename - I agree with Dirtlawyer1: If one interprets this as List of politicians renowned for their integrity, it makes a lot more sense. Some objections registered above state that editors are required to make subjective judgments ... I dont see that: it appears that a person can be in this list only if a reliable source says something like "This politician is famous for being trustworthy" or something similar. Lists serve a valuable indexing purpose. I can imagine a researcher coming to WP who needs to find some example politicians who were renowned in their time for being super honest .. this list could come in handy. --Noleander (talk) 11:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noleander, having had another day to consider this article/list, I might go so far as to suggest that the article should be renamed "List of national leaders renowned for their integrity." If we are going to keep this list, I think it should be limited to meaningful entries such as Betancourt, Cincinnatus, Washington and other leaders of real significance. By properly titling the article/list and limiting its scope in its introductory text as suggested, we can avoid most, if not all of the problems identified by several of the "delete" !voters above. With those caveats and suggested changes, I see no reason why a restructured and better defined version of this list should devolve into partisan bickering over whether to include minor figures (e.g., a state senator from Butte, Montana who received commendation for his honesty in his hometown newspaper), or edit-warring over the subjective judgments of editors. The burden for inclusion should rest on proper sourcing per WP:V and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was never my intent to include minor cases and that's why the lead uses the word "renowned". If we can make this clearer without over-complicating it, that's fine. Warden (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There certainly is a place for reliable information on people's honesty. It's in their articles, and nowhere else. As I noted above, there are many sourceable common traits among people with Wikipedia articles that could be combined into list articles. But, since many of those aren't that important, they needn't be. This is one of those cases. Honesty is a character trait; so is anger. You won't see a list (and if you do, I can guarantee you I'll be on the front lines to delete it) pbp 21:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Noleander, having had another day to consider this article/list, I might go so far as to suggest that the article should be renamed "List of national leaders renowned for their integrity." If we are going to keep this list, I think it should be limited to meaningful entries such as Betancourt, Cincinnatus, Washington and other leaders of real significance. By properly titling the article/list and limiting its scope in its introductory text as suggested, we can avoid most, if not all of the problems identified by several of the "delete" !voters above. With those caveats and suggested changes, I see no reason why a restructured and better defined version of this list should devolve into partisan bickering over whether to include minor figures (e.g., a state senator from Butte, Montana who received commendation for his honesty in his hometown newspaper), or edit-warring over the subjective judgments of editors. The burden for inclusion should rest on proper sourcing per WP:V and WP:RS. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Two "delete" editors above suggests that this could be deleted because List of American public officials convicted of crimes was deleted. But that list was deleted not because it was inappropriate or too subjective - it was deleted only because it was a fork of other valid lists such as List of United States federal officials convicted of corruption offenses. --Noleander (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. Point taken, I have added additional text (in italics) to clarify my reason for delete. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am switching my !vote to "keep" from my previous undecided position, subject to my comments above, and the principal author's concurrence that that this list be retitled and the criteria for inclusion be made clearer. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - blatantly and unavoidably POV. 'Honest' is a value judgement, not an objective fact; and listing only these few implies that all other politicians are dishonest (which some might agree with, but is clearly contentious). List of politicians renowned for honesty would be better, but either way this list is likely to become a magnet for POV warriors if kept, due to the inherent subjectivity of the concept. Robofish (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My gut reaction was to delete since an empty list is less than useful, but after reading the list, I think the material might be able to find a home under some other title, preferably something that will be less of a Coatrack. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not the first discussion participant to have that reaction, Adjwilley (including the "empty list" humor). Obvious jokes aside, what would you suggest for an alternate, more appropriate title? Several have already been suggested above . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about List of national politicians notable for their integrity? Notable seems more useful than renowned. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if they're politicians and they're honest, of course that makes them notable. LOL Sorry. I couldn't resist; I really was trying to maintain a straight face. Kidding aside, neither word quite conveys the sense I'm looking for -- not persons who are honest, but significant persons who have a reputation for being honest or having integrity. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, of the suggestions I've seen, I think List of national leaders renowned for their integrity is the best so far. If the article survives, it is bound to be a WP:Coatrack, but "national leaders renowned for their integrity" has a much smaller "hook" than the jarring oxymoron "honest politicians" :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if they're politicians and they're honest, of course that makes them notable. LOL Sorry. I couldn't resist; I really was trying to maintain a straight face. Kidding aside, neither word quite conveys the sense I'm looking for -- not persons who are honest, but significant persons who have a reputation for being honest or having integrity. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about List of national politicians notable for their integrity? Notable seems more useful than renowned. --Noleander (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not the first discussion participant to have that reaction, Adjwilley (including the "empty list" humor). Obvious jokes aside, what would you suggest for an alternate, more appropriate title? Several have already been suggested above . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is not a remotely appropriate list for a serious encyclopedia. Even if it were appropriate, the name is horribly inappropriate as it implies that exclusion from the list means you are dishonest. There are plenty of politicians who are honest people, but whose honesty isn't the stuff of legend. I am personally acquainted with, for example, a congressman in my area who is a Sunday School teacher, a deacon in his church, and a wonderful person. But nobody is going to go out of their way to write an article about his honesty. It defames him and all others like him to have an article like this. --B (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"George, said his father, do you know who killed that beautiful little cherry-tree yonder in the garden? This was a tough question; and George staggered under it for a moment; but quickly recovered himself: and looking at his father, with the sweet face of youth brightened with the inexpressible charm of all-conquering truth, he bravely cried out, "I can't tell a lie, Pa; you know I can't tell a lie. I did cut it with my hatchet."--Run to my arms, you dearest boy, cried his father in transports, run to my arms; glad am I, George, that you killed my tree; for you have paid me for it a thousand fold. Such an act of heroism in my son, is more worth than a thousand trees, though blossomed with silver, and their fruits of purest gold."
Keep and work on, is better than the title makes you think it would be (maybe re-title). From the name, I thought it was a joke (and had a ready reply about why not a list of dishonest ones...too many haha). But it really is kind of a decent article on politicians renowned for integrity (Cincinattus and all). I think it could be expanded to look at this meme more. For instance, I was going to add a little boxed quote from the famous story about the cherry tree (which is apocryphal, but the point is that it spells out a concept. See here. (It's PD too...mwahaha.) TCO (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Joke) But why is the current list so short!? ;-) TCO (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking your question seriously, one theory is that Gresham's Law applies. See Gresham's law in politics: Why are politicians not the most remarkable men for probity...?. Warden (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Joke) But why is the current list so short!? ;-) TCO (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you measure "integrity" though? It is subjective.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. B., like any other Wikipedia persons list, it's not the editors' job to measure the honesty, integrity, or any other personal attribute, of the listed persons. It is the editors' task to find reliable sources that show a listed person to have been renowned (i.e., widely known, famous, broadly remembered) by historians, journalists, political scientists, etc., for acting with integrity in the person's role as a political or military leader. Those are two different tasks. The list was started with exemplars such as Cincinnatus and Washington, national leaders who are widely remembered by historians and popular culture as leaders who could be relied upon to do the right thing when presented with a supreme test of character, and act in accordance with their own ideals and those of their society. If limited to national leaders as described, I don't see this list ever having more 20 to 30 listed persons, and that's one of the things that makes it a potentially interesting list: the quality that we are attempting to capture is a fairly rare thing.
- That having been said, I still believe that a title such as "List of national leaders renowned for their integrity" is a better formulation than the current title, because it properly places the emphasis on historically significant leaders, the reputation of the listed persons, and the need for reliable sources to demonstrate such "renown." I readily concede that other discussion participants may yet hit upon an even better title formulation. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep TLDR version, per WP:Hey. IMO the nom and some of the delete voters had valid concerns about subjectivity and NPOV issues with the original title. But as per Dirtlawyer1 and others, this seems to been largely taken care of following the re-title by Dr Blofield. For political topics, there is invariably an issue with conflicting sources, but we can reconcile this by representing views in proportion to the weighting they have in reliable sources. If in the future this does attract POV warriors, we can further limit the scope by restricting the list to politicians renowned for a lifetime of honesty, thus keeping out BLPs. As for the view this article is not encyclopedic, it is true that until the last few years there was little in the way of top sources systematically covering the topic as a group. But this has began to change in the past few years, for example, in this 2011 Oxford University Press book, good professor Mearsheimer has wrote that when he talks about honesty in politicians, "Every audience and almost every person I have spoken to quickly becomes engaged and excited by the subject, and many want to talk at length about it." It rarely serves the encyclopedia to try to delete articles created by the Colonel, very few editors have his command of the scholarly sources, or his keen understanding about what interests our readers. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your kind words and your own erudition is much appreciated too. For example, I was not familiar with the concept of a valence issue which you introduced in the lead. To educate myself, I have investigated and expanded that topic too in the course of learning more. Warden (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're most welcome. The apple pie pic was an unexpected treat! FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter. Honesty, while it should be an absolute, absolutely isn't in the eyes of different people. Per nom, this is a sink hole for NPOV and it is literally impossible to prove a negative (dishonesty) anyway. Opining on a personal level, if it could be 100% accurate, it would be shorter than most disambig pages.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious delete - this page can't be edited without violating NPOV. Any work on this page requires personal synthesis, particularly seeing as there's no defined standard of what makes someone honest. This is as ridiculous an idea as List of tall politicians or List of kind politicians. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You started the article scanning speech. This states "There is no universal agreement about the exact definition of this term." Does this mean we should delete it? No, what WP:NPOV actually says is, "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias." Please explain why this is impossible for one case but not the other. Warden (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's one thing to have an article on a concept whose definition isn't universally agreed upon. It's quite another to have an article which purports to authoritatively list people who are described by a concept whose definition isn't universally agreed upon. A proper comparison article would be List of people who have scanning speech. Since the definition of scanning speech isn't universally agreed upon, we can't point at someone and definitively say they have it. But we can certainly describe the properties of scanning speech without violating NPOV, and we can discuss how and why the definition of scanning speech isn't agreed upon. Therefore, we can have an article on Honesty, but we can't go further and create a List of honest politicians. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 18:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotty, have you been following the discussion of titles and changes to the article? If not, you need an update. What you described is not what we now have have. This is not an article or list that requires editors to determine whether the listed persons are "honest," or as currently phrased, whether they have "integrity." It requires editors to discern whether there are reliable sources that demonstrate whether such listed persons are widely known (i.e. renowned) for their integrity. That is a very different question, and a very different standard for inclusion, It should be a standard with which almost every experienced Wikipedia editor is familiar, as in "List of political leaders renowned for their integrity," the current title of this list following its renaming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On Wikipedia, editors routinely disagree about anything and everything so we would never get anything done if absolute standards of mathematical rigour were required. For example, see List of rivers by length which states, "... the length measurements of many rivers are only approximations. In particular, there has long been disagreement as to whether the Nile or the Amazon is the world's longest river. ..." Many topics are like that because there is no final or absolute authority for anything. What people are suggesting here is that there is a special problem with the topic. But they talk in vague generalities without giving any specifics or evidence. So far, there have been no edit wars nor any significant disputes about the entries. Not one. Warden (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the article has existed for a whopping 10 days so far, so I don't think the absence of edit wars is particularly comforting. Dirtlawyer1, while I appreciate the name change, I'm not convinced that it has actually changed anything except the name. There is very little difference between a "list of honest politicians" and a "list of politicans renowned for their integrity". So, this list will now include anyone who has reliable sources that demonstrate if they are widely known for their integrity. What if that same person also has reliable sources that suggest they did not act with integrity and honesty? Are they still considered renowned for their integrity? Consider this book about Abraham Lincoln. Should he still appear on this list given the content of this source? This same argument will occur for virtually any person you ever put in this list. Perhaps a more appropriate title would be List of politicians described as honest by at least one reliable source. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 19:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Scotty, please see WP:WEIGHT. One revisionist biography does not refute the existence of a widely held reputation documented by multiple, independent, reliable sources. Again, the issue is not the integrity of the persons listed, but the demonstrated reputation for integrity of the listed persons. This is really no different than any other article or list where every statement should be verified and sourced per WP:V and WP:RS, with due weight given to any minority position that is credible. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, now it's been renamed and better focused. One thing's for certain: it'll never get too long to manage. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 6 March 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 Snow keep. I withdrew the nom due to new refs and performed a NAC. dci | TALK 01:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
North American Native Plant Society[edit]
- North American Native Plant Society (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 third-party, RS coverage. Almost entirely self-sourced; notability is not established. dci | TALK 23:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't notice the author's comment sooner; my original analysis was that the article was relying on the organization's own magazine for the bulk of its refs. As that's now not the case, I'm withdrawing the nom. dci | TALK 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the article author. Please review and possibly reconsider your view…I've just added a number of additional references. Third-party reliable references now include three published books (two from academic presses), two newspaper articles, a peer-reviewed academic journal review of the magazine published by the organization, and references from both the city of Markham and Toronto Botanical Garden to their partnership with each. I certainly won't argue that it's not a small organization, but it has been referenced by a significant number of reliable sources. Strong keep. Goyston talk, contribs, play 00:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I checked out some of the references and one book said they were noted for saving some species. Clearly notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:34, 28 February 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. J04n(talk page) 01:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
St. James Church (Marion, Indiana)[edit]
- St. James Church (Marion, Indiana) (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)
Seems to be a thoroughly average church. One wedding for famous people doesn't make a church notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any coverage of the church that isn't trivial or entirely about the wedding, and notability is not inherited from the wedding. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 10:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I'm not even sure it passes my failry lax standards. Assuming the blissful couple could be considered notable congregants, that's one factor. It appears to be fairly large for Missouri Synod congregations. However, it's not on any register of historic sites, nor has anything else of note happened there. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 6 March 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. J04n(talk page) 04:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Independent Publisher Book Award[edit]
- Independent Publisher Book Award (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 previous nomination: "Tagged as unreferenced since 2007, re notability since 2009, seemingly nobody can find any sources to address this. The bulk of ghits seem to be from the body which awards it or sources asssociated with recipients. I haven't found any clearly independent and reliable indication of its notability." Also, per reply to re-creator of article: "Sorry, I think the reasoning for the deletion still very much stands. Almost all sources are closely tied to the award, a large number from the very body which awards it. Probably the only truly independent RS which mentions it is in a brief biographical blurb about a contributor to the Huffington Post, the article itself making no discussion of the award." Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepDelete -.The previous nomination had no sources, with two primary sources as external links. While there are some primary sources in this article now, the preponderance are in fact independent of the subject. The very fact that it is independent publishers that are being recognized by the award is a testament to their independence. The sanctioning body for the award has won an award of recognition their self, from an independent organization. The award is called "the largest book awards contest in the world", and this is brought to bear by at least two independent sources. More sources are available. Frankly I find it hard to believe there is even a question. Really!—My76Strat (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate re "The sanctioning body for the award has won an award of recognition their self, from an independent organization" please? One of the sources for it being "the largest book awards contest in the world" is a press release from an author who has won one of their awards, so hardly independent and unbiased. I'm also rather bewildered by the logic of "The very fact that it is independent publishers that are being recognized by the award is a testament to their independence." - their independence is from large corporate publishers, not as sources regarding an award for their type of publisher (which happens to be independent ones). Quite the contrary, it makes them more likely to be an interested party in talking up the awards. Mutt Lunker (talk)
The publishers are either independent of the source, or they are affiliated. The people are either lying in their publications, or you are inventing reasons why it is more likely that a conspiracy exists. So a book wins an award and that book publisher chooses to re-print the cover showing the award won. What publisher doesn't? I just recently finished writing 90% of the book stubs for the Edna Staebler Award, which I have no doubt that you would find non-notable. When writing those 50 odd book stubs, I came across the IPPY several times. That is why I mentioned to the deleting admin that if the award was know as an IPPY I found it hard to believe it would be non-notable. As far as the award won by IndependentPublisher.com. It's in the awards section. Obviously the people are interested in the award, or I doubt they would compete for it, and if their the liars you make them out to be, they ought to just slap Ophra's name on their books and say she gave their book the nod.—My76Strat (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not twist my words. I talk about whether the sources are independent and/or interested parties. That's a very different matter from accusing them of lying and conspiracies, matters which you alone have contemplated. The award may well be notable but basing the article largely or solely on material by the body responsible for the award and by those who, as recipients, have a perfectly understandable vested interest in reflecting it as significant, does not adequately establish this notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your words manifest twisted. How about you don't synthesize wp:gng. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" does not include "and/or interested parties". I think it's best to leave that part out of the equation. I challenge you to show me one article about a book award that you feel is notable that doesn't have references in it from some source that received the award. Like I said earlier, I just finished a pretty extensive writing endeavor which involved the exact concept of books and their association with literary awards. It is presumptuous of you to suggest these thousands of independent authors who compete for this award, and then reprint the covers of their books to display the award, if they happen to win, are not contributing to the notability of the award the are collectively seeking. Or that when a publisher, that is independent of the subject, publishes a news release like this, that it doesn't qualify under the wp:gng.—My76Strat (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "It is presumptuous of you" to attribute to me things I have neither said nor implied. You are setting up Aunt Sallys. I have no problem with articles including amongst their references some from interested parties. If however the only references that can be found are from interested parties, that should ring alarm bells. It seems odd that if this subject is notable that there is such a dearth of coverage outside of those awarding or receiving. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
preliminary comment It's obvious that the organization and its awards are intended for the purpose of promotion; the key indications are that authors as well as publishers may submit a book, and that about 200 awards a year are given. . That does not mean the awards are meaningless at their top level, nor that they might not be notable--even advertising and even promotional campaigns can be notable, though for obvious reasons we have a pretty high bar in that subject area, especially with regard to the independence of the sourcing. (A case could be made that we have some sort of an obligation to be sure not to remove articles about notable publicity campaigns that actually highlight items of no merit, to serve as a warning--but this may not be NPOV) It's also obvious that the article was written in a very promotional style, indeed, some of the contents appears to be promoting two extremely not notable books -- I've just removed them--they were added by My76Stat in what looks like an attempt to add every finable link, one of them was actually written by the author of the book itself in the Huffington Post. I don't think 76Strat would have added that reference if he had read it. (And I'm in the process of checking every book and author linked to for notability & other problems), References to awards being made for a particular books are only useful for the purpose of showing notability if they show that independent RSs have thought the fact the book received the award was worthy of writing about, and I do not see a single one that does that--judging by the uniform wording, they are mostly press releases apparently prepared by the awarding body for the authors to send to places that might use them, such as their home town or college papers. , and they are actually references to reviews of the book in a RS that verify that the award was considered important & can at best. The evidence I am looking for is first, whether the books receiving the top awards are actually notable by any reasonable standard, and whether reliable review sources even mention this award in their reviews. This may take me a few days to check, so I'd avoid doing anything precipitous. DGG ( talk ) 01:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've found one possible informal evidence of notability. The books must be entered by the author or publisher. Several major university presses, including the Yale University Press, [2]are entering many of their books; Even the best publishers seek (and need} publicity. but I assume assume ones such as Yale use some judgment when deciding where to look for it. (More cynically, I wonder if the University category of acceptable publishers --the other categories are totally independent publishers--whatever they actually mean by that, or corporate entities publishing fewer than 50 books a year) was added in order to get some respectable books in the list of awards.) DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now checked their list of awards. It makes no sense whatsoever. The Gold prize winners range all the way from one book that won a National Book Award but about which we scandalously do not have an article (Lord of Misrule by Jaimy Gordon, down to many self published books that have no copies in a library whatsoever. Some of their prize books aren't even in WorldCat, The award is meaningless, and I think the publishers submitting their titles don't realize what they are doing. But, again, that doesn't say it isn't notable. There is still the possibility of sources DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete IMHO there are no independent sources in the article. "Interested parties" are not independent sources - and I believe that is the usual reading around here of WP:RS. The one source that might be considered reliable is "Writer's Market" but their 150 words or so seem to just quote a press release. Another possibility is the award for the awarders, but is that award itself from a reliable source/organization? In any case that award does nothing except give the awardee's name and weblink. I'll also note that the argument for KEEP is getting pretty aggressive, please tone it down. Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promoters to enhance their promotion. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have no true objections with someone wanting to userfy this until the point comes that the award receives direct coverage of the award itself rather than brief mentions in articles about other subjects or people. The big issue here is that the award is almost always mentioned by someone who is directly involved with the award, usually the recipient or the publisher of the recipient. This gives a huge conflict of interest and makes all of these sources primary ones at best. Of the non-primary sources, the award is never directly discussed in-depth. It's always mentioned by way of "Book ABCD won the IPPY Award, which is given out yearly at such and such a place. Book ABCD covers the subject of blah-blah-blah-blah and is the author's first work, etc." While the article is happening because of the award, the award isn't really the subject and this isn't enough to show notability- especially since we have no way of knowing how much of this is from a press release, which is likely when you consider how very similar so many of these are. The award it won from the Association of Independent Authors doesn't hold much weight, but then most awards aren't enough to show overwhelming notability to the point where you'd keep on that basis alone. Even considering that factor, I'd go so far as to say that 90% of any awards in any category wouldn't be seen as even giving notability. What makes me think that this isn't really usable to show notability is that there's no actual coverage of the group receiving the award. This is a delete from my end, the same as my previous vote. I'd abstained, hoping that someone would be able to dig up usable sources, but what was added is the same that I'd found in the previous AfD discussion.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:16, 5 March 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 redirect to Two (Lenka album). (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roll with the Punches[edit]
- Roll with the Punches (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)
Looks like an advert. No prove it reached the charts, if not so would fail on notability. Outdated. The Banner talk 22:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Two (Lenka album), on which this song appears. Plausible search term but I'm not seeing much in independent reliable sources to suggest the song warrants a separate article. Gong show 03:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Two (Lenka album), this song wasn't a big hit and the artist is somewhat obscure. If kept, the article should be rewritten into the past tense, since the single and album are both clearly now out. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect to Two (Lenka album), fails WP:NSONG. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:38, 1 March 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. Sandstein 11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ibragim Magomedov[edit]
- Ibragim Magomedov (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)
Fails WP:NMMA with one top-tier bout. Has very poor sourcing and no secondary sources, so probably fails WP:GNG as well. Luchuslu (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Luchuslu (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He was notable fighter that fought outside Japan, has one fight for top tier organisation, a loss to Cro Cop, very remarkable liver kick KO and last fight and test to sea can Mirko handle russin fighters before facing Fedor. If you ask me he is notable, but I am not shure is it enough for wikipedia. Master Sun Tzu (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do agree that his bout against Cro Cop was notable for the reasons you mentioned. But it was his only bout with a major fight promotion. He did fight some notable guys in M-1, but WP:NMMA says that doesn't count toward notability. I think the bigger issue is that the article has no secondary sources, thus failing WP:GNG, literally step one in determining notability. Luchuslu (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree...so
- I do agree that his bout against Cro Cop was notable for the reasons you mentioned. But it was his only bout with a major fight promotion. He did fight some notable guys in M-1, but WP:NMMA says that doesn't count toward notability. I think the bigger issue is that the article has no secondary sources, thus failing WP:GNG, literally step one in determining notability. Luchuslu (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:NMMA and lacks the sources to meet WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:NMMA, WP:ATHLETE. WP:NOTINHERITED. --LlamaAl (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As much as it hurts I must vote for delete because he fails notability Master Sun Tzu Master Sun Tzu 01:02, 03 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to remark that notability doesn't have to depend on English-language sources and that, where a person's career has been very largely outside English-speaking areas, relevant sources may well not be in English. Searching for the subject on the Cyrillic version of his name (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) produces quite a number of GNews hits. I don't read Russian, which makes it difficult to decide exactly how many of them are about the subject (some, judging by Google Translate, clearly are not) and how many of those are reliable. It might help, though, if someone who does read Russian could look them over. PWilkinson (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He may be notable in Russia, but not global enough. Master Sun Tzu Master Sun Tzu 01:02, 02 March 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. J04n(talk page) 04:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Survey on NIT[edit]
- Survey on NIT (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 current state of the article is nothing but original research -- not only does it not provide any criteria by which the judgments are made, but it even states that survey information from respected institutions such as the Times of India is ignored. However, importing ranking lists from other sites may run into copyright problems. I'm not sure how one can maintain such an article without violations of guidelines. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Not salvageable at all. This looks like someone trying to use Wikipedia to legitimize his/her own opinions on these Indian universities. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it is an original ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.209.28 (talk • contribs)
- That is precisely the problem. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original writings, it is a summary of what reliable sources have to say on subjects. There are no reliable sources for the information behind this survey. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – No sources for anything. It's all original research. –TCN7JM 02:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: as per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:37, 4 March 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 KEEP Non-admin closure and tagged with Cleanup AfD template Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stark Industries[edit]
- Stark Industries (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 well written as this article is, it simply does not belong on Wikipedia. It's basically an article written as though it were a real company, but its subject is a fictional company. Nearly all the references are to comic books.
The relevant information in the article could very easily be added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the Iron Man article.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 1, 2, 3 independent, reliable, secondary sources that discuss it substantially, and that's just on the first page of the Google Books search. While Stark Industries is intrinsically connected to the Iron Man franchise, that doesn't preclude an independent article. It's been dealt with in print, cartoon animation, and live action movies. Suggesting it be merged into Iron Man is like suggesting that Hogwarts be merged into Harry Potter: it's certainly plausible, but would be a clear disservice as it would clutter the parent article unnecessarily with material on a clearly notable fictional element. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't change the fact that the article is written as though it were a legitimate real company, when in fact it is a fictional company. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware of WP:ATD? Specifically, that if a page can be improved through regular editing, deletion is not appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that if you eliminate all of the in-universe content from this article you're left with about 3 lines that say "Stark Industries is the fictional corporation in the Marvel universe. It serves as a plot device to provide Tony Stark, the alter-ego of Marvel's Iron Man, with the funds to research and produce his mechanized suits of Armor. Stark Industries has also served an important role in the development of various other technology driven characters in the Marvel universe, including Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man, and many others." I'm failing to see why the article cannot be distilled down to non-in-universe statements and added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So have you worked in fictional elements articles much? Because what you describe is not in any way required to deal with fictional elements. Seriously, go look at Hogwarts. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that Hogwarts is bad too, doesn't make Stark Industries good. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So have you worked in fictional elements articles much? Because what you describe is not in any way required to deal with fictional elements. Seriously, go look at Hogwarts. Jclemens (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that if you eliminate all of the in-universe content from this article you're left with about 3 lines that say "Stark Industries is the fictional corporation in the Marvel universe. It serves as a plot device to provide Tony Stark, the alter-ego of Marvel's Iron Man, with the funds to research and produce his mechanized suits of Armor. Stark Industries has also served an important role in the development of various other technology driven characters in the Marvel universe, including Captain America, Hulk, Spider-Man, and many others." I'm failing to see why the article cannot be distilled down to non-in-universe statements and added to the Iron Man article. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware of WP:ATD? Specifically, that if a page can be improved through regular editing, deletion is not appropriate? Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't change the fact that the article is written as though it were a legitimate real company, when in fact it is a fictional company. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources Jclemens provided show notability, as do a couple of the references in the article itself. Issues with the way the article is written are solved by correcting those issues, not by deleting the article. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Notability can be established through 4 or 5 references, and the other 200 references in the article could verify content without showing notability and it would not affect the notability of the article, so the fact that "nearly all the references are to comic books" is also not a reason to delete an article. That's an issue of WP:UNDUE perhaps, but again that is something that can be corrected through editing the article, not deletion. Worst case scenario would be the article would need to be stubified, but I'm not seeing any cause for deletion. - SudoGhost 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article needs to be rewritten to distinguish that it is a fictional company, but that is a relatively minor thing. Furthermore, that is not a reason to delete an article; that's why those tags at the top of articles exist. It is a well-written and well-referenced article with no clear reason to be deleted. Spidey104 14:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This book also offers some coverage. There seems to enough material to support an individual article. Gong show 23:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination does not advance a policy/guideline based delete argument, while the article itself, if presumed notable from all its sources and avoid WP:INUNIVERSE, should be kept as an article. There is no guideline that says we cannot have articles on fictional characters, stories, or fictional elements like companies and objects. Mkdwtalk 05:58, 6 March 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 Speedy delete as G11 : Unambiguous advertising by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copify[edit]
- Copify (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 is nothing but a commercial for the site. Examples:
"Orders are made available to the site's network of freelancers on a first come, first-served basis" is not informative, but a sales pitch. Nor is "Clients also have the option to order copy directly from a writer of their choice." That too, is a sales pitch.
The site is not unique as well. It does not stand out from the hundreds or thousands that operate the way and offer the same product/service. Example:
"Copify charges for content by the word, with a payment being issued by the customer before each order is placed" is not a unique service and is duplicated at all available writing services.
In addition, it's criticism is not unique to the service, and is a broad criticism across all online writing services. Example:
"Copify has been wide criticized by copywriters who have questioned the relatively low rates of pay that are offered. Many also dislike the controversial 'pay per word' model, arguing that it restricts creativity and encourages writers to create substandard copy. Concern has also been raised that those using Copify will not necessarily get the ability and experience they intended, and of a conflict of interest with Nublue, another copywriting firm."
These criticisms can be said about any online writing service (and they are). First, offering low pay rates are what these types of services are known for (and sought for). Second, there is nothing controversial about its pay per word model especially since writers have charged for per-word services before the typewriter was even invented! Third, as stated here: http://www.abccopywriting.com/blog/2010/10/28/copify-nublue-quality-copywriting Copify was co-founded by a former Nublue employee. Copify operates from the same building as Nublue, and staff from the two firms know each other personally (confirmed in comments on the post). Copify is a supplier to Nublue. Copify was nominated by Nublue for a Mashable award.
The author is probably trying to promote both Copify and Nublue.
Lastly, 4 of the 5 references points to a blog post - not a news article even though the link makes it look like a news reference. Another reference points to a listing in an online directory.
This article probably should have been marked for immediate deleteion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDR2013 (talk • contribs) — RDR2013 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment The article was proposed for A7 speedy deletion and I declined it because there was significant coverage in The Guardian, which is enough to mandate a discussion here. Blogs are not always unreliable sources, while they may be opinion pieces, they can be used if the writer has a proven track record of expertise in the subject or is widely believed to have a good editorial control. I won't be !voting yet as I'm not sure the article has enough reliable sources to sustain notability at present - there are a lot of sources out there, but most aren't reliable. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for responding, and my apologies for the poor grammar above. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion of 'significant coverage in The Guardian'. I searched the site and only found 2 blog posts -- both of which were written by a Alexander Velky. Alexander Velky worked through Copify, and is not a journalist. I would assume that an objective article about such a service would come from someone who does not have a history with the service. I also must apologize for not knowing how to reply to your comment. Wikipedia is rather confusing. I simply copied and modified your comment to make mine. If that is not proper, please assist.RDR2013 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the reference in question, and I can see eight paragraphs that are directly about Copify, which makes it qualify for the "at least one length paragraph, preferably more" clause as found in WP:VRS. That, in my opinion, is enough to halt a CSD - which should be reserved for articles with no sources at all and no claim whatsoever that any might be found. I appreciate you're new, but for what it's worth, AfD is not a good place to begin a wiki career, as you'll be debating head to head with experienced wikipedians who have a thorough grounding in policy, particularly if the Article Rescue Squadron turn up. By the way, to sign posts here, type four tilda (~) characters. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for responding, and my apologies for the poor grammar above. Nevertheless, I disagree with your assertion of 'significant coverage in The Guardian'. I searched the site and only found 2 blog posts -- both of which were written by a Alexander Velky. Alexander Velky worked through Copify, and is not a journalist. I would assume that an objective article about such a service would come from someone who does not have a history with the service. I also must apologize for not knowing how to reply to your comment. Wikipedia is rather confusing. I simply copied and modified your comment to make mine. If that is not proper, please assist.RDR2013 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Props to Ritchie333 for trying to salvage the article, but it has very few available sources, and none that establish notability for inclusion according to WP:ORGDEPTH. The Guardian blog post was written by someone with a close connection to the company. I believe the article qualifies for A7 CSD, as there is no credible indication of significance. - MrX 20:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I buy that. The Guardian has a strict editorial control, which means that anything that its writers post will have to go through its filter, so we ought to generally trust that, while an opinion piece, it is a strong enough one to receive notice to the world at large. I'm not going trying and puff notability out of this, but I reckon this is a borderline case that could go either way. I think we need the full discussion here at AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient sources; promotional; unreferenced content. If sources can be found and the article improved, I may change my vote but for now it is delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi all, I respect and admire the editorial process here, but when things are being written that are factually incorrect, it kind of calls into question the integrity of the whole thing. There are a few examples of this, but probably the most worrying is the fact that the article has been edited to now include "…and of a conflict of interest with Nublue, another copywriting firm." If you take a look at Nublue's website: http://www.nublue.co.uk/ you will see that they don't offer copywriting as a service, they are a web development company so this is simply not correct. "The Guardian blog post was written by someone with a close connection to the company." - His connection was that he signed up, took a dislike to the site and wrote a blog post condemning Copify, followed by this piece on the Guardian. He's not connected to Copify in any other way. If a bit of common sense is applied here, you should note that it is a talked about company, discussed by the Guardian. The article is more negative than it is positive and I have tried to be honest about the offering and not promotional. MartinCopify (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ducking out of this now, but can we please stop calling this an advert? I've tried to neutralise the article and put solid criticism in, so just saying it's an advert without citing any examples implies my edits have been a waste of time. Sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 28 February 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. Monty845 22:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rajesh Jain[edit]
- Rajesh Jain (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)
Unreferenced BLP, no evidence of notability. Chutznik (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, makes no assertion of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I thought so too, but it looks like a prod was contested here. the edit summary makes the claim that Jain was "one of the few entrepreneur who inspired internet based businesses in India", which might be significant, I guess, but this hasn't been added to the article and is unsourced. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:46, 4 March 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 speedy delete as a {{db-hoax}}. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Katylen[edit]
- David Katylen (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)
Hoax. This footballer doesn't seem to exist. The article has no references and no usable reference can be found. - Andrei (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was WP:PRODed shortly after creation, but author added a few bogus links as "references" and fought diligently against every single maintenance template added to the page, including {{Orphan}}. Of the links he added, one goes to a YouTube film of which nothing can be understood, and another links to a Facebook profile (also, apparently bogus).- Andrei (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Certainly looks like a hoax; the search term "David Katylen" gets zero hits on Google News archives and Google Books. The very short videos linked to in the article, even if legitimate, offer no usable information whatsoever and wouldn't even qualify as reliable sources in first place—nor would Facebook. CtP (t • c) 18:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G3. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:55, 28 February 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 Speedy Keep. Rahul Jain (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chitharal Jain Monuments[edit]
- Chitharal Jain Monuments (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 article does not cite any sources or references to demonstrate its notability and hence should be deleted. Rahul Jain (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator The new references added shows the notability of the topic. Rahul Jain (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the monuments at Chitharal are listed in numerous books Books mentioning Chitharal which easily enable the article to pass GNG. Please recall that our criterion here at AfD is not whether an article contains references but whether suitable sources exist (in the world, online or not). I will add some sources to the article now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:41, 27 February 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 11:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PCMan File Manager[edit]
- PCMan File Manager (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 software is not famous to the degree it would be found in an encyclopedia. disclaimer: I have used this software. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 06:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - PCManFM is the standard file manager for LXDE, like Konqueror / Dolphin_(software) is the standard file manager for KDE, or Thunar for Xfce, or Nautilus for GNOME and so on. I don't see a valid reason for AfD. Toffanin (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fame isn't required for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it isn't a valid reason for deletion. I've added a couple of references to reviews by Linux Today and Unixmen to the article to help establish notability of the topic. With no valid criterion for deletion and with likely notability, I recommend keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not going to argue with you, but a review from a blog called "Unixmen" typically does not warrant automatic entry to an encyclopedia. I will go further and say we should probably not have Wikipedia articles every time the Unixmen blog writes about a product. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is a fair criticism. In the technology media there are a number of websites that I like to call "journalistic"; they are more than some random person's blog but less than a professional news outfit. I think Unixmen fits into that category of marginally reliable sources, in the form of a blog with a wide readership, but it is obviously a gray area and a somewhat subjective assessment on my part. --Mark viking (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 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 redirect to Pearson PLC. J04n(talk page) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pearson VUE[edit]
- Pearson VUE (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 was very promotional; I've cleaned it up and tried to add some reliable sources, but I really can't find anything to establish notability. There are some passing comments in a few articles, but nothing more than "Company X uses Pearson VUE, a provider of electronic testing, for Exam Y." Mention of the company is brief at best. Merging with Pearson PLC is possible, but I don't think there's anything in the article worth merging. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm seeing a couple of news mentions etc, but doesn't seem to be anything that would qualify as significant coverage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pearson PLC. I don't see independent notability for this particular product. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 1 March 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 speedy keep ; nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Cowperthwaite[edit]
- John Cowperthwaite (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 find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of this kit car designer. j⚛e deckertalk 14:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC) (Withdrawn below)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge / rename Moss is one of the better known UK kit car builders and Cowperthwaite's eponymous "JC" badging on a number of cars is pretty well known too. Notability is minor, certainly, but it should support a merge and redirect to a Moss article, if we had one. In the absence of Moss, or anyone willing to rename/create one pronto, then we should keep this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I'll be delighted to withdraw if I see two sources that make a stab at GNG. And absolutely no prejudice against a merge/redirect, although I'd rather, if this fellow does have sourcing that I've missed, preserve the article. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The TSSC have some coverage here, but it's all in terms of Moss' use of the Triumph Herald platform. As I doubt there's notability (let alone proven notability) outside of kit cars, and nearly all of that was either Moss or can be presented as a precursor to Moss (the "plans and patterns" era JC Midge), I think a section in a Moss article is where this belongs. Other printed sources are probably best found in Kit Car magazine etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw given that I have no objections to that, and it doesn't require deletion. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The TSSC have some coverage here, but it's all in terms of Moss' use of the Triumph Herald platform. As I doubt there's notability (let alone proven notability) outside of kit cars, and nearly all of that was either Moss or can be presented as a precursor to Moss (the "plans and patterns" era JC Midge), I think a section in a Moss article is where this belongs. Other printed sources are probably best found in Kit Car magazine etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll be delighted to withdraw if I see two sources that make a stab at GNG. And absolutely no prejudice against a merge/redirect, although I'd rather, if this fellow does have sourcing that I've missed, preserve the article. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:15, 27 February 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. J04n(talk page) 04:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crispystock[edit]
- Crispystock (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 music festival, the two articles from the Andover Advertiser look like, well, advertising, no other evidence of reaching WP:GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cant find any interdependent, reliable source that covers the festival in detail. LGA talkedits 07:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to fail WP:NEVENTS AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm seeing a couple local write-ups like this, but that's it; does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Gong show 02:49, 6 March 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. J04n(talk page) 04:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saidjon Saidrahmonov[edit]
- Saidjon Saidrahmonov (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)
PROD removed by article creator, no rationale given. This player fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or at senior international level). GiantSnowman 13:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Soccerway shows he has only been on the bench for international games and does not play in a fully professional league so fails WP:NFOOTY. Looking at his squad number he is the third / fourth choice national keeper. No issue with the article being recreated should he feature for the national team in a full FIFA intl game. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. He has not received significant coverage and has not played internationally or in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - doesn't seem to have any stats in the pros, fails WP:NSPORT AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, has not played senior international football nor in a fully-professional league and does not meet general notability criteria either. C679 21:01, 1 March 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. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus D[edit]
- Marcus D (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 have been looking for sources but there does not seem to be any hard and fast ones except for Auburn's local paper, the artist's home town. He seems to fail WP:BAND. Guerillero | My Talk 03:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-=- He meets 2 of the WP:BAND criteria (more information on this can be found within the discussion), and if "An Eternal Soul" (A documentary that Marcus D contributed to) is considered notable enough, the artist will have met 3 of the criteria. only 1 of the criteria is required for proper notability. He does not fail WP:BAND.
-=-=-I have added over a dozen new references to the page, including interviews, videos, articles, and tracklistings, so the topic of sources should no longer be an issue.
- Keep - Hello, this is Kaoskitteh. I'm the creator of the Marcus D wikipedia page, and I am going to try my hardest to keep this page from being deleted. (In an attempt to keep this discussion organized (I doubt it will be successfully organized), I start each of my posts with -=- ). I worked with Marcus D personally to make this page, which is why some references may be nonexistent, but if given the time, I'm sure we can find reliable and verifiable sources. On the topic of the WP:BAND notability, he does in fact meet the criteria of "5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable)." as he has released an album with the Indie label Elevation (Not to be confused with another induie label under the same name, which went out of business over 20 years ago), as well as with the label Hydeout Productions. Hydeout has released many albums, and has artists that were featured in the soundtrack of the animated television series Samurai Champloo, which was highly acclaimed for it's unique soundtrack. If you look at the track-listings for many of Marcus D's albums, you will find that Marcus also works with many of the hip-hop artists that Hydeout itself works with. The following information was not recorded in the wikipedia page, as I considered it to be unnecessary, but Marcus is currently in the process of making another album, which may be released under the Hydeout label, as well as three others which have undetermined release information, such as publishing labels and such. In my own personal opinion, I consider Marcus D to be quite worthy of having a wikipedia page, and I will continue to work towards keeping it from being removed.
Once again, I'm new to wikipedia, but i will link my user in place of the process used by Guerillero, as seen above. Kaoskitteh 07:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The notable indie label Elevation existed between 1987 and 1988 and is not the same label that Marcus D released on. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-=-This has been confirmed. The Elevation label that Marcus D worked with is not the same label as the label from 20 years ago. This is a link to the current Elevation label on bandcamp [3].
-=-Including more information, Marcus D was also featured on the soundtrack for the Nujabes Documentary, named "An Eternal Soul". If considered notable enough, this could fill the WP:BAND requirement of "10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.". The soundtrack can be found at [[4]], and the documentary itself can be found at [[5]]. This documentary was made after the death of Nujabes, and features many of the artists he worked with. Kaoskitteh 08:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a secondary source that discusses this? --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-=- [6]
-=-I have added multiple references to the page, and can now fill the WP:BAND requirement of "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition.". the link for this information is here. [7]. all other added references can be found on the wikipedia page itself. If anyone has tips and/or requirements that would help move this page to a stable situation, tell me. please. Kaoskitteh 08:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-At this point, I believe there are enough sources to fill the WP:BAND requirements, as well as an acceptable amount of verifiable links, including multiple interviews with the artist from reputable sources, and links to the artist on music sites such as Bandcamp, iTunes, and the Hydeout/Tribe record label online store. I respectfully ask that the Marcus D Wikipedia page be kept online, and that the deletion form be closed, unless there are still issues with the page that are notable enough to keep it from being considered worthy. If any issues still arise, tell me, and I will fix them. Thank you for the encouragement to add sources to the page. It was my fault that the page did not fully meet the requirements before-hand, but from what I can see, it meets the requirements now. Thank you for your consideration. Kaoskitteh 10:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-If the page is still considered unworthy of being on Wikipedia, I have the page backed up on a Notepad document, and I will re-post it after the artist has released more music, which would undeniably add to his notability. I am quite frustrated with the lack of hard research conducted by the initiator of all this before submitting the form for the deletion of this page, and I respectfully ask that, for those who submit such pages for deletion, you conduct more research on the topic before committing the act. I also admit that there is a large, almost needless, amount of information on this talk page, but the more information you can acquire, the better. Thank you again. Kaoskitteh 10:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the research suggested by policy. Even with the sources you added I still fail to see how he passes the GNG or BAND --Guerillero | My Talk 21:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-=-Policy suggests that, if notability is the primary issue of a page, to search for additional sources before nominating for deletion. I have been able to add over 10 different references that confirm the artist's notability in a relatively short period of time. This tells me that the page was nominated for deletion before any substantial research was conducted that may have contributed to the notability of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaoskitteh (talk • contribs) 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-The BAND requirements state that, in order to be considered notable, the subject must meet at least one of the requirements, and as I stated before, Marcus D won the Red Bull Big Beat Seattle competition in 2009, which meets the category of winning a major music competition. the link can be found above. He has also released 2 albums on notable Independent Record Labels, which is the required criteria for "5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". The page meets not just one, but two of the required categories, and have verifiable reference sources. Are the provided sources not reliable enough? I've seen multiple wikipedia pages on Music Artists that have far less information and references, but even with the one or two links that are provided for them, they meet the notability criteria. I've provided 15 links to verify as much information as I can. The information on this page that does not have a reference would be the information on various single and collaboration releases, and if that is something that you consider an issue, please let me know. Also, if you see any other issues, please tell me, as I believe that I have properly verified that the artist meets the Musician Notability Criteria. If you still feel that he does not meet the criteria, please explain to me your reasoning so that I may attempt to fix the errors. I have no problems with long explanations. Kaoskitteh 16:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-Another link about his work on "An Eternal Soul OST" can be found here [8], and while it provides less information than the other link, the information that is there is the same as the information on bandcamp. On the topic of "Substantial and Marcus D are Bop Alloy" being released under the record label "Elevation", I have a link to Elevation's Bandcamp page right here [9]. I doubt that this would satisfy people who are more focused on full verification, but Substantial clearly states "Elevation Proudly Presents..." in the first song of the album, which is very minor evidence that the album was released under the Elevation Label. What other information do you request that I provide you? Kaoskitteh 16:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-I have more information to add. This is information that the artist prefers not be posted on the wikipedia page itself, but he has given me permission to use it to prevent the page deletion. Marcus D's first album release in Japan, "Revival of the Fittest", [10] was released under the Goon Trax label [11], which is a section of the major Media Factory corporation, which is very widely known for their contribution to the world of Anime. The Goon Trax label itself has a large multitude of music releases, and pairing this with Marcus D's release of "Substantial and Marcus D are Bop Alloy" with the Japanese Label Elevation [12] (Which I do believe is a label that is different from the label that has a page on Wikipedia), and with the artist's release of "Melancholy Hopeful" with the notable label Hydeout Productions (AKA Tribe) [13], the artist is fully within the guidelines of the BAND page. Kaoskitteh 08:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=-Here is a more verifiable link for information about Marcus D's success in the 2009 Red Bull Big Tune Seattle music competition. [14] Kaoskitteh 08:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-=- This is a personal message to the admin who is assigned to determine the verdict of this discussion. If there is any information that I need to add that would prevent the deletion of this page, please contact me, and I will provide you with whatever you need. Thank you very much. Kaoskitteh 09:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I invite users other than User:Kaoskitteh to contribute so that we can get a wider view of the community's assessment. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite User:Kaoskitteh's detailed response, I cannot find evidence that this artist meets WP:MUSBIO. Looking at the existing references on the article, only one of them is both in-depth and from a reliable, independent source, the article in Auburn Reporter[15] which is only a local newspaper and thus not ideal for establishing notability (generally some national or at minimum substantial regional coverage is required). Other references are either to non-independent sources like YouTube, Facebook, iTunes, BandCamp, or are very brief (a link to a video, an interview without a substantial introductory text, a list of 5 things Marcus D has picked, one entry in a list of tracks, etc). As already mentioned, the criterion "5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels" is not satisfied. "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition" refers by example to Grammy Award and Juno Award, which are the most prestigious awards in their respective countries, but the "Red Bull Big Tune" does not carry the same esteem (as is shown by the lack of press coverage). No other criteria appear to be satisfied either. If Marcus D has collaborated with other notable artists or on notable recordings, he could be mentioned in their articles, but he doesn't meet the requirements for his own article at the moment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "9. Has won or placed in a major music competition" does not refer by example. As such, this would seem to require clarification on what is meant by "major". 8 has a very similar basis to 9, but they are not the same. If 9 referred only to awards such as Grammy awards and such, then it would not be necessary, as 8 already covers that. - The artist has released 3 albums with label companies. Hydeout Productions, Elevation, and Goon Trax (Media Factory). I'm aware that Elevation is not considered notable at this point, but Hydeout is notable, and because Goon Trax is a sub-section of a company that has licensed dozens of well known works, I would consider that to make it notable as well. unless Goon Trax isn't considered notable (not having a wikipedia page does not make Goon Trax un-notable, as this is a community-based site), then wouldn't the artist meet the notability requirement? Kaoskitteh (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In what may be my last attempt at saving this page, I link my favorite rule on Wikipedia. A rule that I wish would be implemented in so many other places. [16] . While the notability of the artist is disputed (It is close in many senses, that can be said for sure) the page is not a negative contribution. The page supplies information that has been referenced, is truthful, is useful, and is relevant. The information can, will, and already has been used to inform interested parties about this topic, and is currently the only page on the internet to contain all relevant information about the topic in one place. over 250 users other than myself viewed the page within a day of it's posting. The artist shared the page on Facebook, and many of his followers responded with gracious comments and respect. 268 users to be exact (or at least as exact as we can get). That's 268 people who were interested in the information, and found much of the information that they were looking for. At this time, the page has been viewed 1726 times. The page has been available for the public for a mere 13 days (published on February 15). While the amount of people who viewed the page themselves cannot be counted, I can assure you that the page is being used. While notability is a very reliable guideline, it is made completely to prevent artists who have little to no following, history, or substantial work from cluttering the site. A band that a group of teenagers formed in a garage during the summer, who released a couple of albums that never made it out of the county, is an example of what Wikipedia is not made for. This would be a page that an extremely small amount of people would use, and would not inform anyone. An artist who has worldwide listeners, and has worked on their music for multiple years, but has yet to achieve success with a person of notability, is an example of something Wikipedia should contain. An artist who makes music that thousands of people enjoy shouldn't have any less right than an artist who is listened to by millions merely because they were noticed by the right person at the right time. The message I'm trying to convey is that instead of using a book to determine the outcome of all situations, you should use common sense. If the artist is liked by many, and people will use the information that is being contributed, what grounds could you possibly have to prevent that. - - "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." - - If you can give me evidence that what I have provided is not a good contribution, other than by the fact that the artist isn't notable, then do so. If you believe that information on this page is false, then I do not want to see you point it out, but I want to see you prove it. Before you make any reply, I want you to read [17]. It explains a lot. Also, read the original. It gives a great sense of what Wikipedia was made for, originally, and what it is still used for today. [18]. If the page is deleted, I will re-post it within hours of the artists' next album release (This means that deletion will only be a postponing of the inevitable. I do not give up). When that will be is unknown, but It will happen, and the page will be prepared. I have done something here that I should not have. I took this personally. However, I regret nothing, and I still respect all users who contributed to anything on this page. Everyone has the right to share their thoughts. It's a matter of whether or not you want to listen to that person's thoughts that matters. Kaoskitteh (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The artist has also had their music played on the KUBE93 radio station (Seattle) KUBE (FM) and has been interviewed on the station multiple times. [19] An excerpt from one of these interviews (KUBE93 interview with Marcus D and Substantial) can be heard for the intro track to Marcus D's co-release Pre-Paired. [20] Kaoskitteh (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While the "keep" arguments are heartfelt, the article's subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO; Hydeout Productions is not "one of the more important indie labels". Miniapolis 02:02, 8 March 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 no consensus. Most contributors though agree that this is worth covering in one form or another. Sandstein 11:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Strasser[edit]
- Franz Strasser (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 appear to meet WP:BIO as indicated; just a mid-rank Nazi official. Stifle (talk) 13:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect; subject is primarily notable for a crime. The crime appears to have received significant coverage in contemporary news sources of the period, and covered in multiple published books from reputable publishers. That being said the subject would fall under WP:PERP, and not independently notable per WP:SOLDIER or WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, the proper course of action would be to redirect the article to the event, and article that has not yet been created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per In ictu oculi. Seem to pass GNG by a mile.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets GNG as this has coverage from multiple sources. Not sure where we stand on war crimes, which this clearly falls under. Maybe the event is the notable thing here. It could also do with being expanded a bit. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge if a suitable merger target can be found. As argued by RightCowLeftCoast, this is a case of someone known for a crime. As a Nazi functionary, he does not merit an entry in Who's Who in Nazi Germany (or the German version). The article has references to the trial transcript and to one page in a book; that is not extensive coverage, even though I was able to find an additional mention through Google; snippet view will not show me it, but Volume 1 (1945) p. 26 of News of Germany apparently contains the text: "The first fair trial ever held in Dachau concentration camp resulted in the conviction of Franz Strasser, 45, of Kaplitz, Czechoslovakia, who was ... 9, 1944, in the former Sudetenland city of Kaplitz where Strasser, a truck driver, was Kreisleiter." So what we have was a lower-level functionary (in a single settlement in the Sudetenland) who was hanged for one multiple killing that, I am afraid, is more illustrative of Nazi barbarity than it is notable in itself. The sources do not demonstrate notability; they are akin to the situation of "100 newspapers" or whatever that essay is titled. It was a brutal crime; perhaps there is an article on the affected unit, or on the battle for Sudetenland, into which the content could be merged. But I do not believe the sources show this man to be notorious enough for a stand-alone article. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The crime is notable as it received significant coverage which continued years after the event occurred. Outright deletion is inadvisable, and the normal outcome for individuals only notable for one event (WP:BIO1E), is to summarize, merge & redirect the content about the perpetrator to the article of the event.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Formally, it meets the WP:BIO criteria as there are multiple secondary sources (listed in the reflist and which are quite convincing). Agree that the event is the notable thing here rather than Strasser. The article is relatively new and could be expanded and tied into the broad and narrow histories of Nazi war crimes. fiachra10003 (User talk:fiachra10003) 20:39, 6 March 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 merge to Adobe Flash#Players. J04n(talk page) 05:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swfdec[edit]
- Swfdec (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)
Flash as a technology is dead, and so is this project to make an open-source alternative to it. There is no news coverage of consequence about it. AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 06:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep- an article to expand on a surely notable topic.--Knight of Infinity (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC) — Knight of Infinity (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thanks for sharing your opinion, Knight of Infinity. I was not successful in my search for non-trivial coverage of this topic from reliable publications. What was your basis for determining notability? AMFMUHFVHF90922 (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 12:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Swfdec does appear to have been mentioned in some books on various Linux distributions ([21], [22], [23]). I don't think it amounts to "significant coverage," though. Google News archives gets some hits. Of note is this article from what appears a Japanese open source software magazine. As of yet, I'm undecided on whether to keep or delete. CtP (t • c) 19:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If not notable, could merge/redirect to Adobe_Flash#Players which already briefly mentions swfdec. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to Adobe_Flash#Players. The LWN ref in the article is a reliable source, but I could not find any others that were in depth. The topic seems to fall below threshold of general notability guidelines. However, the topic is clearly verifiable and it is reasonable to think that users may want to search for it. Colapeninsula's recommendation of a redirect to its entry in the more general Flash article makes good sense. There is not a lot to merge--maybe mention that there is a Mozilla plugin, too and include the LWN article as a reference for verification. --Mark viking (talk) 13:25, 28 February 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. J04n(talk page) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elguja Grigalashvili[edit]
- Elguja Grigalashvili (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)
PROD contested by IP, no rationale given. This player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - no significant coverage, has never played in a fully-professional league. GiantSnowman 12:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. 17:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Sputnik (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 27 February 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. Sandstein 11:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Petocracy[edit]
- Petocracy (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)
Fractionally better than original research. No attempt made to demonstrate that anybody uses this term. Sgroupace (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is written like a joke, however, this is a searchable term: [24] (The Times of India), [25] (telegraph.co.uk), [26] (The New York Times). I can imagine this could be rewritten. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum It seems it was created to promote the website http://gooddogsrule.com. The creator, Dwebs (talk · contribs), could be Drew Webster, the owner or operator of that site. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article was primarily written to promote a web community site. The term was used in a few lifestyle parts of newspapers. It's an easy to create ...o... word combination, often found today (Douglas Adams the inventor?) No evidence that the term has its own significance. So per WP:GNG.--Ben Ben (talk) 11:56, 3 March 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John J. Hartin[edit]
- John J. Hartin (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 a contested prod, the subject does not meet the criteria of WP:PERP. The victims are not famous, the crime was not unusual and the subject has not been to trial. J04n(talk page) 10:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no special circumstances in this case. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I said in the PROD Wikipedia is not a directory of people wanted byt the FBI or who MIGHT have committed a crime since he hasn't been found guilty in his absence. GAtechnical (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree that the fact that the subject has not been to trial is a very strong argument to delete the article. It is unethical for an encyclopedic project to keep this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERP and WP:GNG. He has neither been tried nor arrested....William 19:27, 1 March 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. J04n(talk page) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Bozier[edit]
- Luke Bozier (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)
There are two fundamentally important reasons why this article should be deleted.
Firstly, as Paul MacDermott said in the previous AFD, anything that could be said about him can easily go in the menshn section of the article on Louise Mensch. He was never a Member of Parliament, Member of European Parliament, or even a local councillor. Any notability drawn from him has come because of his defection as a party functionary, and not him himself as a notable subject. Coverage regarding his departure from Menshn and relating to Menshn in general can simply be mentioned in the aforementioned section.
The second aspect, and arguably the more pressing one, is that - for reasons beyond my comprehension - this article was created in complete violation of WP:BLP policy, right off the back of the subject's arrest for the alleged possession of indecent images of children. Creating an article on an individual undergoing investigation for a serious criminal offence is astonishingly misguided and completely unacceptable. To conclude, I recommend in the strongest possible terms regarding WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERP that salvageable content be merged to the place it is already relevant, and the entry itself be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC) WilliamH (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With regards to BLP concerns the article states the factually accurate statements that a) Mr Bozier has been arrested on suspicion of possessing indecent images and b) Mr Bozier denies these charges. A court of law will decide whether or not he is innocent or guilty. If I added libelous content to the article Luke Bozier could of course sue me but all I can see a the moment is a factually accurate account of events which have generated headlines in several newspapers... Francium12 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's had coverage over his work as a political adviser, e.g.[27], and his involvement in Menshn[28], as well as for his arrest, so I don't think WP:BLP1E or WP:PERP apply. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2013 (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) 11:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why has this been relisted for a third time rather than closed? It's customary to provide a reason. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A person of no significance whatsoever. HornetMike (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- He has been no more than a minor party functionary, then set up some political organisation with a lady who has resigned as an MP (who then sakced him). Summary NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is no clear claim to notability in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. MRSC (talk) 14:22, 7 March 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. By about 2:1, which is close enough to consensus for the purposes of this discussion, contributors are of the view that coverage of this murder is not significant enough for inclusion in view of the policy that we are not a newspaper. Sandstein 11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scarlett Keeling[edit]
- Scarlett Keeling (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 murder, currently mis-titled (the person was certainly not notable); previously deleted 3 times. It's understandable that there was some news coverage, but there is nothing about the murder that makes it worthy of coverage in an encyclopaedia. Should be salted as well. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable, BLP issues. We should also SALT and warn the creator about re-creating. GiantSnowman 10:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I clicked the first sources button above and right at the top google says: "About 53,900 results (0.36 seconds)". 53k+ of hits isn't notable? There was a movie made as well as it being a big tourism issue and 'cover-up'. Governments may wish to sweep this under the carpet but I don't think we should.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A large number of Google results does not equate to notability, see WP:GHITS. GiantSnowman 11:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a link to an essay. Not a policy nor guideline. Read over: Wikipedia:Search engine test. It isn't marked as essay, guideline, nor policy, but it does make the point on notability. The first forty pages I checked were subsantial coverage by reliable sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GHITS may be an essay, but it is widely-used as it raises valid points. If you believe she is notable, then evidence it. GiantSnowman 11:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Neither is WP:Search engine test a policy or guideline. Hilarious that anyone would dismiss an essay as a non-guideline and offer a how-to that is only partially about notability. Hit quantities are meaningless in themselves (cf. qualities), but may indirectly indicate notability; notability isn't automatic or assumed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to understand why your link above to Wikipedia:Verifiability has to do with notability. WP:V deals with verifying material in the article, not how notable it is. I agree the title may need a tweak as it should be more about the incident and its effects being notable, not just the notablity of the person. Casper (cat) has less coverage, only a book written, but has survived here. I am not trying to say that 'other stuff exists' but others may wish to read the deletion discussion on that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to verify notability, simple as. You cannot simply say "X is notable", you need to prove it. As for the kitty, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. GiantSnowman 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep linking essays. 'Substanial coverage in reliable sources' is guideline/policy. I have done this. There is mention of the incident in 127 books and 11 scholarly documents in the find sources links above as well as the numerous news reports.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And where is this "substantial coverage"? I cannot see it. GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous news articles, 127 books, 11 scholarly documents, and one movie so far.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to investigate those book results. Not only is "127" unreliable -- you'll find that some of them were published well before the murder. Others (even some of the later ones) do not in fact mention her (e.g. this one). The search function is not reliable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous news articles, 127 books, 11 scholarly documents, and one movie so far.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And where is this "substantial coverage"? I cannot see it. GiantSnowman 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep linking essays. 'Substanial coverage in reliable sources' is guideline/policy. I have done this. There is mention of the incident in 127 books and 11 scholarly documents in the find sources links above as well as the numerous news reports.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to verify notability, simple as. You cannot simply say "X is notable", you need to prove it. As for the kitty, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here. GiantSnowman 12:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to understand why your link above to Wikipedia:Verifiability has to do with notability. WP:V deals with verifying material in the article, not how notable it is. I agree the title may need a tweak as it should be more about the incident and its effects being notable, not just the notablity of the person. Casper (cat) has less coverage, only a book written, but has survived here. I am not trying to say that 'other stuff exists' but others may wish to read the deletion discussion on that article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...Neither is WP:Search engine test a policy or guideline. Hilarious that anyone would dismiss an essay as a non-guideline and offer a how-to that is only partially about notability. Hit quantities are meaningless in themselves (cf. qualities), but may indirectly indicate notability; notability isn't automatic or assumed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GHITS may be an essay, but it is widely-used as it raises valid points. If you believe she is notable, then evidence it. GiantSnowman 11:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a link to an essay. Not a policy nor guideline. Read over: Wikipedia:Search engine test. It isn't marked as essay, guideline, nor policy, but it does make the point on notability. The first forty pages I checked were subsantial coverage by reliable sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Deserves a mention under rape in Crime in India or Rape in India, but not as a separate article. --regentspark (comment) 14:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Extensive coverage in practically every British newspaper (broadsheets as well as tabloids), numerous books that do mention her, some of which go into the effects the case had on the Indian tourism industry. That clearly amounts to substantial coverage, more than enough to verify the notability of the incident. There is, however, a good case to move the article to Murder of Scarlett Keeling as that is what is noteworthy, rather than the person herself. And it needs a hell of a lot of work, but if we stop deleting it, then someone may possibly get the chance to do the work on it that it needs. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Murder of Scarlett Keeling. Has recieved substantial coverage beyond an everyday murder.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wiki is not news - WP:NOTNEWS. After a careful consideration I decided to vote for delete. However, I would agree with User:RegentsPark that it can be mentioned in Rape in India but not a separate article on the person.Jethwarp (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no evidence of any coverage in independent sources — everything is news sources that are chronologically connected. Provide some evidence of coverage in books or academic journals, because Wikipedia is not the newspaper. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While this was reported extensively, it is not meet Wikpedia standards for a dedicated Wikipedia page for the victim. Wuser999 (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as per WP:ONEEVENT, death does not make her notable.--GDibyendu (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The event claimed its space in front pages of some of the best national (Indian) and international newspapers which can be seen here. Moreover, I am highlighting the point that a film was made on this event, which also came into highlight. That compels me to cast a Keep vote! Though I also feel the article has been named incorrectly (it is not a biographical article)! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you think your vote squares with WP:NOTNEWSPAPER? Being on every font page on earth is not the same as being encyclopedically notable. Rather than the prominence of the coverage, the content of the coverage is important: substantial coverage — in-depth biographical coverage — is the key. Otherwise, it shouldn't be a biography, but a WP:1E (compare WP:BLP1E). Your !vote, apparently not based on biographical considerations, might support an article called Murder of Scarlett Keeling, but it doesn't come close to supporting an article on the individual. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading the last line of my last post "Though I also feel the article has been named incorrectly (it is not a biographical article)"! --Tito Dutta (contact) 20:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I read too fast. So where's the in-depth coverage of the 1E? If you have links to sources about the murder (not a movie about a murder in an entertainment section), that might be somewhat convincing. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 20:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mention WP:1E, and I am inclined to join that group of participants here who are primarily aiming to establish the notability of the event and not of the person, therefore WP:1E, which deals with Notability (person), is invalid in my argument. In my last post I added two links, the first link was of Google News which showed multiple newspaper coverages of the incident and then, the second link, which informed a film was made on the event. I feel, this article should be written in this structure Murder of Scarlett Keeling>> Lead (Short summary) >> Incident >> Investigation >> Criticism/Reactions >> Influences (i.e. a film was made... etc) >> See also >> References etc. Here a similar article which has followed more or less similar structure 2012 Delhi gang rape case--Tito Dutta (contact) 21:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — This is a WP:1E properly titled Murder of Scarlett Keeling. If kept, it must be moved. However, the murder appears not to have been notable according to multiple reliable sources. Note, this actually covers a Bollywood production, and Bollywood coverage is squarely below the calibre required. Any !vote based on the Anjunaa Beach piece should be steeply discounted. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...And the event has become no more notable than the last three times the article was deleted. Hm. JFHJr (㊟) 19:57, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : While was voting delete citing WP:NOTNEWS, I was thinking arguments as per WP:1E may crop up. I would like to say that as per my opinion article is not acceptable under WP:1E because an event is notable only if did the event cause any noteworthy change to the ground reality to make the event notable so as to have an article in itself. For example 2012 Delhi gang rape case lead to change in amendment of criminal law of India. However, I feel a movie being made out of this incident is not a notable result of the event. Film makers may pick up any incident from daily life or incidents to make a film!! I, therefore, am also against a new title or redirect like Murder of Sacrlett Kelling, etc. By the way, I just noted that the incident is already mentioned in article Rape in India. Jethwarp (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As it has been mentioned in Crime in India. Jethwarp has hit the nail on the head with his excellent analysis on why it should not have Wiki presence. I concur with Jethwarp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.215.187 (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- A nasty murder, but I do not think we can have an article on every muder that gets inot the press. If kept, rename to Murder of Scarlett Keeling, but better deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:BLP1E and does not meet WP:PERP. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fairly notable. Kind of borderline notable. But there's enough 3rd part attention to warrant inclusion IMO. ScienceApe (talk) 23:07, 6 March 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.
Philipp Hebestreit[edit]
The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Delran Township, New Jersey. Sandstein 11:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delran Fire Department[edit]
- Delran Fire Department (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 independent coverage thus failing WP:N and WP:GNG Curb Chain (talk) 07:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content then change to Redirect No evidence of independent notability for the Delran Fire Department. The material should be merged into the article for Delran Township, New Jersey and then this article should be changed to redirect there. This could have been done quite easily without the drama of an AfD. Alansohn (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Delran Township, New Jersey, it seems to be the most sensible solution. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:52, 27 February 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 no consensus. Sandstein 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko[edit]
- Yuri Leonidovich Nesterenko (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)
Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Not even close to satisfying WP:CREATIVE. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Russian) --SU ltd. (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL (in Polish) --SU ltd. (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources : Ozon.ru : Юрий Леонидович Нестеренко (Россия) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SU ltd. (talk • contribs) 18:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources : Yandex : Юрий Леонидович Нестеренко (in Russian) --SU ltd. (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources : AVEN : "(Yuri) Nesterenko" :
- A nonbigoted antisexuality
- Nonsexual?
- Free-will
- Zdravstvujte! in "Alternate Language Forum"
- antisexual stronghold
--SU ltd. (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The books are almsot certainly enough for notability, but I do not have the sources to locate book reviews in Russian periodicals. The other sources included are however sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:51, 27 February 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 keep. Monty845 22:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Musa Bin Shamsher[edit]
- Musa Bin Shamsher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Bin Shamsher Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Fails WP:GNG--Freemesm (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 February 6. Snotbot t • c » 17:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough sources given in the article and more sources can be added to claim the notability of the person. Besides, I have reverted the massive content removals of the article. If needed, the contents should be removed through a discussion in the talk page. --Zayeem (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - But article needs a lot of work. Almost the entire article was written by the IP address 180.149.7.184, which makes me think that the person editing from that IP is connected to the Bin Shamsher or is him himself. Applesandapples (talk) 09:42, 6 March 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. If anyone wants any of it merged somewhere I would be happy to userfy it for them. J04n(talk page) 12:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
American Son (comics)[edit]
- American Son (comics) (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 nothing more than a plot dump, and provides no indication of being notable. Relevant plot details already exist in various character pages, but there are too many main cast members to redirect to just one of them. Page was previously PRODed, which was contested in favor of merge, though no merge candidate was suggested. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Dark Reign" section could be merged into the Harry Osborn article and the "Heroic Age" section could be merged into the Gabriel Stacy article. Obviously both sections would have to be drastically cut down. Then this page could be made into a disambiguation page leading to both of those articles, and possible The Amazing Spider-Man since that is the comic book series the first storyline was in. Spidey104 03:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At best, and this may be opening a bigger can of beans, this and a lot of similar articles should be compacted into "List of Character Foo story arcs" similar to episode lists. As it stands the article:
- Does not demonstrate that the story arc is notable in its own right. (Yes, Spider-Man, the Osborns, and The Amazing Spider-Man are notable. That doesn't make the story automatically notable.)
- Does not demonstrate that the later limited series is notable.
- It implies a strong linkage between the two with out providing secondary sources for that linkage.
- It has next to nil real world context. An even that is bundles into only the infobox and lead. (American Son (comics)#Reception is sales trivia and shows nothing about a critical response, review, or discussion about the story.)
- As for merging or redirecting... I don't see it. It's a blip - 1 line - at best for Harry Osborn, which needs a hell of a lot of attention as it is most a plot dump itself. And Gabriel and Sarah Stacy is something that should be merged in to List of Marvel Comics characters: S, not have more plot added.
- - J Greb (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only mentioned those articles for places to merge because Argento Surfer said "no merge candidate was suggested." I would be fine if the article was deleted. Spidey104 19:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:49, 27 February 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. J04n(talk page) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia Godfrey[edit]
- Georgia Godfrey (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 is recently created from WP:AFC after being reviewed and accepted by Fashdiva7601. I couldn't find any source with significant coverage about her, the few sources out there are either about Condoleezza Rice or George W. Bush. It unfortunately fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC without independent sources that discuss the subject in detail and not just a mention is passing. Nimuaq (talk) 20:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed keep - Subject is obviously notable. a quick, and correct google search sustain this fact Eduemoni↑talk↓ 00:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this person meets WP:GNG, at least not yet. This is the kind of government employee that tends to stay behind the curtain, and I can see no significant claim to notability either in the bio or in my research. Yes, there's plenty of hits to her name, but only because she was Rice's chief of staff, and nothing beyond that. If her career in government continues then this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but that in and of itself does not serve to clearly establish any degree of notability. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 01:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 09:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the article's subject had plenty of big names associated with her, this doesn't made her notable since she only made one position to the government which is Rice's chief of staff. HallelujahYeah (talk) 01:37, 05 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, falls short of WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO at the moment. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 6 March 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: tagged as a copyright violation, deleted by User:RHaworth. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Top 10 highest earning websites in 2012[edit]
- Top 10 highest earning websites in 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)
I dunno what criteria to use but I don't think worthy enough to be included --Ushau97 talk contribs 09:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article has many problems. It claims to be highest-earning websites, but its methodology isn't clear either on the page or in its source: it lists online retailers, companies who make money from advertising on their website, companies which primarily make money from other sources, like Reuters (which is primarily a news agency), and companies with multiple websites and other sources of income, like Google. A widely-discussed list from a reliable and authoritative source might be notable, but this isn't. It seems like an advert for somebody's Top 10 blog. If there's a good redirect target, fine, but deletion is otherwise the best option. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. The sole reference is to a "Top 10 Blog." Copying their list in their order might be a copyright violation. At any rate, the blog doesn't appear to be a reliable source. So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:35, 1 March 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. Sandstein 12:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gilbert Geagea[edit]
- Gilbert Geagea (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)
Possible autobiography reads like a resume and I do not believe the subject meets notability guidelines. I did not tag for A7 because I think the list of works/projects could be construed as asserting notability, but I think the notability still falls short. Nick—Contact/Contribs 08:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It has also been created here at Gilbert B. Geagea where I tagged it for notability and references. I think it probably fails wp:gng Theroadislong (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I redirected that to the article being discussed here. My thought was that if this is kept, it might be a valid redirect. If not, then it'll probably be deleted with this article at that point in time.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was unable to find anything to show that Gegea's contributions are ultimately notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. He seems to have done quite a bit, but just existing as an active director or cinematographer isn't enough to pass notability guidelines. I don't see where he's been the focus of any news articles or the like. It's possible that there are sources in another language and if so, I'm willing to take those in consideration. I just feel that this is another case where we have someone that works in the background in roles that although important, doesn't attract any attention from reliable sources. He's just your run of the mill director. I have no issue with Geagea userfying a copy of his article, but I do think that it'd be in his best interest if he were to work with someone in one of the WikiProjects to eliminate any conflict of interest and to ensure that the article passes notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article doesnt include any independent sources that comment on this person. My quick search on Google shows nothing but facebook & youtube presence. --Noleander (talk) 12:07, 1 March 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. Sandstein 11:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian Peruvian[edit]
- Palestinian Peruvian (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, unsourced, possible hoax, part of a series of dubious "culture X in country Y" articles
PROD was removed without improving the article [29].
see also:
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Japanese_Costa_Rican
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaicans in Switzerland
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamaicans in Switzerland (2nd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Jamaican
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jamaican_Brazilian
- User_talk:Cup22
- Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Troy86
- Special:Contributions/70.149.57.84
- [30]
—rybec 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the history in previous AfD discussions on these types of articles. You could create an article for every combination of foreign ethnicity living in every country and unless there is particular history or other useful information, besides the fact that they exist, that should be documented in an encyclopedia I believe it fails general notability standards. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 08:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 27 February 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. Sandstein 11:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese Costa Rican[edit]
- Japanese Costa Rican (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, little more than a dictionary definition —rybec 06:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the history in previous AfD discussions on these types of articles. You could create an article for every combination of foreign ethnicity living in every country and unless there is particular history or other useful information, besides the fact that they exist, that should be documented in an encyclopedia I believe it fails general notability standards. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 08:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. I did find a relevant university research report, Sushi Or Gallo Pinto: Bi-culturalism in Japanese-Costa Rican Families in San José, Costa Rica (Associated Colleges of the Midwest. Central American Field Study Program, 1990). But one study is not enough to establish notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 27 February 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 KEEP. Non-admin closure Based off discussion here, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. While I can't speak for the many other stubs that have little to no content, this one clearly does and has been expanded to bring it easily up to a passing standard. Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 10:20, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District[edit]
- Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District (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 dont think elementary school districts qualify for articles, esp. sub stubs with information suitable for lists or directories. unofficially included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another duplicate AfD. Do you like adding to Wikipdia's paperwork? Again, for the record, US school districts are generally governments with taxing and legislative authority devolved to them by their respective sovereign states. None of the districts that I've added are dependent school districts without their own taxing, spending, and regulatory authority. For example, in my own state of Indiana, the public school district of residence issues under 18 work permits whether or not the child is in school. They are the only body that handles that. This sort of regulatory power over all children in their districts make school government bodies notable even when they only teach K-8 as seems to be the case here. TMLutas (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do believe that school districts ought to have articles, as I've explained in greater detail in related debates. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sonoma County, California; subject appears to not have recieved significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources. Subject has received mention in one news article source, and a few passing mentions in primarily government publications, however those mentions don't add up to notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - school districts as official bodies are notable and as a repository for information on non-notable elementary schools this article serves a valuable purpose. They way forward is to expand and source, not to delete, which is the way that stubs and hence the encyclopaedia is developed. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TMLutas and TerriersFan. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Almost 500 articles in just one of the (unusually large number of) local newspapers mention this district.[31] WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 28 February 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pope Valley Union Elementary School District[edit]
- Pope Valley Union Elementary School District (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 dont believe elementary school districts qualify for articles, esp. sub stubs with no more information than would be in a directory of districts. this article is unofficially included in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do believe that elementary school districts qualify for articles, as they are the preferred redirect target for elementary school articles. They are government entitities, usually with elected officials. This district is a good test case, as it is a tiny rural district with, I believe, only a single school. But it has a board of five members and power to spend significant amounts of taxpayer money. I live in Napa County, where this district is located. I know that people care deeply about these governmental entities, and I believe that an encyclopedia that is not limited by shortages of paper or ink ought to have an article, even a stub, about every such school district worldwide. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article a bit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pope Valley, California, insufficient reliable source sources that give significant coverage to the organization/government entity. One news organization source found, but it's primary focus is on the school bus owned by the organization/government entity and not the subject of the AfD itself. Multiple non-RS sources found but those do not have an impact on determining whether the subject is notable or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - school districts as official bodies are notable and as a repository for information on non-notable elementary schools this article serves a valuable purpose. They way forward is to expand and source, not to delete, which is the way that stubs and hence the encyclopaedia is developed. TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen and TerriersFan. It's true that elementary SCHOOLS are not generally considered notable, but school districts should be. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More than 350 articles just at the local newspaper.[32] I think we can skip the one about the parent suing the district over a lost toy, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 28 February 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 keep. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 02:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark West Union School District[edit]
- Mark West Union School District (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 dont believe that elementary school districts qualify for articles. this article is unofficially included in the afd, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartselle City School District. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This school is a government, officially listed in the US census of governments. Pray tell, what tax and spending authorities are not notable? In California, these districts can put thousands of dollars on your property tax bill and are often the largest single item on it.
There are hundreds of existing elementary school districts (which often cover school systems K-8 grade) pages. Killing this one on the grounds that it is an elementary school district is contrary to general practice. TMLutas (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep School district articles are usual redirect targets for articles about primary schools. They have elected officials and exercise governmental powers. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, appears to have received multiple mentions in non-primary reliable sources, mostely from the area where the school district is located in, sufficient to be considered to be significant coverage if taken in total. Organization/government is not a local chapter of a larger organization, therefore it is independently notable as per WP:ORG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - school districts as official bodies are notable and as a repository for information on non-notable elementary schools this article serves a valuable purpose. They way forward is to expand and source, not to delete, which is the way that stubs and hence the encyclopaedia is developed. TerriersFan (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Cullen and TerriersFan. It's true that elementary SCHOOLS are not generally considered notable, but school districts should be. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More than 350 news stories at the local paper.[33] This story, for example, is a feature-length article about racial imbalances that affect the whole area's schools, including Mark West. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 28 February 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.