Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 15
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kings Weston House. Remember that AfD is for deletion only, and noms that propose non-deletion actions (e.g., merge) are eligible for SK#1. In the future, you can propose what may be a controversial move at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kings Weston Action Group[edit]
- Kings Weston Action Group (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)
Seem like a keen and well-meaning bunch, but the organisation is less than three years old and the coverage in secondary sources is pretty light, so sufficient notability not (yet) established. Suggest that this becomes a section of the Kingsweston House article instead. SP-KP (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to Kings Weston House. This is essentiallly a "friends" group, and not spearately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge summarized content to Kings Weston House. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:57, 20 June 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. It's spam All it says, every line, is look at what this can do. There's no history, no criticism, no anything other than a features list. GedUK 14:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Toolkit[edit]
- The Black Toolkit (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:PRODUCT. This content, [1] reverted by a bot, appears to indicate the page is intended largely for promotional purposes. Taroaldo ✉ 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'delete - no claim of notability, "Black+Toolkit"+RAD Google search finds self-published sources, and the usual download sites. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete and SALT pure spam and qualified for G11. This is an advertisement for the software, nothing notable about it. Tyros1972 Talk 10:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately, most of the stuff posted about unnotable software isn't enthusiastic enough for 'spam'. I'd support a CSD category for unreferenced software. This thing is probably very useful to a handful of people who will undoubtedly read about it in their techy magazines. If they do, the rest of us don't need to have it. If they don't, it's very definitely non-notable. I am impressed by it having a CRUD importer, though... Peridon (talk) 11:30, 16 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artur Avagyan[edit]
- Artur Avagyan (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)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This isn't like a Speedy Delete under G4, where an article has been deleted at a discussion. I don't mean to question the good faith of the nominator, but that part of the rationale is completely without merit. Since the person plays for a professional / national team, GNG appears to clearly be met. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 01:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's not how it works. The General Notability Guidelines (which is the #1 priority) are met when person has received significant coverage. Has this person received coverage? No. That means it fails under that category. Playing for a fully pro team/national team would meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Does this person meet NFOOTBALL? No, because he hasn't played in a fully pro league match nor has he capped for the national team. – Michael (talk) 04:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Dennis Brown. The player has been included in the national squad on 3 occasions, in European qualifiers for the FIFA World Cup. Begoon talk 01:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Armenian league is not fully professional as required by WP:NSPORT and all though he has been called up, he has yet to actually play for the Armenian national team. As for general notability, I am yet to see any evidence he has received anything more than routine sports coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Being called up doesn't mean a thing. He still hasn't appeared in a match for the national team nor is the Armenian league fully pro which means he still fails WP:NFOOTBALL. He also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. – Michael (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Begoon, as playing on 3 occasions in European qualifiers for the FIFA World Cup, which qualifies him under WP:NFOOTBALL. Technical 13 (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been called up, but he never played in the World cup qualifiers, which is insufficient for WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @T13: Actually, as pointed out by the experts above, it probably doesn't mean that, since he was only a sub, and not called on from the bench, hence not gaining a cap. Now, I think that's probably too strict, and should maybe be changed - but it does seem to be the guideline, and I was unaware of that when I voted. I'm leaving my vote as "keep", because I would keep the article myself, but it does seem policy may not support me. He'll probably get to run on the pitch for the national side soon, then it can be recreated if it gets deleted. Begoon talk 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He'll probably get to run on the pitch for the national side soon, then it can be recreated if it gets deleted. Or he'll suffer a long term injury before having any chance of capping for the national side. WP:CRYSTAL. – Michael (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @T13: Actually, as pointed out by the experts above, it probably doesn't mean that, since he was only a sub, and not called on from the bench, hence not gaining a cap. Now, I think that's probably too strict, and should maybe be changed - but it does seem to be the guideline, and I was unaware of that when I voted. I'm leaving my vote as "keep", because I would keep the article myself, but it does seem policy may not support me. He'll probably get to run on the pitch for the national side soon, then it can be recreated if it gets deleted. Begoon talk 17:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He's been called up, but he never played in the World cup qualifiers, which is insufficient for WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - you'll actually has to earn a cap to pass WP:NFOOTY, being included in the squad is not enough. As the player in question hasn't played in a fully pro league either or received significant coverage in reliable sources he fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentoz86 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 21 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Springtail Bluff[edit]
- Springtail Bluff (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)
Reading this page, I can't see what it is noteworthy at all. Basically a stub for 3 years that says nothing more than it exists. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As uninteresting as this article is, it meets WP:NGEO in my opinion. Noteworthy and notability are two different things and according to WP:MAPOUTCOMES, this article is likely to survive. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:NGEO. Nom took this Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment PROD not a required step for AFD, thanks for WP:FAITH. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [3]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator cannot vote inside the nomination - removed. Crtew (talk) 16:27, 21 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fatu Rock[edit]
- Fatu Rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article makes no attempt to show why this place is noteworthy. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This island gets some mentions in Google Books. If notability can't be established, Pago Pago Harbor seems like an obvious merge target. • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:NGEO. Nom took this Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a cursory review of the web reveals a good amount of sources that just need to be added.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator is voting inside nomination - removed. Crtew (talk) 16:25, 21 June 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. Consensus seems to be split between keeping and merging. Clearly no consensus for delete here though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obad-Hai[edit]
- Obad-Hai (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 Dungeons & Dragons article fails our notability guideline in that the subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It is entirely sourced to primary and affiliated sources (D&D game books and officially licensed publications). Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I do not know much about Dungeons and Dragons, but I looked at other articles existing in the D&D WikiProject for comparison. My issue is the nature of this game probably limits the number of robust and reliable secondary sources that would be produced. If we strictly apply the above notability guidelines, then we could go through and obliterate all the pages on the D&D Deities list. Doing so I feel would provide Wikipedia incomplete coverage of this topic and is definitely not an improvement. Otherwise, the use of primary sources here seems correct in regards to attaining factual information. Citation within the article also needs to be improved. User226 (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your account was created 2 days ago, and as such you may not be familiar yet with the way we deal with articles, and how AfDs work. My advice would be to spend more time reading and understanding What Wikipedia is not, as well as other policies and guidelines, before you start commenting in AfDs. Two of our core, non-negotiable policies are that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia [...] data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, and that articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. I see no valid reason to exempt D&D articles from these policies, nor from the notability guideline (which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow"). Note that AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies, not whether guidelines and policies should be applied. When consensus in AfD is assessed, arguments that contradict policy are frequently discounted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia, then where else would you discuss how to apply a guideline to an article? They are just guidelines and exceptions can be made. Like I made in another comment, does deleting this article improve Wikipedia? BTW, thank you for researching my account, but just because I finally started an account does not mean I have not been involved Wikipedia or am unfamiliar with its policies. User226 (talk) 19:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case you're certainly aware that arguing IAR at AfD has rarely worked...Reasoning should be particularly solid for IAR to prevail, and I just don't think you've been that convincing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The success rate of IAR is of no concern to me if that's what would need to apply. I stated my argument above and in other comments here. If it's not good enough, then I am not going to be upset by a delete. You seem to be highly biased toward the delete based on your nominations and comments. If the above reasoning for a delete stands, then many other articles in D&D area could be deleted, thus reducing Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. The article proposed for deletion is not a short article with no sources. It also is not an essay or presenting a bunch of speculation or interpretation about the topic. Yes, it does need work for better citation and writting. User226 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if I nominate the article for deletion, then yes, good guess, that does indeed mean I believe it doesn't fit our policies and guidelines and should go away. And yes, numerous and sometimes longer articles about D&D creatures have been deleted or merged in the past, such kind of coverage has been reduced and I don't see any problem in that. Also, if you argue IAR, then I don't see what being unsourced or speculation would change, since you strongly advocate that there are "no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia". Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At this point I don't feel the discussion between us will advance this topic anymore than it already has. I will let other users comment and the final reviewer make their decision to delete or keep. Also, if someone mentions IAR or the "no hard and fast rules", it doesn't mean they believe in no rules. Like you, I just believe in making Wikipedia better. You feel deleting this page advances that goal. I feel keeping it does a better job at improving Wikipedia. We will probably never agree on that point. User226 (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the rationale of Jclemens below; while this deity was just another god of the Greyhawk setting for almost 20 years, he took on a much more prominent role after inclusion as one of the primary deities for the D&D game in the third edition Player's Handbook, and remained that way for several years. That said, a merge into List of Dungeons & Dragons deities is better than deletion. BOZ (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In reference to merge, I think in this situation it is better to keep a page just for organization and useability. If we delete Obad-Hai, then I can find 10 other articles in a minute on the D&D deities list that could qualify for deletion. If we try to merge all of them into a single deities article, then it would become overwhelmingly large. User226 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Organization and useability don't supercede notability issues, and plot summary is the kind of content that can (and should) be reduced to a minimum when several articles are merged. BTW, BOZ, you do not provide any policy-based argument to your comment, especially if you include "keep" as one of your choice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have clarified better as by "organization and useability" I was thinking about merging many smaller articles into some large mass, which would exceed the size requirement. I also fail to see why wikipedia would not consider useability and organization for splitting a topic. Perhaps that is the web designer in me. But, based on the D&D Deities list, the "Intermediate deities" may need to be merged together. So, yes, I now see merge as a viable option. User226 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Organization and useability don't supercede notability issues, and plot summary is the kind of content that can (and should) be reduced to a minimum when several articles are merged. BTW, BOZ, you do not provide any policy-based argument to your comment, especially if you include "keep" as one of your choice.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In reference to merge, I think in this situation it is better to keep a page just for organization and useability. If we delete Obad-Hai, then I can find 10 other articles in a minute on the D&D deities list that could qualify for deletion. If we try to merge all of them into a single deities article, then it would become overwhelmingly large. User226 (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or trans wiki- no third party content to support stand alone article. Only "in-universe", primary source content leaves the target merge article no better off than this stand alone. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Greyhawk deities as a better merge target.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plenty of sources, spanning some 30 years. Also, deity's priesthood has even appeared in a major film.--Robbstrd (talk) 13:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not votes. Is there any policy based reasoning behind your comment ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In answer to your additions, this still doesn't make the article pass WP:GNG, which requires sources to be secondary and independent. Appearance in other media is insignificant trivia.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AfDs are not votes. Is there any policy based reasoning behind your comment ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of sources, and regardless of whether you call Wizards or TSR "first party", the fact is that the sources span decades and apply to multiple versions of this fictional element, available in multiple separate games that happen to share the same basic naming stem. Jclemens (talk) 15:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't make up for the fact that the sources are all primary, and as such the article violates WP:GNG, WP:IINFO and WP:PSTS. Your recommendation is not supported by any policy or guideline that I can see. The article needs to show that the subject was analysed and studied by independent third parties, and is not merely fancruft.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eventually, you just have to ask yourself, how does deleting this article make Wikipedia better? WP:IAR I'm not sure deleting it does. User226 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And how does it improve wikipedia, exactly ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does deleting it improve Wikipedia? It's not a short, two sentence article with no sources that is being removed. It is a high ranking page on search engines for that topic. D&D in general is a well known and large topic that Wikipedia should cover as best and factually as it can. It makes Wikipedia more complete. Given the character's history, place in the game, and appearance over a long frame of time in D&D make it notable. User226 (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see what search engines have to do with improving Wikipedia. I agree D&D in general is an important topic deserves to be covered by Wikipedia, and I think it is, in a satisfactory manner. However, I consider that dedicating a stand-alone article to each fictional elements such as monsters or gods that have no significance in the world at large (contrary to D&D itself) is excessive, and will only matter to a very selective group of enthusiasts, and that coverage of that kind can only damage WP's reputation as a serious encyclopedia and make it look no better that any fansite out there. I also don't think you can argue IAR and at the same time argue the topic would be "notable" as Wikipedia defines it. Notability on Wikipedia means "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large", and I think this is a good criteria to distinguish between content worthy of an encyclopedia and fan excess. In the end, Dungeons & Dragons is a good article that can stand on its own and doesn't need overly detailed plot regurgitation to work.Dungeons & Dragons has been mentioned outside D&D games, Obad-Hai hasn't. The rest lies in the hands of those who'll speak here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are plenty of sources and they are independent of the subject because that entity is invented, I suppose. Such sources are authoritative and therefore reliable. Warden (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", per WP:GNG. The sources being the works in which the creators created the subject, they don't meet our notability criteria, nor WP:IINFO. We do not ask for "authoritative" content, but for proof of "attention by the world at large".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of examples, is "self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases". It's clear we're not dealing with this sort of material. Presumably the originator of the idea was Gary Gygax (referencing Tolkien?) but many of the later works were written by someone else. The coverage is good enough to establish that the topic is sufficiently substantial that people care about it and that we have reliable sources and this is the point of notability. Warden (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And where have you seen that this list of examples would be restrictive ? It's not, and clearly those sources are not independent "of the creator", since they are the creator's own works. Besides, WP:GNG also requires "secondary sources", and none of the sources are secondary because they all provide original fictional development. WP:PSTS defines "primary sources" as "fictional works", and WP:BOOKPLOT defines "primary sources about the fictional universe" as "the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction". All of the sources are part of the same Dungeon & Dragons fictional franchise, by the same publisher.
The point of notability is to ensure that the subject received attention from "the world at large", which isn't limited to "those people who created something in the first place and no one else".Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline is, by definition, loose and so examples are provided to give us a general feel. Per WP:BURO, we do not operate in a mechanical, rule-based way. I consider that sources such as Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies are quite adequate to establish that the title should not be a red-link. If you still don't care for the sources then we must agree to disagree. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- you have a significantly different definition of "significant" than most people. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my viewpoint seems to be the dominant one here, not yours. The badgering by the nominator does not represent the general consensus as he has been banned from other Wikipedias for this.Warden (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad AfD are not votes and are based on strength of arguments instead, then, because as we can see at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colonel Warden and WT:Notability/Archive_48#Independent_sources_for_fictional_characters, your opinions clearly don't enjoy community consensus. Also, the summary of your RfC reminded you to "keep discussions, especially AFD discussions, civil and courteous", yet it doesn't seem particularly civil of you to say that users who express their disagreement with you are "badgering", so I hope for you that you'll try a different approach in your future AfD contributions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't represent the community - you're just a tiresome fanatic who has been banned from other Wikipedia communities and so have come to annoy us here. I utterly reject your badgering and your position. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden is reminded to comment on content, not on the contributor, and to keep discussions civil and courteous.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- One day, you'll have to understand that disagreeing with you is not a personal attack. Calling someone a "badgering fanatic" is. I didn't refer to your RfC for nothing. So please drop it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And where have you seen that this list of examples would be restrictive ? It's not, and clearly those sources are not independent "of the creator", since they are the creator's own works. Besides, WP:GNG also requires "secondary sources", and none of the sources are secondary because they all provide original fictional development. WP:PSTS defines "primary sources" as "fictional works", and WP:BOOKPLOT defines "primary sources about the fictional universe" as "the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction". All of the sources are part of the same Dungeon & Dragons fictional franchise, by the same publisher.
- Merge any meaningful content to whatever target seems appropriate. There may be "plenty of sources", but all of them are primary, so we don't meet WP:GNG to support an independent article. If sufficient secondary sources could be found, would be willing to support keep. - Sangrolu (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Been a significant fictional character in multiple notable works for quite some time now. This helps people understand those series better. Dream Focus 01:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- where exactly are the outside sources? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles have been kept if the subject is seen as important, even without that. The guidelines exist to help Wikipedia, not to destroy it. Dream Focus 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What matters is not how a small portion of Wikipedians see the subject as important, but how the world at large sees it as important. Removing content that is only "interesting" to a small portion of the community and doesn't fit core policies (see WP:IINFO) is not "destroying" it. Fan wikis are better suited for this kind of content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid argument there. I'm pointing out that in many AFDs consensus has been to keep things even when they don't meet the suggested guidelines. The guideline pages say at the top of them "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Far more people in this AFD have said KEEP than DELETE. You arguing with every single person who disagrees with you isn't really going to convince anyone. Dream Focus 08:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Still WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, then. You do not offer any valid argument to ignore our inclusion policies and guidelines. And you should have learned by now that AfDs are not vote, but are decided on strength of argument. I agree about the bit you quoted from guideline headers, but "common sense" doesn't mean "head count". And I'll say the same thing I said to Warden, per WP:AFDFORMAT, AfDs are places for debate, you must be ready to see your views challenged.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Invalid argument there. I'm pointing out that in many AFDs consensus has been to keep things even when they don't meet the suggested guidelines. The guideline pages say at the top of them "This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Far more people in this AFD have said KEEP than DELETE. You arguing with every single person who disagrees with you isn't really going to convince anyone. Dream Focus 08:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What matters is not how a small portion of Wikipedians see the subject as important, but how the world at large sees it as important. Removing content that is only "interesting" to a small portion of the community and doesn't fit core policies (see WP:IINFO) is not "destroying" it. Fan wikis are better suited for this kind of content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles have been kept if the subject is seen as important, even without that. The guidelines exist to help Wikipedia, not to destroy it. Dream Focus 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, to be considered notable on wikipedia, an article requires there be multiple non-primary (i.e., not by the publisher) references talking about the topic. If you are aware of such references in sources with editorial oversight (not just forum posts, blogs) that discuss Obad-Hai, add them to the article and I will gladly change my vote. - Sangrolu (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Also, see [5] to see just how common this is in the books, it in 139 of them, that not counting the role playing pen and paper games and the video games. The only thing I notice straight away that is independent is a brief mention in a book called Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies. Dream Focus 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And D&D for Dummies isn't even independent since it is authored by D&D writers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's like saying that a book about mathematics is not admissable because it's written by a mathematician. Obviously, works of reference are written by specialists in the field. What matters in this case is that the book is published by John Wiley & Sons — a highly respectable academic publisher. The book is in its fourth edition and this demonstrates a lasting interest in the topic - it's not some fannish ephemera. Warden (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comparison with maths doesn't work, of course. You have your opinion, but it's not the general consensus on Wikipedia, which is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator [...] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability". What matters in this case is that the book is authored by D&D writers. Well it doesn't really matter since "Obad Hai" is only mentioned once as an entry in a table and isn't usable in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Enough is as good as a feast". The reputable source demonstrates the merit of having this distinctive name as a blue link in a reference work. Q.E.D., as mathematicians say. Warden (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As a blue redirect link and some content merged elsewhere, why not, but our inclusion policies and guidelines are pretty clear this cannot be a stand alone article without significant coverage from reliable and independent secondary sources.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Enough is as good as a feast". The reputable source demonstrates the merit of having this distinctive name as a blue link in a reference work. Q.E.D., as mathematicians say. Warden (talk) 09:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comparison with maths doesn't work, of course. You have your opinion, but it's not the general consensus on Wikipedia, which is that "Independent of the subject excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator [...] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability". What matters in this case is that the book is authored by D&D writers. Well it doesn't really matter since "Obad Hai" is only mentioned once as an entry in a table and isn't usable in any way.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's like saying that a book about mathematics is not admissable because it's written by a mathematician. Obviously, works of reference are written by specialists in the field. What matters in this case is that the book is published by John Wiley & Sons — a highly respectable academic publisher. The book is in its fourth edition and this demonstrates a lasting interest in the topic - it's not some fannish ephemera. Warden (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And D&D for Dummies isn't even independent since it is authored by D&D writers.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Also, see [5] to see just how common this is in the books, it in 139 of them, that not counting the role playing pen and paper games and the video games. The only thing I notice straight away that is independent is a brief mention in a book called Dungeons & Dragons for Dummies. Dream Focus 00:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- where exactly are the outside sources? Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:11, 13 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:06, 15 June 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 June 15. Snotbot t • c » 21:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong venue. Deletion isn't a reasonable outcome, though merging might be. And AfD isn't the place to discuss merges. My only other comment is that D&D for dummies is an independent source as far as I can tell. That subject matter experts were hired to do the job isn't too shocking--the publisher is still independent. That said, it may be that WotC was involved in the publication rather see than this being a side project of the authors. If that's the case, I'd say not independent. But I don't believe that's the case... Hobit (talk) 19:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DISCUSSAFD and Wikipedia:Merge#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion, there doesn't seem to be any problem with discussing a merge here. In the end, AfD is a place for discussion as any other, "merge" comments have become standard practice, and I personally view it as a way to ensure broader visibility and participation than a merge discussion (besides, with 100% of the article being primary/summary, full deletion could be argued). As for "...For dummies", I note on the publisher's webpage for it that it was "produced in partnership with Wizards of the Coast, written by D & D game designers" so clearly no independence can be argued here. In the end it doesn't really matter since it only contains a single trivial mention in a table...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been quite a few attempts to turn Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion. AfD is really only if there is a reasonable case for deletion. There isn't one here as there is a clear merge target. That discussion belongs on the talk page... Hobit (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DISCUSSAFD states that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies", and lists "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" as valid recommendations. AfD has indeed become "article for discussion" per a practice which has now made its way into guidelines. I understand your views about AfDs, but I think it would be more productive for you to directly challenge WP:AfD. Note that WP:BEFORE only tells to "consider" merge "if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own", which hasn't been decided yet, hence the AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but proposing a merge is to be done as described at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger. This wasn't a deletion candidate as there is a clear merge/redirect target that could be used. Hobit (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DISCUSSAFD states that "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies", and lists "Merge", "Redirect", "Transclude" as valid recommendations. AfD has indeed become "article for discussion" per a practice which has now made its way into guidelines. I understand your views about AfDs, but I think it would be more productive for you to directly challenge WP:AfD. Note that WP:BEFORE only tells to "consider" merge "if the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own", which hasn't been decided yet, hence the AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been quite a few attempts to turn Articles for Deletion into Articles for Discussion. AfD is really only if there is a reasonable case for deletion. There isn't one here as there is a clear merge target. That discussion belongs on the talk page... Hobit (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:DISCUSSAFD and Wikipedia:Merge#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion, there doesn't seem to be any problem with discussing a merge here. In the end, AfD is a place for discussion as any other, "merge" comments have become standard practice, and I personally view it as a way to ensure broader visibility and participation than a merge discussion (besides, with 100% of the article being primary/summary, full deletion could be argued). As for "...For dummies", I note on the publisher's webpage for it that it was "produced in partnership with Wizards of the Coast, written by D & D game designers" so clearly no independence can be argued here. In the end it doesn't really matter since it only contains a single trivial mention in a table...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. This is a possible search term that is getting dozens of hits per day. —Torchiest talkedits 14:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- probably half of those hits are mine as I keep forgetting to add this page to my watchlist. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to List of Greyhawk deities per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, along with the other deities with separate articles; none meet WP:GNG. Miniapolis 14:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, lacks notability but can be mentioned in List of Greyhawk deities. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 29 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Ann Rhodes[edit]
- Mary Ann Rhodes (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 evidence of meeting WP:N's requirement of nontrivial coverage in multiple, reliable, third-party sources. The only coverage I could find was a couple of brief local interest stories reprinted at http://z3. invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=3095 (the site is blacklisted, so you have to delete the space between the "3. and invisionfree" for the link to work). Long-standing precedent is that simply being the oldest person in a country is not sufficient to meet the general notability guidelines and sustain an article (and she wasn't even the oldest!), thus the extent of coverage (or lack thereof) is the issue here. A mention on the list of the verified oldest people (as already exists) will be sufficient and present all of the information of encyclopedic value. Canadian Paul 21:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I Google searched on News, Scholar, Books, and Web and got no hits. The "source" is only a list of supercentenarians making no meaningful mention of her. She is not mentioned on the List of the verified oldest people and does not need to have an article. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 22:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is in the List of the verified oldest people at #15. However Rhodes was never the oldest in her country, and this, along with her validation coming long after her death, means that it is unlikely that there will ever be non-trivial coverage. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. In fact, everything in the article (her name, age and country of residence) is available in both Oldest People and Canadian supercentenarians. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:40, 16 June 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. Discussion regarding merger can take place on talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Social Party of Peru[edit]
- Christian Social Party of Peru (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)
Not notability claimed and this is a duplication of Christian Social Party (Peru). UnrepentantTaco (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [6]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Merge - Clearly a fork. I'm in favor of the lowest of all possible bars to notability for articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to ideology. Partido Social Cristiano del Perú seems the formal name of the organization. I've seen sources for 1945 and 1946 for date of origin, seemingly a bigger organization in Ecuador than Peru, I think I saw... Seems to have had the name revitalized in recent years. Needs more sussing out, but this should be a GNG pass even if my IAR-based rationale doesn't fly. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll to to source the article better in coming days. However, The Christian Social Party (Peru) and Christian Social Party of Peru were two separate parties, and the AfDs should be treated separately. --Soman (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - National political parties are notable. Passes GNG. Nom took this Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or merge and redirect not being familiar enough with the area, it looks like they might be two separate parties with similar names. if so, keep both. if not, merge and redirect.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:24, 21 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Church of Saint Nicholas, Kistanje[edit]
- Church of Saint Nicholas, Kistanje (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 claim to notability other than it exists. Church is only 9 years old so no historical footprint to measure notability either. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [7]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable church with no good coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete link is busted, unable to verify at this time. Would change my position if information provided (and passess notability). Some churches are notable, I cannot determine if this one is or is not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability, the only ref link is dead. For a "second" Catholic church serving a village of 3000 inhabitants it is also unlikely to be notable. --ELEKHHT 22:32, 22 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Social Party (Peru)[edit]
- Christian Social Party (Peru) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article cites no sources, makes no claims to notability and is a microstub in that it says this party exists. Recommend delete. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [8]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:21, 21 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cuper's Gardens[edit]
- Cuper's Gardens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject is a small tea house that existed in the 18th century and eventually went out of business. No notability is asserted and unclear there is any coverage. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [9]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Purely on the basis that this is the sort of historical information that I would hope to find on Wikipedia. Okay, the place itself may not be notable, but it does inform the reader of otherwise lost social history i.e. there were tea gardens in 1736 with orchestras, fireworks and loose morals of visitors! Lack of coverage? Could this be because the Internet had not been invented at the time? Periglio (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was not a "small tea house" but rather a well-known venue for entertainment in London including live music that was in business for about 75 years. It featured large fireworks displays. A Google Books search shows extensive coverage in reliable sources. It was discussed by contemporary literary figures including John Aubrey, Horace Walpole and Samuel Johnson. Many years after it closed, Charles Dickens wrote about it. It is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Plenty of coverage in one simple Google Books search - [10] SL93 (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to have a lot of coverage for just a small tea house. Must be a special small tea house.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- the variety of literary references suggests that people are likely to want to know what literary allusions are to. This justifies the article's existence. The article probably needs expansion to pick up what Cullen has discovered. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep — the briefest of research reviews that this is a historic and notable 10-acre London pleasure garden. A more reasonable notice would have been for more references. It is recommended the the proposer does more basis research before proposing deletions in the future. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also, nominator cannot vote within the nomination - removed it. Crtew (talk) 16:21, 21 June 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 per WP:NGEO and outcomes for named geographical features. Part of a series of possibly disruptive AFDs. Non-admin closure. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thon (river)[edit]
- Thon (river) (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 notability inserted and none likely to be able to be claimed. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [11]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As noted on the article's maintenance tag, the corresponding French-language article is much more developed and cites sources. We generally don't delete rivers here. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Rivers as significant geographic features are kept. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Rivers normally have enough authentication and history of documentation to pass WP:GNG, even small ones.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - per WP:GEOLAND. Dolovis (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GEOLAND; nominator failed WP:BEFORE. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:15, 21 June 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. SNOW. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
H. C. Ørsted Medal[edit]
- H. C. Ørsted Medal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is unclear why this subject is notable except that it is an award and has been given to people. Not all awards are notable. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [12]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Highly distinguished recipients. I find this nomination to be close to vandalism. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Comment Just because someone is notable, that doesn't mean everything they've touched is notable. But hey, way to follow WP:FAITH. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [13]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Speedy Keep - An obviously notable award. Nom took this Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to be a worthy award with mention in this encyclopedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the stub, so keep. Even though there doesn't seem to be much to say about this award (or at least nobody has said it in the article), I think it is useful to have the article to disambiguate from the similarly-named Oersted Medal. It is relevant for bio articles about the laureates to say that they received it, and if we don't have something to bluelink to there, eventually someone's going to link them to the other medal in a (failed) attempt to be helpful. –Henning Makholm (talk) 16:59, 20 June 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. Player meets WP:NGRIDIRON for notability, and the nominator has been blocked as a CU-confirmed sock puppet. non-admin closure HeyMid (contribs) 10:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gil Skeate[edit]
- Gil Skeate (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 football player who only played in 2 games and has no real coverage. Only reference is a directory of everyone who played in NFL. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [14]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:NGRIDIRON. For sportspeople in general, playing just one game at the highest level or in a fully professional league is good enough. • Gene93k (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable athlete according to the relevant sports guideline. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as Gene93K says, WP:NGRIDIRON is clearly the standard for notability. Subject passes that standard and I can find no other reason to delete. Additionally, subject is verified in the given directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:34, 18 June 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) Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A.C. Montagnana[edit]
- A.C. Montagnana (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 notability claimed other than this team exists, looks like it's shifted around in the minor of the minor soccer leagues and very little to no real coverage. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [15]. Unscintillating (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - likely to have played in the Italian Cup and therefore be considered notable, further research required. GiantSnowman 10:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe a club that have played in the Serie C (the third tier of Italian football) should be considered notable even if it was more than 50 years ago. We don't have a notability guideline for football clubs we should follow the essay WP:FOOTYN which says that clubs playing in the domestic cup should be regarded as notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator cannot vote and removed it inside the nomination.Crtew (talk) 16:19, 21 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shahan-e Garmab[edit]
- Shahan-e Garmab (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 village has only 47 people according to the article. Doesn't get more non-notable for a community than that. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [16]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Editor consensus is that settlements are notable regardless of size. This place satisfies WP:GEOLAND. (Yes, I know it's part of an essay, not a guideline.) Mound, Louisiana (pop. 12) is an example of an even smaller place that was kept at AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a verified village which populated villages, towns, etc. are always kept. SL93 (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kabirat (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the five pillars, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and per long-standing consensus, its function as a gazetteer encompasses all populated places, including this one. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per the others, settlements are considered inherently notable regardless of size.--Oakshade (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator was banned as a sockpuppet. SL93 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:17, 21 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether speedy keep #2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 11:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delusion (1998 film)[edit]
- Delusion (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a microstub that makes no claim to notability, basically it just says this film exists and little to indicate that this film is notable. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [17]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This does not appear to be a film that has received English-language coverage. Google Books seems to show Croatian results here. I've posted a notice at WT:CROATIA to see if those who speak Croatian can help research this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep but not because I can find WP:SIGCOV (on the Internet, I can't, there's plenty of mentions, nothing really substantial), but simply because the Golden Arena Lončarić won makes the film meet WP:NFILM. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also nominator cannot vote inside the nomination -- removed. Crtew (talk) 16:16, 21 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red Zinger Bicycle Classic[edit]
- Red Zinger Bicycle Classic (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)
Not notable. Apparenlty this race existed for 5 years and was then sold for $1 which seems to indicate it was less than successful. No media or independent coverage of note. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [18]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nomination. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Withdrawing !vote. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 17:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - "No media or independent coverage of note"?? In my opinion and based on a simple search, there is enough in WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. You can see here that Velo News has an excerpt covering the race from the book "Team 7-Eleven." There is also a Denver Post article here which was syndicated to other locations including the Daily Camera here. We can also support content in the article from mentions in Pro Cycling News (Daily Pelton) here and Tour De France Life here. There are also four articles available in High Beam Research here which is a good investment if you want make claims about sources not existing. At the top of the AfD discussion, you can also click on the "books" link which is fairly easy to do. You will find sources in Google Books as well. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Plenty of coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I bow to the research of my colleagues.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Crtew (talk) 16:11, 21 June 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 (A7). (Non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skyline UFC[edit]
- Skyline UFC (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)
Recently created page likely by subject of article itself (considering the name). Team was recently created so may become notable one day but for now, this page looks spammy. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [19]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
We are notable because we won a championship! Don't do this to us Taco! --Skyline UFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by SKYLINEUFC (talk • contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High schools do not participate in MMA in any form and state high school sanctioning bodies don't deal with it at all. Unofficial student organization. Nate • (chatter) 02:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Skyline High School (Washington) —teb728 t c 04:32, 16 June 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 Black Joy. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joy (Psychic TV VHS)[edit]
- Joy (Psychic TV VHS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced affair failing WP:GNG The Banner talk 19:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Black Joy (though the excellent 1977 film should really be at that title). Unsourced is a reason for sourcing rather than deletion. I would guess that this received reviews in the music press when it came out as Psychic TV releases generally did, but little found online. I did find a Record Collector review of the combined DVD Black Joy ([20]), and it seems sensible to cover it there. --Michig (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, redirect to the existing, and more easily searchable/sourcable article on Black Joy per same reasoning offered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black (video). While each separate part of the video does exist, it is only by their being compiled together that the they received coverage meeting WP:NF. This action for this stub would have been a simple redirect action and not really neeedful of a deletion discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:43, 16 June 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 RESULT: Speedily deleted as an attack page. AFD should not have been opened; there's no need to do both. Dianna (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Bambanek[edit]
- John Bambanek (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 seems to be nothing more than attack page created by a single use account to smear someone. I have no opinion on the underlying subject, but this page needs to be speedy delete UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [21]. Unscintillating (talk) 20:47, 23 June 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. Not clear from ANI discussion whether SK#2 applies here, so regular (non-speedy) keep by week-long consensus. (non-admin closure) czar · · 20:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Elgar's Special Survey[edit]
- Elgar's Special Survey (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 notability asserted, this page is basically a description of a small piece of land with no indication why it matters. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [22]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I was able to find and add a couple of extra sources quite easily to the article. Further sources that look interesting but that I do not have immediate access to are "Rural village to urban surge" by Frederick Bradshaw which mentions it a few times, These volumes of the Victorian Historical Magazine, and quite a few mentions that come up in Trove newspapers. I contend that this volume of sustained coverage over more than a century meets the WP:GNG. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: Coverage from a long time ago till now. Historical and notable. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes GNG. Yet another Straight to AfD without a PROD. One of several disruptive AfDs by the same nominator. Dolovis (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep: The nominator was blocked as of 06:52, 21 June 2013 for sock puppetry per a discussion "Disruptive creation of groundless AFDs, probable sockpuppetry". Also, removed nominator's vote inside of nomination. Crtew (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, speedy keep. Discussed in numerous books on the history of Melbourne, since it had a lasting effect on the geography of the city. -- 203.171.197.13 (talk) 09:49, 22 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aksan Law[edit]
- Aksan Law (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 main source relied upon [23] serves primarily as a directory of recommended law firms. The other sources seen in a search are primarily directory-type results. These results, coupled with the Legal 500 result, do not meet the corpdepth requirement for significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. nn. Taroaldo ✉ 18:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:SPAM and my standards. There is not even a real claim of notability, such as a major case or transaction, or a former judge who serves as counsel. 40 attorneys in a large city such as Istanbul is not an especially large firm, and 30 years is not especially old for a law firm. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 19 June 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. KTC (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now 85[edit]
- Now 85 (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)
Pure crystal-gazing and one person's opinion of what songs should be on an album. Would have speedied it but wasn't sure what criteria, if any, would apply. Brainy J (previously Atlantima) ~✿~ (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This technically isn't even an article. SL93 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable crystal-ballery. — sparklism hey! 07:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete tout de suite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PC7705 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete speedily per WP:A9. King Jakob C2 12:18, 23 June 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. The discussion has been relisted but there is adequate participation and no new information being added at this point. Many of the arguments to keep appear to have a common and classic misunderstandings of WP:BLP1E. Substantiated arguments for general notability outside the modestly covered single crime never materialized, leaving only weak and vague claims. Weighing the arguments with this in mind, I find a clear consensus to delete. Dennis Brown / 2¢ / © / @ 03:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Beckwitt[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Daniel Beckwitt (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)
Unremarkable persons with no real claim to notability. Extensive coverage in multiple reliable sources not found. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- More to the point - this article falls under WP:BLP1E and therefore isn't notable enough. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person arrested for being a troll. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [24]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Delete Every time a new story pops up on the UIUC subreddit concerning the "ECE Hacker" a few throwaways pop up that claim to not be him but attest to the guy's genius and character and often drop non too subtle hints at his next big project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:E00:400E:3DEE:3E92:36CB:F588 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC) — 2620:0:E00:400E:3DEE:3E92:36CB:F588 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Personally, I do not believe that this relates to whether this article should be deleted. Uberaccount (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Besides the fact that he is relatively unimportant (his notoriety is very limited) the article has no other citations than the Daily Illini and the News-Gazette, neither of which provide evidence for the material in the article. Case in point, the article claims that the person in question is "known for presenting work on digital currency, anti-computer forensics and signals intelligence at computer security conferences including DEF CON, Shmoocon and Skytalks" while the linked reference (http://www.dailyillini.com/news/campus/article_1a22475e-66ab-11e2-b767-0019bb30f31a.html) has none of that information. Therefore, deletion is the proper course of action unless better sources are provided. Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed that the article is poorly sourced, but DEF CON is a major security conference, and speaking at it confers a degree of notability in and of itself. Article should be kept if better sourcing on security research can be found. Lampscooter (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)— Lampscooter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- FYI, I have added sources showing a "Skunkworks" (reported as Beckwitt's handle by the Daily Illini) delivered conference presentations at DEFCON 19 and Shmoocon 2012, but I cannot find anything on Skytalks. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 21:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If I recall <NAME DELETED> had tried this same stunt as Beckwitt and his page had been deleted. These two fall in the same category of no real claim of notability HanchoBonsa (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC) HanchoBonsa (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)— HanchoBonsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I fail to see how adding <NAME DELETED> relates to anything, besides being another current cause celeb pariah of UIUC. Comparing unpopular hackers and unpopular <JOB OF NAME DELETED> is a bit like comparing kumquats and sofas to solve a mechanics equation. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite lack of major news coverage, the oddity of the subject's crimes clearly meets the criteria for WP:CRIME. While not on the scale of say Max Vision, this clearly falls under "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual". Similar to 2012 University of Pittsburgh bomb threats or Jonathan James see: http://www.news-gazette.com/news/local/2013-01-22/former-ui-student-arrested-computer-incidents-building-damage.html98.215.9.100 (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)— 98.215.9.100 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep I agree with 98.215.9.100 - there seems to be some notablity, and I believe that this falls under WP:CRIME. Regarding the comment by User:Chimpfunkz, I agree that said information is irrelevant and not noteworthy, but I believe that the other information in the article merits keeping, although shortening. Uberaccount (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Uberaccount, I wait to see how BLP 1E does not apply here, thereby undermining the some notability it has based only on that event. If there are other reasons why he can be considered notable, I'm willing to listen to it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI would humbly disagree with Uberaccount. Under WP:CRIME, Criminals are only considered notable is, and "I quote, The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities." OR "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." Neither of these criteria are fulfilled. Therefore, this page should be deleted Chimpfunkz (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chimpfunkz, you are supposed to add a Delete/Keep statement only once. The rest are all marked as "comments"/or are unmarked. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chimpfunkz, you seem to be misinterpreting the OR clauses in WP:CRIME. Otherwise articles like Ole Christian Bach and Yves Chaudron shouldn't exist.98.215.9.100 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Both those articles have been tagged for deletion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chimpfunkz, you seem to be misinterpreting the OR clauses in WP:CRIME. Otherwise articles like Ole Christian Bach and Yves Chaudron shouldn't exist.98.215.9.100 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chimpfunkz, you are supposed to add a Delete/Keep statement only once. The rest are all marked as "comments"/or are unmarked. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's irrelevant but noteworthy that there was an off-wiki canvass attempt for this AfD. I believe it should not interfere with this AfD in any way though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fairly obvious that 2620:0:E00:400E:3DEE:3E92:36CB:F588 and HanchoBonsa are related to said off-site canvass attempt. Especially the former's totally irrelevant comments. The discussion on deletion should focus strictly on the notability and not the popularity of the subject, lest articles like James Eagan Holmes get deleted.98.215.9.100 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also find it interesting to not that the canvass attempt was to save the article, not get it deleted. Once again, I hope these above statements be judged on their inherent validity of the statements only. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was clearly a case of Reverse Psychology at play. The subject of the article is alleged to have posted in that subreddit bragging about his crimes, and enjoys very low popularity as such. Several members of said subreddit are also quite angry that the subject faced no jail time over crimes. It is fairly clear the idea was actually to try and get it deleted, without regard to notability. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder how you can be so sure of what you claim. Once again, this fact of canvassing is irrelevant to the discussion (or all discussions could be bypassed by making such open canvass). Also, given how reddit works, a direct psychology work would have been much more likely to work, and lead to much more people giving their opinions here. Signing late TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the article is very unpopular on that subreddit, the post currently has 1 upvote to 13 downvotes, and way made by a throwaway. Seems like fairly conclusive proof of successful reverse psychology at play. Had it been posted to a different subreddit where the subject was not well known, by an established account, direct psychology would have fit occam's razor here. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder how you can be so sure of what you claim. Once again, this fact of canvassing is irrelevant to the discussion (or all discussions could be bypassed by making such open canvass). Also, given how reddit works, a direct psychology work would have been much more likely to work, and lead to much more people giving their opinions here. Signing late TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was clearly a case of Reverse Psychology at play. The subject of the article is alleged to have posted in that subreddit bragging about his crimes, and enjoys very low popularity as such. Several members of said subreddit are also quite angry that the subject faced no jail time over crimes. It is fairly clear the idea was actually to try and get it deleted, without regard to notability. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also find it interesting to not that the canvass attempt was to save the article, not get it deleted. Once again, I hope these above statements be judged on their inherent validity of the statements only. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is fairly obvious that 2620:0:E00:400E:3DEE:3E92:36CB:F588 and HanchoBonsa are related to said off-site canvass attempt. Especially the former's totally irrelevant comments. The discussion on deletion should focus strictly on the notability and not the popularity of the subject, lest articles like James Eagan Holmes get deleted.98.215.9.100 (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a textbook example of WP:PUFF. Subject clearly falls under WP:BLP1E, and is thus suitable for deletion. I also fail to see how the crime was in any way unusual, and don't see any reason it should fall under WP:CRIME. 192.17.144.57 (talk) 04:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)— 192.17.144.57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- It is worth taking note that an IP address from the same subnet as this user appears to have subtly vandalized the page. The odds of that being a coincidence are around 1 in 16,777,216, and I think this should be noted. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is of marginal notability from computer security research alone, but subject's crime is enough of a man bites dog story to clearly fall under WP:CRIME. WP:BLP1E is a very weak excuse for deletion here. 64.134.127.72 (talk) 19:55, 7 June 2013 (UTC)— 64.134.127.72 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong Keep I'm not sure what isn't notable about this character. Easily falls under WP:CRIME if nothing else. This AfD reminds me of the painful John Bambenek AfD saga.208.188.247.248 (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)— 208.188.247.248 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong delete and salt. This reminds you of John Bambenek another non-notable internet troll who had to be banned repeatedly over the course of 3 years and he STILL shows up to canvass for his page. All the more reason to delete this page and investigate all the keep votes as sockpuppets or this non-sense will never end. The only think notable her, like with Bambi is an ego notable for its breathtaking size. 98.212.128.191 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I think the subject might be notable under WP:CRIME, but not a slam dunk. I think there is a lot of sockpuppeting from both sides here. It is quite funny how the user above me chose to make a few minor edits to appear to be less of a sockpuppet.107.204.46.96 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)— 107.204.46.96 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak Keep per above. Interestingly enough all those edits were removing info on John Bambenek from relevant pages such as the 2012 election results. 98.212.134.208 (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I argue this article falls under WP:CRIME, and does not fall under WP:BLP1E for the following reasons:
- The subject had some prior notability as a computer security researcher, but perhaps not enough to warrant an article alone I think this excludes from BLP:1E, but this is a judgment call. He was certainly not as notable as Dan Kaminsky, but speaking at DEFCON is highly relevant.
- The nature of the subject's crime is very unusual. Computer hacking incidents are rare, incidents against Universities are rarer, and incidents of said type without any involvement of grade modification or financial motivation are the rarest. UIUC had another hacking incident in 2012 involving hacking for financial gain that falls under a run-of-the-mill computer crime. The ECE hacker incidents on the other hand stretched over months involving an FBI investigation, had no known motive and paralleled the rare modus operandi of security actors like LulzSec.
- The nature of the subject's crimes are extremely unusual given the subject's research. The only similar case of a white hat hacker turned black hat hacker is Max Butler. A case of the reverse would be Kevin Mitnick.
- It is understandable why public sentiment may be strongly against having an article for the subject, as his crimes may have revolved heavily around attention seeking. Public support for his ultimate arrest was very high. And cleaning up the incidents involved a lot of manpower. Given all the animosity, I suspect there is strong WP:COI in many user's reasons for wanting this article deleted, namely as a punitive measure against the subject's perceived attention seeking behavior. I don't see how this is relevant to notability. Ted Bundy has an article, and he is certainly not going to win any popularity contests.
- Leitz31337 (talk) 03:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing admin - Please note the large number of accounts that are making statements not covered by policy here. Also, many of them, I suspect have some COI, which would explain their vote on this topic (when they're not making contributions elsewhere). [Note I'm saying this for both the keep and the defence sides] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete* "The ECE hacker incidents on the other hand stretched over months involving an FBI investigation" This is not true. I am an administrator for the ECE department and I can confirm that this case only involved local law enforcement. The FBI was never involved. Whoever says otherwise is not telling the truth. Also, Leitz31337 is a known alias of Daniel Beckwitt and I would argue that this is another canvasing attempt by this individual to promote himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.96.169.20 (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC) — 50.96.169.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm sorry, but you seem to have no idea what you are talking about. I highly doubt you are an "administrator" of the ECE department, and if you are, you are clearly violating WP:COI. I've personally talked with John Bambenek about this case (who was ironically hired as a defense expert witness before Beckwitt pled guilty), and I can confirm the FBI led the investigation after four covert hardware keyloggers were discovered inside keyboards in Everitt lab. You are only correct insofar as local law enforcement (specifically Carter and Geis at UIPD) led the investigation until after the keyloggers were discovered in early January. As to Leitz31337 being Beckwitt, this is highly plausible as he apparently has some form of fixation with the number 1337.107.204.46.96 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As I said in my original PROD of the article, fails notability. No real availability of sources in Google News, Google Books, the Chicago Tribune, the Daily Herald, the Rockford Register Star, TROVE or Newsbank. If sources can be found to prove notability or a claim could be made that the subject is notable under some other guidelines (like WP:NSPORTS or WP:ACADEMIC), then that case needs to be made clear in the article. --LauraHale (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think WP:BATTLEGROUND was violated here a long time ago. 98.215.9.100 (talk) 02:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete and Salt please. WP:CRIME does not apply. He picked a lock and used a keylogger. He isn't the uberhacker. He got caught because he kept flexing nuts with spoofed emails and reddit posts. The vanity here transcends even Bambenek levels. 174.231.197.180 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)— 174.231.197.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- You state "WP:CRIME does not apply", although do not provide a logical explanation beyond "He picked a lock and used a keylogger. He isn't the uberhacker", and then proceed to talk about John Bambenek. I don't really follow how any of this relates to notability. Leitz31337 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRIME states -
- The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure - Not true in this case.
- The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role.
- We see no indication of documentation for this event, nor any unusual motivation save the comments on this page that it is. Unusual is when anonymous hacks to find the online bullies of the girl who committed suicide (I forget exactly what the story was), not when a college student hacks his university campus computers. This is sufficient indication that WP:CRIME does not apply, and hence the article should be deleted. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRIME states -
- You state "WP:CRIME does not apply", although do not provide a logical explanation beyond "He picked a lock and used a keylogger. He isn't the uberhacker", and then proceed to talk about John Bambenek. I don't really follow how any of this relates to notability. Leitz31337 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrator note I have removed several trolling/personal attack/WP:BLP !votes that are obviously made to disrupt this AfD. Such !votes will not be tolerated. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: As noted above, I have removed several trolling !votes and have revdel'ed the more egregious BLP-violating votes. The closing admin is welcome to review my removal and revision deletion of these !votes. Due to the excessive amount of trolling, I have also semi-protected this AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any national or international RS on this story. Can't find anything new about this crime. DEFCON is notable, but subject wasn't notable AT IT. Not going as far as a SALT rec., but to an outsider a lot of this chatter looks like sock-trolls at a yarn convention so I wouldn't argue against it. EBY (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt the freaking earth with fire and storm: Oh for pity's sake. Fails BLP1E, fails CRIME, fails WP:GEOSCOPE. A nonentity hacking a university's computer system? Someone who barely makes the local newspaper? This ought to be a slam dunk. Let's have a brief replay of the key element of WP:CRIME for the sockpuppet horde: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role." (Emphasis mine.) The definition of "historic significance," explicitly, is in ongoing major news coverage. A handful of articles in the student newspaper does not remotely cut it.
And by the bye, once you get past the SPAs, there's only a single Keep vote beside the article creator's, amidst a small horde of Delete votes. It's starting to look a lot like Christmas ... Ravenswing 02:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E. This Afd has hung on long enough. --Bejnar (talk) 17:22, 15 June 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, UnrepentantTaco (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and ScorchFirst off, this is a renewed "Delete" because of not only an (apparently) new AofD, but also because of new and more relevant information. This article needs to be deleted once and for all. As per WP:BLP1E, Reliable sources only exist in the context of this one event (The ECE Hacker story). Outside of this, there is no evidence to any of the claims in the article. Second, he is unlikely to do anything else noteworthy. This is an important point, since the only claim to notability so far has been the ECE case. If this proves to be false in the future, then the debate can be reopened. As to the third point, whether or not the event was significant or has significance, this seems to be a different case. A simple google search reveals that the phrase "ECE Hacker" has more than 600,000 hits, with the entire first page being relevant to the search term (all the articles refer to the incident in question). However, searching Daniel Deckwitt only comes up with 37,500 hits, far less than the incident search. In addition, most of the hits refer to him as a person (facebook profile, mugshot, comments on websites) meaning that while the event MIGHT be considered important, the article's subject certainly is not. Therefore, this page should be deleted. At the very least, this page should be deleted, and a new article about the INCIDENT, the ECE hacking incident, should be made, with the subject of this article as well as this article itself being redirected to the new page on the incident. In addition, as previously mentioned, this definitely does not fall under WP:CRIME. In response to IP:98.215.9.100 (who shall be addressed later),Ole Christian Bach and Yves Chaudron exist because their crimes were noteworthy on more than a local scale. Ole stole and tried to sell a painting by Edward Munch, a well known painter, while the other aided in the theft of the Mona Lisa, one of the most well know (if not the single most) paintings in the world. Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I took the time to review some of the newer sources provided, and have found that there is no evidence to him speaking at DEFCON 19 (his name as noted is not listed as a speaker) not at Schmoocon 2012 (the same thing was done). The third link, supposed eveidence to the subject being a phonephreaker, is dead and therefore should not be considered a source. It also seems that there is a tangible amount of biased editing going on concerning this page, since I have found that on the page List of computer criminals, a new entry adding the subject of this debate, Daniel Beckwitt, was added. A simple conparison of his alleged 'notable crime' to others listed on the page shows how little significance and notability this incident had in comparison to others listed, some of whom do NOT have a page. This addition was made by IP:122.169.81.51, with further additions/corrections made by IP:98.215.9.100 who has made many corrections/rebuttals on this subject. This would indicate a clear CoI on behalf of IP:98.215.9.100, and it is my opinion that any debate made by him should be disregarded as biased. I will be deleting and correcting the article in question (Daniel Debkwitt) as well as the other article mentioned (List of computer criminals) as well as be trying to petition a ban on the IP:98.215.9.100 for a period of time. Chimpfunkz (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:CRIME, and what User:Ravenswing said. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This subject is interesting, but "interesting" is not a criterion for inclusion in Wikipedia. WP:CRIME does not provide any support for this article's inclusion, and the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Taroaldo ✉ 21:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt: Lack of substantial and persistent coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:BLP1E applies. Suspect that the high number of SPAs among the keep votes indicates sockpuppetry, and suspect that the sockmaster will try to recreate this article. Salting is advisable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I commented on the Yves Chaudron AFD and the nominator there, quite sensibly, withdrew it. I suggested, in my discussion with him, that this should probably be deleted and I remain of that opinion, though I am probably in the same place as Taroaldo in that sense. And yes, given the sock-spam here, salting might be a good idea. Stalwart111 01:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - under BLP=1E. This is a classic case of that, actually — easy call. Carrite (talk) 01:38, 16 June 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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Religious harmony in India[edit]
- Religious harmony in India (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)
We have multiple articles covering this subject Religion in India, Indian religions, either delete or merge content to those articles. Tito☸Dutta 16:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this does seem a clear case of reinventing the wheel. Nom has identified existing articles which cover this ground adequately. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to any one of the articles mentioned by the nominator. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though the material looks little now, there is wide scope of improvement. I think that the article can stay for a longer time and if it does not improve, then we can start this discussion. Thanks. --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but maybe under a different title. The concept of harmony between different religions has a long history in India. Note that the article is not saying that there is now religious harmony in India, but that lots of people want (and have wanted) there to be.Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don’t see how this topic is covered in Religion in India and/or Indian religions. (On the contrary, those two are almost same.) And the topic itself is notable, not just on merits of how many notable people have opined on it but also because there are many incidences showing it. For example, many Hindus visit Ajmer Sharif and Muslims worship Lalbaugcha Raja. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it needs a better title. But not sure what. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a article titled Religious conflicts in India and then the opposite pole of it would be Religious harmony in India. So i don't see the title as completely absurd. But i am open to another name also. (I actually also don't see whats the different between the conflicts article and Religious violence in India.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it needs a better title. But not sure what. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I said 'delete' as I felt that the stub had nothing to add to the main article already named. However it is plainly right that Religious harmony / Religious conflict (should have no -s, by the way, it's an abstract noun) be covered somewhere: the titles are certainly not 'absurd'. The only question for me is whether this pair need subsidiary articles or can be covered as sections in a main article. For what it's worth, there ought to be sections somewhere on 1) the need for harmony; 2) instances of harmony; 3) initiatives to improve harmony. All these of course need citations. So, happy to change my vote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even I, living 10,000 miles from India and mainly knowing about it through PBS documentary series, know that it's an important concept to lots of Indian people. Steve Dufour (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I nominated it for deletion there was nothing in the article other than a quote of a film actor. Note, the concept of "Religious harmony in India" is a branch of "Unity of diversity in India", which is taught is Indian schools and covers all topics like languages (India has hundreds of languages), culture, physical built differences etc. So, I'll not mind if the article is moved as a part to Unity in diversity in India.
I do not know what PBS showed in their documentary, but, see Religious violence in India. I am very much interested to see how the article is developed. To discuss "Religious harmony in India", context of Indian religion is needed, so, that article will be a better place initially. --Tito☸Dutta 18:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Religious harmony is an age old concept not only in India but large part of asia.The concept is dealt by many scholars over many centuries and certainly outgrows any recentism.If we search books on subject,obeviously, there is more than enough FA level encyclopedic content is available for the subject.
- This big enough FA level encyclopedic article on this subject can provide concise paragraphs for all rest of articles mentioned above.
- If we try to push in the article in some other article a lot of encyclopedic content meant for this article will remain out of scope/context for other articles.Work of many kings , saints, poets and scholars can not be given justice to their work on religious harmony unless we have article on this subject.
- For most asians "religious harmony" is the right wording and for that people will join here to write.The people who will be writing will be scholars and it will be maintained encyclopedic. And still if people want to change name merge it some where else it can be discussed in long run on article talk page itself.
- Is it really necessary to delete an FA level encyclopedic potential article before giving an opportunity to grow ?
- Regards
- Mahitgar (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Titodutta, there was not 'only' a quote from the actor. Instead there was other stuff as well when the article was nominated for the discussion. Following material was there in the article when the article was nominated for the deletion. Thanks. The material which was present when the article was nominated for deletion - "Religious harmony in India is a concept that idicates that there is love, affection in between different religions in India. There are examples of Muslims and Sikhs building temples.[1]In India, different religious traditions "live harmoniously. Seers of religions call for religious harmony in India.[2] For popular film stars in India like Salman Khan, festivals of Hindus and Muslims are equal.[3]" -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Steve D. Bearian (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is an important concept no doubt. The page looks promising. Should be allowed to survive and get developed into a good article over time.Shyamsunder (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw: Per Dharmadhakshya and Shyamsunder. some content added recently, let's see how it goes. --Tito☸Dutta 04:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Tiodutta, Thanks a lot. :) --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Now i can ask you to add Vivekananda's views and actions on the topic as you can do it better than anyone else. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. I'll add some content from this historic speech --Tito☸Dutta 08:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Great! Now i can ask you to add Vivekananda's views and actions on the topic as you can do it better than anyone else. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:03, 21 June 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 Omar Rodríguez-López. Possible copy-paste search term, and WP:CHEAP — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
¿Sólo Extraño?[edit]
- ¿Sólo Extraño? (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)
Not sure this meets WP:N criteria. It was tagged for weak sources and notability issues back in March with no apparent result. Only listed source is a promo website which makes me think this is WP:ARTSPAM. The article makes no clear claim to notability and a quick glance at Google didn't help. If I'm missing something let me know. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 06:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete no reason to keepPanpog1 (talk) 00:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López (although deletion would also be fine with be, considering the three non-standard English characters in the title). Nothing of substance in the article; release date can be mentioned in parent article and discography. Adabow (talk) 06:59, 13 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Omar Rodríguez-López --Bejnar (talk) 19:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, and also not really a plausible redirect due to the non-standard characters. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 00:17, 16 June 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. Speedy A7 , no indication of importance DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purests Colloids[edit]
- Purests Colloids (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)
Not a notable corp. All RS are "self published" links.(prweb, yellowpages etc.) Tyros1972 Talk 16:10, 15 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FrieNDA[edit]
- FrieNDA (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)
Portmanteau neologism with no evidence of notability or traction. Contested PROD. Richfife (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: this is a term heard much in new media, lean startup, and new product development conference settings; I can source more information on this if required. Also, though, if the feeling is very strong that this does not belong, then I will seek to add an entry in the wiktionary instead. Greyskinnedboy Talk 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? I'm not finding much of anything online. The urbandictionary listing has gotten 24 votes (two of them down) in the last 6 years. The standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. - Richfife (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Gentleman's agreement as an example of modern use. (Alternately, delete as neologism.) The term certainly looks like a neologism to me: all the references that I can find seem to stem from this blog post; it feels almost like a walled garden. A handful of sources might exist, but they only attest to personal use, rather than broader acceptance of the term, consistent with a finding of neologism. The original blog post is dated to October 2008; for having existed four and a half years, there's remarkably little out there on it. It's already referenced in Gentleman's Agreement, but perhaps the term might justify creation of an additional subsection on modern use: while "FrieNDA" (and permutations) might be a neologism, the sources indicate that the term was coined as a result of the phenomenon of making certain oral agreements. While the term might not be suitable for inclusion, the attestation for a modern use of the gentleman's agreement would be. Ourai тʃс 06:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary, with appropriate trimming. I doubt there's enough to say about it to make a truly encyclopedic article. —Darkwind (talk) 02:09, 30 May 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, czar · · 16:25, 30 May 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, LFaraone 17:15, 7 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete neologism with poor sources, not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the above - it seems to be a neologism without the level of sourcing we'd need for a standalone article. No objection to a mention at Gentleman's agreement, if there is consensus for it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:23, 20 June 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. withdrawn by nom. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stories We Could Tell (novel)[edit]
- Stories We Could Tell (novel) (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)
Not notable author. Unable to find any RS on the author Tony Parsons as well as this book. Tyros1972 Talk 16:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Really unable to find any sources on Tony Parsons? One of the most prominent English writers of his generation, NME, tv review panellist, author of Man and Boy (novel)? Here is Zoe Green's review of this particular book from The Observer. And a review-of-the-reviews of the book from The Guardian. AllyD (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable author, notable reviews of book. See referenced material in the article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I withdraw this AfD proposal as an error on my part. No need to waste peoples time on this. If someone could please close this as speedy keep.Tyros1972 Talk 17:09, 15 June 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. Fails requirements for athletes (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Schäfer[edit]
- Anne Schäfer (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)
From my searching, this player has reached no notability requirements of WP:NTENNIS or Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. No $35.000 ITF titles in singles or doubles, no main draw appearances in any WTA tournament, no Fed Cup. This is a run of the mill player that wins a round or two of the lowest events possible and picks up a 3 digit check. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the nominator; having reviewed the notability guidelines for tennis, she meets none, nor does she meet WP:GNG ... my Google News search turned up next to nothing. Go Phightins! 22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot find any information whatsoever about $35,000 women's tournaments, and they are not listed as a category of tournament in the article Women's Tennis Association. Do they exist? The subject of this article has won an ITF $25,000 tournament, which is more than 'winning a round or two of the lowest events possible'. Indeed, for tournaments up to 2007 this conferred a presumption of notability. So, the subject of this article does not meet the presumption of notability guidelines, and we need to look at the guidelines in WP:GNG. The articles in Top-Magazin and TTV informiert, which are used as references in the article, would seem to constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Coyets (talk) 15:49, 14 June 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, SarahStierch (talk) 16:07, 15 June 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. No prejudice against recreation should in-depth coverage be found. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MeLa Machinko[edit]
- MeLa Machinko (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 musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:51, 24 May 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 May 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 05:49, 24 May 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, czar · · 06:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't meet N or GNG, the links to the works as "featuring" and small roles, one being a single song on a work that sold 13,500 copies... which itself doesn't meet N. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:04, 7 June 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, LFaraone 02:20, 8 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral – I'm uncomfortable with the lack of rationale provided by the nominator here. There's some coverage in Gawker, and then a lot of brief mentions, things like "female crooners Mela Machinko and Marsha Ambrosius, both of whom display their extraordinary vocal abilities on their respective songs" in XXL or "They're also joined by vocalist MeLa Machinko, whose ghostly vocals add another layer to the track that sometimes just has too much going on at once" in Prefixmag. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:50, 18 June 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anita Rodriguez[edit]
- Anita Rodriguez (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 artist. Article was apparently created by the subject's daughter, copied and pasted directly from her website, so I stubbed and tagged. A Google search doesn't turn up any third-party sources. -Mathnerd 101 14:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Her work is in the collection of the New Mexico Capitol Collection of Art, which is a US State collection.Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 00:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per Ethicoaestheticist, assuming the facts can be corroborated. She's also exhibited in Taos, New Mexico and Charleston, South Carolina, both well-known art markets. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 19 June 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 Nawton, North Yorkshire#Education. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nawton Primary School[edit]
- Nawton Primary School (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 longstanding AfD consensus of primary schools not being assumed to be notable, I can not find references to indicate that the school is notable on its own merits. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The only thing I can find is this from a WP non-notable local paper - hardly enough. There is more (but not much) information on this school in Nawton anyway, so even no need for a merge. Acabashi (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect If the information is already where it belongs DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nawton, North Yorkshire#Education where it is already mentioned, per longstanding AfD consensus of primary schools
not being assumed to be notable,to redirect them to their school district article (USA) or locality (other countries). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply] - Redirect -- another NN Primary School. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 18 June 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 List of schools in North Yorkshire#Primary schools. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gladstone Road Junior School[edit]
- Gladstone Road Junior School (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 longstanding consensus that primary schools do not warrant an article. No reason given to explain notability. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 14:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to the town. The schools listed there, but this has additional information: notable alumni,which is appropriate content for a school. Even if all the infnromation is there, we would still redirect. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of schools in North Yorkshire#Primary schools, where it's listed. Including the names of and information about every local primary school in Scarborough, North Yorkshire#Education would, I think, be beyond the scope of that article. Deor (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- REdirect per Deor. It is a rare primary school that is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 18 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manahath Educational Center[edit]
- Manahath Educational Center (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)
Was a copyvio, but has been rewritten. However, I feel there is a promotional tone and no indication of notability (see also comment by author on article talk page). I am taking this to be an educational establishment within the meaning used at CSD, and am looking for discussion here instead. Peridon (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability of the premises independent of the Breckbill Bible College (which is also an unreferenced article). AllyD (talk) 06:06, 16 June 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 Guildford West, New South Wales. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guildford west public school[edit]
- Guildford west public school (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 primary school (I don't know what the term is for those not in the UK). Google News doesn't show any non-primary sources https://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&gl=uk&tbm=nws&q=Guildford+west+public+school&oq=Guildford+west+public+school, and http://www.guildfordw-p.schools.nsw.edu.au/years shows that it's a primary school. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Edit: Google News only shows a brief note of the school's participation in various minor events. jcc (tea and biscuits) 11:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most noteworthy elementary schools. Now who has a redirect target? Carrite (talk) 13:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is no need for a redirect, a redirect would constitute promotion of the primary school, and otherwise it is not a likely search term. --Bejnar (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per long standing practice. A mere redirect is not promotional. I would be very reluctant to disturb this consensus, for we would then be faced with an effort to prove notability for all these schools, and be debating them forever, mainly on the question of whether mentions in local sources are substantial. It's the sort of thing people here could argue both ways on for hours--and before we had the compromise, we did just that DGG ( talk ) 18:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- To its community article, (with matching postal code), Guildford West, New South Wales, since none of the school districts articles for the region have been developed yet, I'm presuming "none" includes this one. Dru of Id (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now to List of schools in Greater Western Sydney#Primary schools (K-6), where it's already listed. If the Guildford West, New South Wales article should get an "Education" section that mentions this school, the redirect can be retargeted. Deor (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Guildford West, New South Wales, as per the normal practice with Australian primary schools. Note for Americans that we don't really have "school districts" as such, thus there are not usually articles on this concept for Australia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 19 June 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. Feel free to redirect to Gurgaon. -- Y not? 15:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aarvy Hospital[edit]
- Aarvy Hospital (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)
Reference to any reliable third party source can't be found on internet. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian hospital stubs - 100 items time for a little workup --Ossip Groth (talk) 23:49, 2 June 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, Courcelles 05:03, 7 June 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, czar · · 11:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The internet provides only limited information on this hospital, mainly brief listings in various websites. However, I saw enough to know this is a 75 to 100 bed hospital. I also viewed the coordinates on satellite imagery. Any acute-care hospital by definition is considered notable. I hope someone more familiar with this hospital can locate more information on it. News articles that tell of events or services would be of help. Bill Pollard (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I added two references, albeit one has very little info, and a bit of info. See my comments in the article's "View history" listing. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a hospital infobox to make the article easier to read. Bill Pollard (talk) 12:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The Health in India link is just a page with an overview of the hospital. All of these pages are part of the website's directory of hospitals. The Sehat link is the same thing. None of the references makes this hospital notable. SL93 (talk) 08:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Look at Wikiproject Hospitals. If notability guidelines for hospitals are followed, at the very least this article should be left as a redirect page pointing to the city (Gurgaon) in which it is located and some info can be written about it there. Bill Pollard (talk) 21:10, 20 June 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 -- Y not? 17:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of 2013-2014 top 14 transfers[edit]
- List of 2013-2014 top 14 transfers (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)
Apparently arbitrary list of rugby transfers. No clear definition on what "top" means. No sources. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Top 14 is the name of the competition in question so criteria for inclusion is therefore not arbitrary. Other than that I have no opinion with regards keep or delete. Keresaspa (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay well then the title and list as a whole makes a bit more sense. Thanks! Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 18:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now until it can be merged in to a Rugby transfers by nation as is done in football. Apperently transfers between sports clubs is important in Rugby and Football in Europe. See all the lists of these kinds of articles here and delete discussions here. I edited the article to give context and added cats. Richard-of-Earth (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 11:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Super Rugby has their own list, a well maintained one though (List of 2013–14 Super Rugby transfers), don't see any reason why we should delete this list. Hope we get lists like these for other rugby union competition as well including Pro12 and the English Premiership. Rename this list to List of 2013-2014 Top 14 transfers--Stemoc (talk) 10:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Open to changing my mind on this. Not sure how notable this list is. It is not referenced (at all), which is my main concern. If there is an eventual keep I'm not sure that "transfers" is an appropriate description. Unlike football, rugby union does not have transfers as far as I'm aware, and certainly not official "transfer windows". There are "player movements" however, normally when a player is released from their contract, or their contract expires and they resign with another team – rather than transferred between teams – anyone heard of a rugby team paying a transfer fee? Anyway, not sure about notability, and the lack of references has tipped my preference to delete. - Shudde talk 12:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think it can be improved like the one for Super Rugby by using a similar table and adding sources (external links)? or do you feel we need to put the one for super rugby up for deletion as well?--Stemoc (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saw this on Planet Rugby today, its looks like they do use the term "Transfer window". If you all are wondering why one of the biggest if not the biggest rugby websites in the world does not have an article on wikipedia, its cause dumb American admins who know sh** about rugby keep deleting them even without reading them...--Stemoc (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Super Rugby one doesn't have anywhere near the problems this article does. For one, it is well referenced. This list may be improved, or it may sit there as an orphan article that is poorly written, and completely unreferenced. No one has exactly jumped in after voting keep to improve it. I'm not voting delete because of the use of the term "transfer", that can always be resolved by a move discussion if the article is kept. - Shudde talk 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but if the article was written similar to the Super Rugby one, it would be acceptable, the creator of the article didn't source any of his "transfers" which is the MAIN problem and secondly it can be further developed and I believe its actually a very important article in terms of "rugby"..I personally believe all 4 MAJOR tournaments (Top 14, Super Rugby, Aviva Premiership, Pro12) should have one of these lists...--Stemoc (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the Super Rugby one doesn't have anywhere near the problems this article does. For one, it is well referenced. This list may be improved, or it may sit there as an orphan article that is poorly written, and completely unreferenced. No one has exactly jumped in after voting keep to improve it. I'm not voting delete because of the use of the term "transfer", that can always be resolved by a move discussion if the article is kept. - Shudde talk 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Saw this on Planet Rugby today, its looks like they do use the term "Transfer window". If you all are wondering why one of the biggest if not the biggest rugby websites in the world does not have an article on wikipedia, its cause dumb American admins who know sh** about rugby keep deleting them even without reading them...--Stemoc (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't think it can be improved like the one for Super Rugby by using a similar table and adding sources (external links)? or do you feel we need to put the one for super rugby up for deletion as well?--Stemoc (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nominator obviously knows nothing about rugby - "No clear definition on what "top" means." It is the name of the highest domestic league in France. This should be speedy closed. --Bob247 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How about we keep this on topic. Rather than saying "The nominator obviously knows nothing about rugby" and making remarks about the nationality of the nominator, how about we consider whether this nomination would have occurred if this article was correctly named (didn't even use a capital for "Top", and WP:DASH has been ignored), had clearly said what a "transfer" is (there was no lead, and it's still inadequate: for example is retirement a "transfer"?), was completely unreferenced (still is), violated MOS:FLAGS (still does), and was not linked from a page in article-space (still isn't). Hardly our greatest work. - Shudde talk 10:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reminding me. Since the start of this discussion articles for 2012–13 Top 14 season and 2013–14 Rugby Pro D2 season have been created. I've linked the article to them. If I fix the dash in the name will it break the link to or from this discussion? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Did you mean 2013–14 Top 14 season rather than 2012–13 Top 14 season? Hamish59 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch, I have put it on that page now, which is where I meant to put it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Did you mean 2013–14 Top 14 season rather than 2012–13 Top 14 season? Hamish59 (talk) 11:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reminding me. Since the start of this discussion articles for 2012–13 Top 14 season and 2013–14 Rugby Pro D2 season have been created. I've linked the article to them. If I fix the dash in the name will it break the link to or from this discussion? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:15, 20 June 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 List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. episodes. I've gauged the consensus here to be be to redirect the article. Out of the 4 people who have commented, only 1 wishes to keep the article. The others wish to delete the article. It appears that those wishing to outright delete agree that the List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. episodes article covers the subject matter. Given this, I believe that a redirect is the consensus here. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. writers[edit]
- List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. writers (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 listing may be of trivia-level interest to fans of this old TV show, but I don't see how it fits into Wikipedia's editorial criteria. If there is a Gomer Pyle Wiki, this information should go there. And Adoil Descended (talk) 17:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not clear to me why these "writers" lists are being created for a bunch of shows.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Is your argument the same for the other 43 entries at Category:Lists of writers by television series or based on this series being "old"? 24.151.116.25 (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Before this gets going you might want to make this a general nom of the whole category. It is better than doing them a few at a time, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saw this on my talk page, which has the section title "There are lists of writers by television series to determine who wrote the most episodes". I think directing is more important than writing. Why not lists of directors for each show? producers?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. Writing is where it all starts, so that makes writing more important than directing. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nomination fails to articulate an appropriate deletion rationale. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Wire writers. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument I am making is WP:FANCRUFT. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:FANCRUFT: "Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its nomination and deletion, but it is not the actual reason for deletion." 24.151.116.25 (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Doesn't meet stand alone list requirements; and it seems that the entire material may already be at List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. episodes as part of the episode listing! I see no reason why we need a separate list for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:46, 7 June 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, LFaraone 02:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. List of Gomer Pyle, U.S.M.C. episodes seems to make this unnecessary. Gamaliel (talk) 18:14, 10 June 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, czar · · 11:35, 15 June 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 -- Y not? 16:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy C. Shipp[edit]
- Jeremy C. Shipp (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)
Notability seems dubious. Nomination for awards is not the same thing as winning them. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't fit the criteria. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While this is not much, it backs the article. [25] A few other citations are likely to be found with more than my 30 second search, but he did win one award at least and does have some coverage. No OR is needed to source the article and the current references are terrible, this one cite addresses some claims. Just needs more work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:57, 7 June 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, czar · · 08:20, 8 June 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, czar · · 11:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see the significant coverage from reliable third party sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Kālī Perotti Mari-Bowyer[edit]
- Maria Kālī Perotti Mari-Bowyer (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)
promotional, borderline notability, unverified information about whom she represents. The way I think these days that adds up to delete. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all is verified , on the record as well as notable does not qualify for deletion by any means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.238.243 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has a slight issue with its claims that need to be checked. Such as the "largest award" for the court victory, the claim is not backed by the AP source and constitutes OR, but the victory is cited. Needs a lot of work, but seems possible to meet GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 7 June 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, czar · · 08:21, 8 June 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, czar · · 11:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Resume-style fluff bio. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she is just a run of the mill publicist trying to live off the shine of her dead clients; there is not a single reliable source with significant coverage about this nobody. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 26 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comic Strip Classics[edit]
- Comic Strip Classics (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 stamp issue is not notable in itself, even though the characters depicted clearly are. No assertion of notability and no substantive content to article. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - It certainly got a lot of attention in 1995 when they were issued as evidenced by newspaper coverage. This article, and this article are but two examples from many google news search hits. These happen to be viewable instead of behind pay walls. The question that remain on notability then is if this has had an enduring impact or was it just a news item of the moment. There is some coverage in this book. There are some other mentions in books and some newspaper mentions like this. Admittedly not the strongest case, but for me the substantial coverage at time of issue and the smattering of coverage after barely squeaks past for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of those news sources actually discusses the issue beyond repeating the basic facts. Every US issue gets some coverage somewhere on the back of the USPS press release due to the size of the country and the number of news outlets that have to write about something, particularly with an issue with wide popular appeal like this one. It's not enough to demonstrate notability. The problem is, the stamps just re-hash existing comic characters, they have no notability as stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were only two out of lots of news coverage at the time of issue; there are others. Yes, news outlets often rely on press releases to identify things they might cover, but it is the newspaper's editorial judgment that it is worthwhile to cover, and write original prose in that coverage as opposed to simply rehashing a press release. Neither of the two examples look like press release rehashes to me. As for having no notability as stamps, these stamps were noted for celebrating the classic comics. Why these stamps are given coverage versus other releases is neither here nor there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They got the coverage because the subjects depicted on the stamps have wide popular appeal in the U.S. but that coverage was temporary and shallow, and nobody, I think, is writing about them now, because there is nothing to say. Notability is not temporary or based on one event. We have to distinguish between the notability of the subject matter of the stamps and the actual notability and long term impact of the issue as stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were only two out of lots of news coverage at the time of issue; there are others. Yes, news outlets often rely on press releases to identify things they might cover, but it is the newspaper's editorial judgment that it is worthwhile to cover, and write original prose in that coverage as opposed to simply rehashing a press release. Neither of the two examples look like press release rehashes to me. As for having no notability as stamps, these stamps were noted for celebrating the classic comics. Why these stamps are given coverage versus other releases is neither here nor there. -- Whpq (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of those news sources actually discusses the issue beyond repeating the basic facts. Every US issue gets some coverage somewhere on the back of the USPS press release due to the size of the country and the number of news outlets that have to write about something, particularly with an issue with wide popular appeal like this one. It's not enough to demonstrate notability. The problem is, the stamps just re-hash existing comic characters, they have no notability as stamps. Philafrenzy (talk) 17:56, 10 June 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, czar · · 11:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 11:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It got ample coverage. Click Google News search and see. "Notability is not temporary", which means if it was notable ever it stays notable. Long term impact is not relevant. You think most of the famous people, books, games, or whatnot, will still be something anyone cares about decades from now? Dream Focus 23:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient news coverage to establish notability. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 25 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
André Lima (martial artist)[edit]
- André Lima (martial artist) (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)
Notability not substantiated Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article does not show notability. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE. He may meet WP:GNG, but the sources are currently lacking to show it. Jakejr (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just read up on Mr. Lima. The movie, Beyond the Ring, was in was a strait to DVD flick that is not significant to meet notability. He also wrote a book He has opened two schools in LA and is listed as founder and grand master. GM in TKD is 7th Dan (out of 10 dan) and there are many out there. I also do not believe they were the first to teach TKD in LA (starting in 1995) as the World Taekwondo Festival was held in Los Angeles one year earlier (1994).MartialArtsLEO (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a difficult article to read, but I don't see that he meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG.Mdtemp (talk) 16:16, 24 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edson Carvalho[edit]
- Edson Carvalho (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)
Notability not substantiated Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article doesn't show any notability and has no sources except for a broken link to the subject's web page. Nothing to show he meets WP:GNG, WP:NMMA, or WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, cannot find suitable support for notoriety.MartialArtsLEO (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - straightforward.Deb (talk) 11:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per arguments outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 12:47, 23 June 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. Nom's deletion rationale was withdrawn, but not eligible for speedy keep due to delete !vote. (non-admin closure) czar · · 18:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jodi Arias: Dirty Little Secret[edit]
- Jodi Arias: Dirty Little Secret (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N not established; only secondary source is a copy-paste of a press release. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree the article needs a total re-write but the movie has indeed been filmed and will be broadcasted and a highly notable case.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A made-for-TV movie that hasn't even aired yet and hasn't gotten any notice that I can see. Notability is not inherited.Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- News search for Jodi Arias movie
- News search for Jodi Arias, Lifetime
- Keep The film has completed, has a set air date of June 22 2013 (next Saturday), and is getting coverage to meet both the cautions of WP:NFF and the coverage required by WP:NF. Flat-out deletion of a completed Lifetime film does not serve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: third-party sources are available now. I change my stance on this article to neutrality. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A made-for-TV movie that is not at all deserving of it's own article. Should I make an article for all movies I see on TV? Also the content of this "movie" will no doubt be very bias and negative towards poor Jodi.87.232.1.48 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreement with the content is not a valid reason to keep anything off Wikipedia. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, any "made for tv movie" could have an article if inclusion criteria are met. And if as anonymous IP 87.232.1.48 you do create articles on TV films, please make sure the topics have enough coverage. Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of film/television articles get written before the airdate. I don't see the problem here. It is about a notable topic, so meets WP:GNG. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:NF in its current state. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant amount of secondary source coverage, — Cirt (talk) 16:46, 17 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didar Hamed[edit]
- Didar Hamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. His appearance for Kurdistan, even if it can be verified, would not have been sanctioned by FIFA, meaning it does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or appeared in a FIFA-sanctioned senior international match. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:45, 21 June 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) Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seif Kadhim[edit]
- Seif Kadhim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. He has played in Allsvenskan, which is the highest level of football in Sweden and a fully professional league. The external link provided confirms it. A problem with so many articles is that they don't assert why the person is notable in the lead. Walls of Jericho (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a secondary source for this appearance? I'm struggling to find one. From past experience i know http://svenskfotboll.se can sometimes have mistakes.Simione001 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've provided a couple. Both are very helpful to me when sourcing information and checking notability. Walls of Jericho (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a secondary source for this appearance? I'm struggling to find one. From past experience i know http://svenskfotboll.se can sometimes have mistakes.Simione001 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Walls of Jericho's argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas e (talk • contribs)
- Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 10:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A contemporary, non-stats-database, source to confirm his appearance is this match report on the Sveriges Radio website. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has played in Allsvenskan, and passes WP:NFOOTY. Also seems to pass WP:GNG despite the low quality of the article. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hussein Karim[edit]
- Hussein Karim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even though the article was kept in the previous AfD from 2009 on the grounds that he has played in the 2009 AFC Cup, the consensus has since changed to that a footballer needs to play in a competitive cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues to confer notability. As his team was never fully pro, this article should be deleted. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:35, 21 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Herdi Sejamahnd[edit]
- Herdi Sejamahnd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Played with Erbil SC in the 2012 AFC Cup. Mussav (talk) 15:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a match between two teams from fully pro leagues or been capped for his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:33, 21 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Badshah Munir Bukhari[edit]
- Badshah Munir Bukhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: After cleaning up this article to get a good look at what remains after the removal of unreferenced clutter, and having searched the internet to see what Badshah Munir Bukhari has been doing, I am convinced that he does not meet notability requirements. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Older versions of this article claim that Bukhari is editor-in-chief of Khayaban. If this is "a major well-established academic journal" in it's subject area, that would meet WP:ACADEMIC#8. However, the journal's notability itself is doubtful, I think. Junior faculty like this are rarely notable, so unless reliable sources crop up, I'll stick with a delete !vote. --Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 15 June 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. SK#1: nom withdrawn, and no other deletion arguments (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver[edit]
- List of places of worship in Greater Vancouver (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)
For me this falls under WP:NOTDIR as a repository of loosely associated topics (i.e. buildings that fulfill a function such as hotels) and even some entries seemingly about to be deleted. Unlike other lists that have been independently grouped together such as heritage buildings (List of heritage buildings in Vancouver) or listed buildings or buildings specifically covered a piece of legislature. The references do not support the entries as a recognized group and are arguably a WP:SYNTHESIS of unrelated material about each one. Finally we have Category:Places of worship in Vancouver and Category:Churches in Vancouver -- not that we can't have lists and categories that fulfill the same role but there should be at least a good reason to have both. This AFD is largely tied into discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage Grill, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Stones Church, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Life Assembly. Mkdwtalk 07:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC) -- Keep and withdaw - Based upon the subsequent discussion. I think my concerns over WP:NOTDIR have been met and I happily withdraw my nomination provided it's maintenance remains diligent and it doesn't become an indiscriminate list outside WP:CSC for every single worship related building and organization. Mkdwtalk 05:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRPotentially hundreds of entries, and more since "Greater Vancouver" is the title. I haven't looked to see how many of these are truly notable. There are many that should have articles, either for architectural or historical or diocesan/HQ reasons. Theoretically given the title this could also include prayer rooms at the universities and in some hotels and other such places. Just looking, those extant already (other than Five Stones Church (which is in Category:Churches in Vancouver and shouldn't be) fit the description/parameters just laid down, though if it survives, this list should be broken down by Christian/Uewish/Buddhist/Islamic/Sikh and sundry (Kabalarian Philosophy and Unitarian Church (Vancouver) come to mind, along with other eclectic "churches" on Oak Street's "Religion Row" as well as a huge list of Sikh temples and quite a few new mosques, some of them notable for architectural reasons. There are many that come to mind that should have articles, including those I've mentioned on Talk:Five Stones Church re New Westminster, but also St. James Shaughnessy, which is a notable classical music venue of many years standing, and others in the Kerrisdale area, the old St James on West 10th (now a gymnastics school and community centre), the very notable United Church in the Japantown/East Cordova area (highly notable architecturally), and lots more, plus the ecclesiastical college chapels at UBC. And so many others the mind boggles to consider them all as viable for a list, especially when the suburbs are taken into account. And emphatically underscoring the non-notability of Five Stones Church, given the architectural prominence of those I've listed, and their often impressive histories, and more like them. Two very notably missing are St. Andrews Wesley United Church and the First Baptist Church (Vancouver) at Burrard & Nelson.Skookum1 (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Per WP:CLN, lists are a valid means of navigation and search. The possibility of having a similar category is explicitly not a reason to delete. Categories are quite unsatisfactory, as the recent case of category:American novelists shows. The reference to WP:NOTDIR is irrelevant because that tells us not to make pages in the style of a commercial directory such as Yellow Pages. It does not stop us from having lists as navigational indexes, as these are expected in any decent reference work. Warden (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:CLN, per Warden. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If so, this list should be broken down by faith/sect and a comprehensive list of notable churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, chapels and monasteries should be compiled in redlinks, to "flesh out" the category and the list, so it is as not selective and depopulated as it is; it may be better to break into separate List of churches in British Columbia (with denominational breakdown), List of mosques in British Columbia, List of Sikh temples in British Columbia, List of synagogues in British Columbia and so on - with only genuinely notable items redlinked, the others unlinked, as all places of worship in British Columbia would make too long of a single list and many are just plain not all that notable. I maintain my vote for now as I feel "places of worship" is far too broad and very minor places of worship of all kinds will make the list too unwieldy, better to break by faith/denomination into separate lists, and to cover as much ground as possible; In my own region, all the native churches (nearly all Roman Catholic) are notable in some way (some have been burned in recent times, by forest fires or arson, a few are abandoned). Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is more common practice to have lists of places of worship than lists of churches, etc. While I would be glad to see lists of churches, mosques, and Sikh temples come into being, the possibility of creating them does not suggest that this list should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If so, this list should be broken down by faith/sect and a comprehensive list of notable churches, mosques, temples, synagogues, chapels and monasteries should be compiled in redlinks, to "flesh out" the category and the list, so it is as not selective and depopulated as it is; it may be better to break into separate List of churches in British Columbia (with denominational breakdown), List of mosques in British Columbia, List of Sikh temples in British Columbia, List of synagogues in British Columbia and so on - with only genuinely notable items redlinked, the others unlinked, as all places of worship in British Columbia would make too long of a single list and many are just plain not all that notable. I maintain my vote for now as I feel "places of worship" is far too broad and very minor places of worship of all kinds will make the list too unwieldy, better to break by faith/denomination into separate lists, and to cover as much ground as possible; In my own region, all the native churches (nearly all Roman Catholic) are notable in some way (some have been burned in recent times, by forest fires or arson, a few are abandoned). Skookum1 (talk) 10:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was pretty sure this was going to be a NOTDIRECTORY situation, but these are all blue links. This is not a phone book-style listing at all, actually. Valid navigational function for Wikipedia users. Carrite (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Inquriy @User:Carrite, User:Kudpung, and User:Colonel Warden. Thank you for your feedback. I am the most concerned with NOTDIR criteria 1 and not criteria 3; the list subject is too loosely affiliating all the entries. Soem of the items on the list are seemingly going to be deleted and the creator proposes merging them into this list. This will ultimately lead to the list having non-notable entries which is acceptable under WP:CSC as long as it's verified as a member of the listed group -- which seems unlikely since I think the subject is overly broad. Has a reliable source recognized each worship place in Vancouver and named them? Probably not considering the number. I won't get into the COI or SPAM issues brought up but I am willing to withdraw my nomination if you do not think the overall subject of the list is not overly broad. Cheers, Mkdwtalk 18:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are several featured lists that closely match this one, including List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove, List of places of worship in Crawley, and List of places of worship in Worthing. These featured lists include many entries that do not have corresponding articles; such should be the case in the Greater Vancouver list as well. Neelix (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Someone just added Iglesia ni Cristo, with their church locations on the list, though the article is for the denomination's main article re the Philippines]. If the list survives and expands, inclusion of such links, especially with addresses given, reinforces the notion that this list will become WP:DIR if not regularly managed.Skookum1 (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a suitable list article by WP:LISTN and, if the topic is notable (which I find it very hard to believe it is not), then it could also include churches without articles on WP. Thincat (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but retitle to plural i.e. "Lists of" and content ultimately split to linked sublists split by faith where needed, on the models laid out in the categories associated, noting that Anglican and Catholic and Orthodox churches have separate categories, and cathedrals have their own categories spanning those denominations a similar List of cathedrals in British Columbia might be "needed", but with that name rather than GV alone due to the cathedrals in Victoria; I don't think there are any others than those there and in New West and in Vancouver; Kamloops is a diocese but I've never heard of a cathedral there; maybe there is a cathedral church, dunno. There's a few notable mosques, including the new ones on Canada Way and the one on lower 10th (12th?) in New West, both architecturally notable, and as mentioned there are quite a few Sikh temples that are notable. I'm wary of limiting this to "Greater Vancouver" even in that term's non-RD sense due to the Mennonite churches in the Valley, some of which are historic and/or architecturally notable, likewise the Sikh temples there and in Mission (the one on South Fraser Way in Clearbrook/Abby is Canada's oldest, for example), and the Mission area has a few monasteries, including a Chinese Buddhist one in Stave Falls as well as the Orthodox one in Dewdney and the famous Westminster Abbey (its church is highly architecturally notable and a Visitor Attraction) (there's also a Trappist or other Dominican or ?? one below the Abbey and a convent there). There's also a Tibetan Buddhist dzong near Nelson, and the ashrams there of the Emissaries of the Divine Light, and so on.....in the case of filming locations the "in the Vancouver area" phrase was used rather than even saying Lower Mainland, and not just because that term is "unknown outside BC", as someone complained, but because of Squamish and so on, which are not in the Lower Mainland. The Vancouver-area churches alone, if all in one list, and only notable ones, would still be too big a list if all of the faiths were listed/linked.....and I'm serious, allow in non-notable ones and you're looking at thousands of entries if it were all one list; and this will need management and group monitoring or it will grow like topsy; and issues like that Filipino sect's listing will continue to crop up, also. Maybe Lists of places of worship in British Columbia as Greater Vancouver/Vancouver area/Lower Mainland would be needed for churches, but mosques, Sikh temples, synagogues etc would be more likely as pan-provincial lists.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need for such a move. Consider List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, which has many summarized sublists. The "Lists of x" title format is normally reserved for disambiguation-like pages. Neelix (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, geez, what's your estimated size of this list, if you're so adamant it has to remain one list? do you have any idea who many notable places of worship there are in Greater Vancouver? And how would you, being in Nova Scotia as you are, and already fielding two churches here with strong notability challenges, not surprisingly surfacing in the AfDs on them, have any idea of the real notable places of worship in Greater Vancouver, and what they are? And in British Columbai?? I submit that the number of notable mosques and synagogues is fairly small, as are also "eclectic" faiths like the Mormons, Kabalarians, the Church of the Universal Man, the Unitarians, the Order of the Rosy Cross, and more? Mennonite and other more traditional, if that's the word, eclectica like the Doukhobors (who do not build churches, or never used to, Dutch Reformed and others, Bethel Temple (a type of Pentecostal) tend not to be in Greater Vancouver (Mennonites in Langley, I think, and Dutch Reformed most definitely; though the Mennonites, Dutch Reformed and Bethels do build large and often architecturally-notable places of worship......instead of creating a list where your creations Five Stones Church and Christian Life Assembly could be added next to truly notable churches and other places of worship, why didn't you create those articles instead of building this list first? Nest-building, is what I see. As per those two startups, your sense of proportion and your lack of knowledge of British Columbia are on view, though you may not understand that yet; if you're so hot to trot on places of worship, why haven't you also assayed starts on the truly notable churches in New Westminster, which very much need articles, instead of creating another place for your pet articles to be linked from? Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see our guidelines on summary style. I would also appreciate it if discussion would be restricted to article content rather than about editors. As our existing featured lists of places of worship demonstrate, entries should not be restricted to places of worship that are sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All you've done with that comment is call into question the validity of the content of those lists.....which probably need culling, like this one will ad nauseam. Above you said they were like disambiguation pages, i.e. lists of links; but if they're not notable they shouldn't have links/articles and shouldn't be listed.Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place for a discussion of inclusion criteria. Once the article has been either kept or deleted, we can discuss such things on the article's talk page. If you disagree with the inclusion of entries on the featured lists, you are free to start a discussion on their talk pages; I would be grateful if you would inform me of such discussion once they arise. Neelix (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, it's NOT the place to discuss inclusion criteria? And why is that? One of your nest of related articles just got deleted, so you are hardly the one to talk about inclusion criteria and saying this isn't the place for it. You're defending a list title that you don't even want the contents of discussed here....I'm the one from BC, Neelix, you are 7000 kilometres away and don't know the subject matter of the place you're wanting to make certain articles for and interpret policies in regard to, yet you have shown your sense of priorities re notability and inclusion, and also on geographic area, are severely lacking; and as far as I know have never been been to BC, or given your creation of articles now widely commented upon as non-notable, and saying notability and articles isn't a requirement for list inclusion, is wildly at odds with both WP:N and [[WP:LIST}}. Entries on lists must have articles to be included, or sections of articles, the exceptions are for things that will not have articles, but which are notable for classification reasons, such as the lists of historic places and heritage places where individual houses and such do not and will not have articles; they are not directories of every house, or OR claims of notability such as "certain churches"..... WP:NOTDIR also applies, obviously. And as you've noticed, I'm the one who's gone to the bother of adding the notable churches that were blatantly missing from this list, while you've been - and again here - defending the inclusion of non-notable ones, and saying they don't need links to be listed. And don't snipe at me for criticizing you, I'm criticizing your arguments as shallow and contradictory and self-justifying. And irrelevant - and evasive/deflective.Skookum1 (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the place for a discussion of inclusion criteria. Once the article has been either kept or deleted, we can discuss such things on the article's talk page. If you disagree with the inclusion of entries on the featured lists, you are free to start a discussion on their talk pages; I would be grateful if you would inform me of such discussion once they arise. Neelix (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All you've done with that comment is call into question the validity of the content of those lists.....which probably need culling, like this one will ad nauseam. Above you said they were like disambiguation pages, i.e. lists of links; but if they're not notable they shouldn't have links/articles and shouldn't be listed.Skookum1 (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see our guidelines on summary style. I would also appreciate it if discussion would be restricted to article content rather than about editors. As our existing featured lists of places of worship demonstrate, entries should not be restricted to places of worship that are sufficiently notable for their own Wikipedia articles. Neelix (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, geez, what's your estimated size of this list, if you're so adamant it has to remain one list? do you have any idea who many notable places of worship there are in Greater Vancouver? And how would you, being in Nova Scotia as you are, and already fielding two churches here with strong notability challenges, not surprisingly surfacing in the AfDs on them, have any idea of the real notable places of worship in Greater Vancouver, and what they are? And in British Columbai?? I submit that the number of notable mosques and synagogues is fairly small, as are also "eclectic" faiths like the Mormons, Kabalarians, the Church of the Universal Man, the Unitarians, the Order of the Rosy Cross, and more? Mennonite and other more traditional, if that's the word, eclectica like the Doukhobors (who do not build churches, or never used to, Dutch Reformed and others, Bethel Temple (a type of Pentecostal) tend not to be in Greater Vancouver (Mennonites in Langley, I think, and Dutch Reformed most definitely; though the Mennonites, Dutch Reformed and Bethels do build large and often architecturally-notable places of worship......instead of creating a list where your creations Five Stones Church and Christian Life Assembly could be added next to truly notable churches and other places of worship, why didn't you create those articles instead of building this list first? Nest-building, is what I see. As per those two startups, your sense of proportion and your lack of knowledge of British Columbia are on view, though you may not understand that yet; if you're so hot to trot on places of worship, why haven't you also assayed starts on the truly notable churches in New Westminster, which very much need articles, instead of creating another place for your pet articles to be linked from? Skookum1 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need for such a move. Consider List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, which has many summarized sublists. The "Lists of x" title format is normally reserved for disambiguation-like pages. Neelix (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per my changed vote to Keep, which is conditional on collegial maintenance of this page and the patrolling of it for non-notable and also external items like Iglesia ni Christo, and with my stated reservations about the size of this list and how much better demoninational lists will prevent "bloating", the title is unsuitable due to the nature of BC's religious geography, particularly the Bible Belt of the Fraser Valley, but also because of the geographically spread out and diverse nature of religion in BC, which is often not in Vancouver. A mammoth List of places of worship in British Columbia could exist on the same premises you are defending the singular "list" here, and opposing a split. The meaningful division within British Columbia that should apply, if at all, is List of places or worship in the Lower Mainland, or, as with the film locations list, List of places of worship in the Vancouver area. "Mainland/Southwest" is a Development Region and not used so far for regional subdivisions, but a list encompassing it would include all the native churches (many very notable such as the Church of the Holy Cross (Skatin) and many others which are notable; the Mainland/Southwest region comprises the Sunshine Coast, Greater Vancouver, Squamish-Lillooet and Fraser Valley Regional Districts. I'd rather see, knowing BC and its natural subdivisions better thna you do, or the people who created the Wiki-system of organizing BC by regional district, the Lower Mainland title brought into use instead of "Greater Vancouver", partly because it would be able to include the notable and often very large Mennonite and other churches of the Fraser Valley, many important Sikh temples, and the monasteries in Mission previously mentioned. Sacred places of the Sto:lo peoples also come to mind....Skookum1 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to List of places of worship in Lower Mainland or List of places of worship in the Southwest Mainland of British Columbia (the latter term so as to include the Sechelt Peninsula, Fraser Valley and Pemberton-Squamish-Whistler; the former is from Lions Bay to Yale). Sublists of large denominations can be collapsible tables as on List of communities in British Columbia. I see the point of this list now, but not any relevance at all to limiting it artificially to the metropolis when adjoining towns and minor regions have notable places of worship, i.e. the monasteries in and near Mission, the important gurdwara in Abby, and so on. I'm uncertain about including the church in Skatin though it does fit in the latter name, though not in the former; it's in the historic "old" part of the Lillooet Country but is in fact in the Fraser Valley Regional District, and in the New Westminster Land District. The Christian sublists could also be "broken up" by municipality, though I'm not sure that's a good idea or relevant. The point is that if this list is to exist at all, limiting it to Greater Vancouver (when its creator doesn't even know what the boundaries of that are, and btw they're not quite the same as that of the GVRD) leaves out important places that would be "singletons" and orphaned from the list, despite their proximity to its current name/definition.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 20 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991)[edit]
- Scott Sinclair (footballer born 1991) (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:GNG, and fails WP:NFOOTY - hasn't played in a fully professional league, and the one cup match he played in was in a 3rd-tier cup, and isn't enough for notability either. Has been tagged as failing GNG for 3 years now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this player's only claim to fame is an 18 minute cameo in a lowly cup competition. He fails WP:GNG comprehensively, which outweighs the fact he only barely/technically passes WP:NFOOTBALL. It has been four-and-a-half years since his sole appearance, he is unlikely to make any more and he will probably never get any more notable. There is also plenty of consensus that barely passing NFOOTBALL but clearly failing GNG does not make you notable, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oscar Otazu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vyacheslav Seletskiy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandr Salimov, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrei Semenchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artyom Dubovsky, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmos Munegabe and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marios Antoniades. GiantSnowman 08:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per GiantSnowman. Narom (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has received insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, which outweighs the fact that he barely passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In the past there seems to have been an unwritten rule where a player who appears in a cup game between two professional sides is notable, which isn't something I'm comfortable with. I've never created an article about a player who has only made an appearance in the Football League Trophy, as far as I can remember; others have created many. He fails WP:GNG and he will probably never play at a sufficiently notable level to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Walls of Jericho (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- He seems never to have appeared for his first team. If he had he might be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with GiantSnowman and Walls of Jericho; fails WP:GNG. JMHamo (talk) 12:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even though there is a consensus that playing in a cup-match between two teams from fully pro leagues confers notability, we shouldn't keep articles that fails WP:GNG and fades into obscurity. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:30, 21 June 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. Rename discussion can continue on article talk page. (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of the Blues[edit]
- Battle of the Blues (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)
None of these articles listed in this disamb are the actual article titles Cossde (talk) 06:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Redirects are fine, they don't need to be the actual titles. These articles assert that the event is also known as Battle of the Blues in all but one of the linked articles, and that one meets MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 06:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOT TO BE DELETED: It is not necessary to have exact titles. Articles that are already there are also called Battle of the Blues even though all of them do not have actual title. Real issue isn't article Battle of the Blues but nominator User:Cossde. Any article or reference that has Royal or related to Royal College Colombo that isn't in taste of User:Cossde will be somehow converted to own liking (main reason in my view is designated royal status). An administrator should immediately intervene and deal with this situation (Wo2gana (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)).[reply]
- Keep, disambiguates WP ambiguity, regardless of the actual article titles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the nominator's rationale has no basis - there is no requirement for a dab page to link directly to articles. The fact that there are so many cricket matches called Battle of the Blues makes this dab page a necessity.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems like a perfectly valid DAB page to me....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - because it does what it's supposed to do, but isn't it really a WP:SETINDEX? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I just got rid of all the pipes, and now I'm not so sure. This is a strange one in that none of the articles listed even contain the term "Battle of the Blues". Is there a precedent for this type of dab page? It sort of seems like it should be List of cricket matches referred to as Battle of the Blues per List of beings referred to as fairies but categorized as a set index (Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Set index articles says:
A set index article is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name.
The green text above doesn't mention whether the "same (or similar) name" must be the Wikipedia article's name or can be also called, so I'm not sure if this qualifies as a set index.) (Search this string: List of referred to as) Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see the point made by Cossde but I think these names count as similar names. Since they can create an ambiguity I think this page should be kept. Thanks. Nishadhi (talk) 15:25, 18 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lynn[edit]
- Michael Lynn (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 about a non-public person and its entirely about a minor event. It should either be removed or replaced with an article about the event instead. Michael Lynn (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement from Michael Lynn
- So full disclosure here: I am the subject of this article (Michael Lynn). I don't really have any huge problems with the content of this article, and I'm not necessarily arguing that this content be removed; but if its going to remain it really would be much better as an article about the "Ciscogate" event. If that event itself isn't notable enough for an article then surely I'm not. The problem I have with it as it is, is that there is considerably more about me than just these two days in las vegas in 2005. You wouldn't know that to read my bio here though. It has the effect (unintentionally) of skewing the perception of me, making it not objective.
- Furthermore I think this is a clear-cut example of WP:BLP1E . I meet all three of the criteria for WP:BLP1E :
- 1. All the articles about me (sited here and elsewhere) all center around this one event.
- 2. I am not still in the public eye, and I assure that if I have anything to do about it I won't be again.
- 3. This event could hardly be considered to be "significant" (keep in mind that the example for significant given here is an attempted presidential assassination).
- I don't really mind you creating an article about the event itself. I don't even mind if you then redirect my name to that event. But by having a bio page on me that only talks about one 48 hour period of my life its making a unfair picture of me and inherently creates a non-neutral point of view.
- To close, I think the following wikipedia policy (WP:BIO1E) demonstrates that this is a clear example for deletion of this article:
Another issue arises when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Generally in this case, the name of the person should redirect to the article on the incident, especially if the individual is only notable for that incident and is all that that person is associated with in source coverage.
- --Michael Lynn (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
or maybe merge to Cisco IOS if there is any value in doing so from a "controversy" perspective. Pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E and probably WP:NOTNEWS too. Stalwart111 08:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, on a strong presumption of WP:BLP1E. Michael Lynn is a pretty common name so searching for it brings up a lot of other people (most prominently, an Irish lawyer who seems to have been in some trouble with the law, himself) so, if he was notable for something else, it might be hard to find it and to make the connection. Searching for "Michael Thomas Lynn" in Gnews gives the Wikipedia article and three stories from local newspapers, none of which appears relevant. I've read all the sources and external links in the article and none of them contains anything like, "Michael Lynn, also known for X" that would hint at any other notability. Any merge of material to the IOS article should, I think, be based on an assessment of its technical significance, not from the "controversy" angle; big companies throw around lawsuits all the time. But recreate the article if he assassinates the president, OK? ;-) Dricherby (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha, yes. My point about the IOS merge was that the "controversy" itself might be considered a significant part of the history of the product, in which case it should be included in the article about the product. If not, then it's a moot point. I mean, I'm not advocating the creation of a "Controversy" sub-section or anything like that. Stalwart111 13:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there already is a section on "Security and vulnerabilities" in the Cisco IOS article. Add one or two lines there from the most reliable sources, and then no need to keep this one, or even a redirect. W Nowicki (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There already was a mention in Black Hat Briefings and I added a little to the Cisco IOS article, which might be enough. W Nowicki (talk) 23:57, 18 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stax Inc.[edit]
- Stax Inc. (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)
Not notable, couldn't find any references that weren't press releases. Nothing much changed since previous deletion Bhny (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Previous AfD deletion was in August 2007; a WP:SPA recreated the article just over a year later. The BusinessWeek standard company overview confirms existence; nothing found to demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH notability though. AllyD (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Salt: It wasn't notable in 2007, it's not notable today. Since SPAs keep popping up to create these blatantly promotional articles, let's just ensure they can't, any more. Ravenswing 21:34, 15 June 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: withdrawn by nominator and no responders were in favour of deletion. (Non-admin closure.) Dricherby (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Box Office Poison (magazine article)[edit]
- Box Office Poison (magazine article) (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 is about a 1938 magazine article. The sources are a copy of the article and a sentence quoting it in relation to a celebrity. There seems to be no historical significance. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: SL93, did you try to search for sources before posting for AfD? Per WP:BEFORE (D2 in particular), we should make an effort to look for them. A quick search in Google Books shows a lot of results right away. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. I see three books that don't even mention this article. Instead of asking me if I searched for sources and telling me about something that you're not even sure if I know or not, you should probably say your comments about the article. SL93 (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another search did reveal more, but as trivial mentions and box office poison referring to something else. Multiple sources do not automatically equal significant coverage. Please mention sources and how they show notability. SL93 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn: Notable as per another search. No one does the same searches or at the same time so assumptions of someone not searching for sources makes no sense. SL93 (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (had edit conflict with SL93 above) because there is significant coverage about the topic. Below is a sample from this year and each of the two preceding years; there is much more in search results.
- Better Left Unsaid: Victorian Novels, Hays Code Films, and the Benefits of Censorship (2013): "The key, it seems, to understanding the box-office poison list of 1938 on which Hepburn was so famously and pejoratively placed is to bear in mind the identity of the list's author: Harry Brandt, the president of the Independent Theater Owners of America (ITOA). Brandt's goal in taking out a full-page ad in the trade press declaring the toxic status of stars like Hepburn, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Joan Crawford, and Fred Astaire was to protest the studio practice of 'block booking'—a practice wherein independent exhibitors were forced to pay for blocks of several different films in order to rent the one film that they actually wanted to play. Brandt's list was, therefore, meant to discourage the studios from casting the actors and actresses who were considered to be 'unappealing' by the ITOA's primary clientele."
- Radio Pictures: A Titan Is Born (2012: "Besides the loss of Katharine Hepburn, the studio also watched helplessly as Fred Astaire's reputation declined. Astaire was listed by Harry Brandt of the Independent Theatre Owners Association as being among the 'box-office poison' contingent. The story was picked up by Time and Newsweek, much to the dismay of Astaire and RKO. Actually, the charge was ridiculous. Only one of Astaire's films (A Damsel in Distress) had ever lost money. Despite the studio's attempts to secure retractions from the Independent Theater Owners and Time, none was forthcoming. And by the end of the year, Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers had disappeared from the upper echelon of Hollywood's box-office champions."
- America Reborn: A Twentieth-Century Narrative in Twenty-six Lives (2011): "Harry Brandt of the Independent Theater Owners of America declared that Hepburn was box-office poison, placing her at the head of a list that included Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo, and Marlene Dietrich. Alarmed, RKO kept good scripts away from her, and in 1938, they finally offered her a role in a B movie, Mother Carey's Chickens... Then Cukor came to the rescue, offering her the starring role in Holiday with Cary Grant... It was a polished film, rather than a great one, and was helped by Cohn's defiant publicity campaign, which included billboards with the question: 'Is it true what they say about Hepburn—that she's box office poison?'"
- These were all easy to find when searching "box office poison" "harry brandt" in Google Books and focusing on specific years (to get the best results for each year). Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 04:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while the article doesn't really make it clear, it did have an impact on the movie industry at the time. Our article on Dolores del Río gives several paragraphs to her "box office poison" status, for example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:59, 15 June 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 as oldest man ever to live in New York City. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Berner (supercentenarian)[edit]
- Carl Berner (supercentenarian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see how this article made it past the first AfD discussion. This man was never the oldest in the United States, or the oldest man. He was the oldest man in the Northeastern United States, and the 2nd oldest in New York City (behind Susannah Mushatt Jones. Does this truly qualify one for a Wikipedia article. Also, some users in the first discussion noted that he was a civic activist and toymaker well known in his area. That does not qualify him for a Wikipedia article visible to the world. Ikeepforgettingmyusernameandcre (talk) 02:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - nominator is obviously another sock of notorious sock-puppeteer DogsHeadFalls. He'll be blocked soon enough, this AFD will be closed as speedy keep and we can all move on with our lives. What a massive waste of time. Previous AFD (from another sock of the same person) is here. Stalwart111 03:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the nominator's status on Wikipedia, this is not a discussion on their credentials. This is a discussion on the notability of Carl Berner about whether he merits an article of his own. I have to agree (Delete) because he was never notable for anything other than being the 2nd oldest American man, and the fifth oldest man at the time of his death. He can be mentioned in a list, but not an article of his own with as much detail as this article has.74.75.219.176 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His "status" is blocked, as yet another confirmed sock puppet of DogsHeadFalls. This nomination is just a failed, pointy attempt at block-evasion. Stalwart111 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Berner is not notable because the nominator of this afd is a sock puppet. Likewise, if the nominator was a legitimate user, that is not what would make Berner unnotable either. There is no relation. Berner is not notable independent of whether the nominator is blocked or not, or a sock puppet. If the nominator nominated an article about the 5th cousin of Barack Obama (for no reason other than being the President's cousin), they would be right in nominating it for deletion, whether they are a sock puppet or not. Berner is still not notable enough for anything more than maybe a redirect or a mention in the List of supercentenarians from the United States. I still vote delete74.75.219.176 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to !vote all you like - this was nominated only recently and cosensus determined the subject was notable. Nominating the article again so soon would be considered disruptive even if the nominator were not a sock-puppet. But he is, so we don't even need to bother with arguments about whether this should have gone to WP:DRV instead. Stalwart111 18:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ha ha - I've just had a look at your contributions - you're obviously DogsHeadFalls. LOL, how pathetic. Stalwart111 18:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl Berner is not notable because the nominator of this afd is a sock puppet. Likewise, if the nominator was a legitimate user, that is not what would make Berner unnotable either. There is no relation. Berner is not notable independent of whether the nominator is blocked or not, or a sock puppet. If the nominator nominated an article about the 5th cousin of Barack Obama (for no reason other than being the President's cousin), they would be right in nominating it for deletion, whether they are a sock puppet or not. Berner is still not notable enough for anything more than maybe a redirect or a mention in the List of supercentenarians from the United States. I still vote delete74.75.219.176 (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- His "status" is blocked, as yet another confirmed sock puppet of DogsHeadFalls. This nomination is just a failed, pointy attempt at block-evasion. Stalwart111 07:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the nominator's status on Wikipedia, this is not a discussion on their credentials. This is a discussion on the notability of Carl Berner about whether he merits an article of his own. I have to agree (Delete) because he was never notable for anything other than being the 2nd oldest American man, and the fifth oldest man at the time of his death. He can be mentioned in a list, but not an article of his own with as much detail as this article has.74.75.219.176 (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to close - article was nominated only recently and closed as keep - this nomination is pointy, disruptive and constitutes block-evasion to boot. Stalwart111 18:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd close as SK#2, but the IP editor wasn't found to be a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DogsHeadFalls/Archive, so the delete !vote technically bars that closure. czar · · 05:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - on priciple. Bad-faith and pointy nomination supported only by quack-tastic IP. If a solid mass of genuine editors want to support deletion then I'll yield. Stalwart111 10:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. IMHO, significant coverage puts this past GNG. Nominator is welcome to disagree, but in this case nominator has demonstrated he or she is clearly here for some reason other than creating the best online encyclopedia. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 24 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tiffany J. Curtis[edit]
- Tiffany J. Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to establish notability, per WP:NACTOR. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (confer) @ 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 12:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, she has had very few roles and nothing that can be considered an independant reliable source comes up in Google. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:40, 30 May 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, Courcelles 05:27, 7 June 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, czar · · 00:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- aka:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. She's had some film roles, but none of them seems to have been important enough to catch any media attention. Fails WP:GNG. And without the roles being determinable as significant to these productions, we have a failure of WP:ENT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:12, 19 June 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nandini Sahu[edit]
- Nandini Sahu (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)
Completing nomination on behalf of User:Souravmishra26, who I have asked to come by and provide a rationale. In discussion with User:Kuyabribri on their talk page, Souravmishra26 indicated that their concerns included the quality of the references and the possible lack of notability for the subject. On the merits, I make no recommendation, but do note that some cleanup has taken place in the past 24 hours. Is it sufficient? I dunno, that's for y'all to sort out. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks Ultraexactz, I came across this article and since I read often on the field of Native American Literature and was looking through more articles to read- I was surprised on the content of this page. The RATIONALE behind it is that, it appears that all the content is person-promoted. There is no creditable authenticity. If you choose to believe the homepage of author, then its fine. (On a similar argument, I could create a webpage declaring I am a Fields Medal winner of or 2012. You have to choose to believe the accuracy). Here are my specific comments even after the cleanup has weeded many advertisement phrases:
- The websites in the Reference list aren't creditable sources. They appear as regular blog sites, news sites . Information gleaned from blogposts and local newpapers doesn't establish the person is of national repute and recognition. In the Press Trust of India communications/newsletters, Ms. Nandini Sahu doesn't figure as a "writer, critic, poet". By virtues of lack of record, this appears to be a self-created page for publicity.
- All that could be found is a blogspot reference - kavinandini.blogspot.com. But then this would entertain every WP/Blogger user to create his/her own Bio page. WIkipedia article biogrpahical entry as I believe has to have some universal unbiased contribution independent from sources which appear heavily reliant on the subject's own homepage/webpage and obscure newsfeeds.
- It has been mentioned she got 2 medals - But there are no references to attest to the fact. The award section is completely bogus.
- There are no references of which University she received her graduation diploma - an easy way to see the graduation year page and verify academic credibility.
- All India Poetry Contest and Shiksha Ratna Purashkar aren't recognized awards - I can't find any reference to awardees or their lists.
- Can't find the reference "A.C. Bradley Oxford Lectures On Poetry - Page 400 1999 "Also of Interest The Post-Colonial Space : Writing the Self and the Nation, Ed.Nandini Sahu". Can we trust it?
- The below mentioned like appears more like a Personal Statement/ Statement of Purpose entry
- "She received her Ph.D degree on Indian English poetry under the guidance of prof Niranjan Mohanty. She is also obtaining D.Litt, on Native American Literature.[7] She is serving as an associate professor of English language at the Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi.[8] She has also attended national seminars."
- List of Indian Poets and List of Indian writers lists honorable and distinguished people. I can attach screenshots of 5 emails sent to random people in the literary circle who have no clue who this person is?
- BOTTOMLINE: Are we allowed to keep self-promoted biographies whose content is so dubious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravmishra26 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks UltraExactZZ for completing this nomination. I just wanted to chime in here that I came across this article quite by accident on a routine check of Category:Proposed deletions needing attention. Souravmishra26 (talk · contribs) and I kind of got off on the wrong footing because s/he incorrectly interpreted my enforcement of the "no prod after AfD discussion" policy as my advocating keeping this article. I did remove some of the most blatantly promotional, WP:PEACOCK text from the article in an attempt to improve the article and address at least some of Souravmishra26's concerns before resorting to deletion, but ultimately I have no argument one way or the other on the merits of the deletion nomination. Cheers, —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kuyabribri, Its alright. I don't think I have taken any offence. Maybe my style of writing is bit blunt. Apologies for that. No wrong footing from my side. :) Besides that, I find the basic premise of this article pretty tenuous. I generally would edit ( I do that on the fly), but I guess I have nothing else to this poorly written article. Thanks and cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Souravmishra26 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 June 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, czar · · 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kabirat (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some of the comments above seem to be mud-slinging. Regarding "academic credibility", there is no need for the article to say where the subject obtained her degree. This and this say she is an associate professor at IGNOU. Is there any reason to doubt it? Regarding her own page here, it is not self-published but I don't know what editorial control is exercised by the university. However, some things pointed out are strange. Oxford Lectures on Poetry by AC Bradley is a 1909 long out-of-copyright book that has been reprinted many times.[26] Originally it had 395 pages. I see a 1999 edition here but the Sahu reference is merely an "also of interest" on the back cover. The book obviously never had any content relating to the subject. I think the article needs careful review. However, the subject is a senior academic with published poetry which has been reviewed and well-received (though how independent the publishing and reviewing has been I cannot assess). A more objectively written and rigorously referenced article should then be considered for notability. Thincat (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is third time nomination for deletion, it is just personal motivation of a user, wikipedia should not bear this behaviour. Justice007 (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- per balance of discussion and notes at last AfD which just happened a few months ago. There was a previous delete decision so it's not totally egregious, but still AfD is not a place where you can keep listing until the result your want is achieved. Leave the article and discuss again in a few years. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:59, 18 June 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. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Dube[edit]
- Kyle Dube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:PERP, subject has been charged but not convicted. January (talk) 07:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (gab) @ 10:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 10:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has recieved national headlines and is ongoing. Meets CRIME for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRIME specifies that for perpetrators, either "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure" or "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event", neither of those criteria apply here. January (talk) 16:39, 7 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:41, 7 June 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, czar · · 00:04, 15 June 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. Secret account 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of books published by Mercury Ink[edit]
- List of books published by Mercury Ink (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)
Inappropriate promotional list DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 17:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, looks like this is just Glenn Beck's company publishing Glenn Beck's books. There's already a list for that at Glenn Beck#Books, and Mercury Ink is just a redirect to TheBlaze, Beck's media company, so there's no basis for treating the publisher as a separate topic from either that company or Beck himself, particularly not if all it's done is publish Beck's books. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just redirecting to Glenn Beck#Books might be a quick and dirty way to resolve this AFD. postdlf (talk) 22:13, 30 May 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, LFaraone 17:13, 7 June 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, czar · · 00:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Green Date[edit]
- Green Date (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 indication of meeting notability guidelines at WP:NBAND. No significant coverage in WP:reliable sources. Most tribute bands are never going to make the notability guidelines and I am seeing nothing here or on google to suggest this one will. noq (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Looking at the performances they have had, then I would consider them to have enough notability for a tribute band. There are other tribute bands on wikipedia. User226 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does it meet WP:NBAND - just because some tribute bands become notable does not mean all tribute bands are. noq (talk) 08:51, 9 June 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, czar · · 00:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for keeping, and I see no reason that this one is notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - on the basis of an online search, their notability is in question. The claim to have headlined a free gig in a las vegas shopping mall is unsubstantiated (they're not even listed). Other than that they appear in listings for local events in the North of England. The news source listings that exist give the impression they're copied from Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Funny band concept. No opinion about notability. Carrite (talk) 14:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't find any notability after online search. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:57, 15 June 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.