Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ender's Game#Video game. Nothing left to merge. (non-admin closure) czar · · 04:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ender's Game: Battle Room[edit]
- Ender's Game: Battle Room (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:PERMASTUB; this has two citations to Newsweek and one to the publisher's website, and it is extremely unlikely for more sourced info to develop. Ypnypn (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm leaning more towards merging and redirecting. I do want to warn people that there are some false hits such as this one where we get mentions of the upcoming (and completely awesome looking) film, so be careful about searching. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ender's_Game#Video_game. I can find announcements of it being planned and a few of it being cancelled, but that's really where this ends. I think this merits a mention on the main page, but that's pretty much it. It doesn't merit its own page at this time, if ever. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / Redirect, for reasons that have already been explained pretty well. TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 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) 18:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Menugate[edit]
- Menugate (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)
One week-long political controversy, does not meet notability guidelines. Slac speak up! 23:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well it's only been a week! I was surprised to see so many media references actually - this first appeared in List of scandals with "-gate" suffix and I was just going to delete the entry as a minor affair until I checked how many hits it got. Looks to be at least as significant as Utegate as regards media attention, and combined with Gillard's sexist-feminism speech and the Sattler sacking it's turned into quite a saga. Given the level of media attention Gillard is drawing in the run-up to the election, who knows how long we'll continue to see "Menugate" reverberating on the front page? --Pete (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear violation of WP:NOTNEWS as far as I am concerned. The speech and Sattler's sacking were entirely unrelated and it would be blatant synthesis to rope them together and claim they were one in the same. If "menugate" (a term used by only a couple of media outlets) has a longer term WP:EFFECT (though I don't think it will) then it can always be recreated. Stalwart111 01:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno about a couple of news sources. ABC, Murdoch and Fairfax - which have most of the market - are currently running stories. It's obviously widely covered within Australia and current. Google is showing a host of smaller outlets. Not that I'm carrying a torch for the article, but if Utegate marked Turnbull's demise, then Menugate seems to be ushering Gillard out. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think it would be fair to say they did run stories, but except for the Mal Brough follow-on there's been virtually nothing beyond those first few days. What else can you say about a crude joke other than someone made it and some people who shouldn't have been involved in its making had to front the media and stifle their laughter? I'm not convinced it's fair to say this has/will have an impact on her broader career, even in the context of an election campaign that might be the end of said career. Stalwart111 06:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't get the impression they were stifling laughter. What was interesting was the way Gillard jumped on it and the way it backfired when she was attempting to portray herself as the target of sexist attacks. The big drop in support amongst men that followed just fanned the fires. So it's part of a wider and longer story. We're seeing the term continue in the media. Anyway, this thing's got a few more days to run, let's see how it goes. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box” is not a sexist attack Pete? Djapa Owen (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, it wasn't intended for her eyes. How can you hit a target you aren't aiming for? Second, she blamed people who had nothing to do with it. She was left with egg on her face and her only response politicobabble from the "Yes, Minister" handbook. All she had left was innuendo and allegation. No evidence, you see. That's how it tied in - the menu itself was a private joke, but Gillard made it into something notable. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So if someone insults you behind your back that is not offensive? If you discuss a woman's genitalia when she is not there that is not sexist? Strange values there. Of course that still has no impact on whether the Menugate article has merit or not, but then half the discussion on this page does not relate to that either. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, it wasn't intended for her eyes. How can you hit a target you aren't aiming for? Second, she blamed people who had nothing to do with it. She was left with egg on her face and her only response politicobabble from the "Yes, Minister" handbook. All she had left was innuendo and allegation. No evidence, you see. That's how it tied in - the menu itself was a private joke, but Gillard made it into something notable. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- “Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail – Small Breasts, Huge Thighs & A Big Red Box” is not a sexist attack Pete? Djapa Owen (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't get the impression they were stifling laughter. What was interesting was the way Gillard jumped on it and the way it backfired when she was attempting to portray herself as the target of sexist attacks. The big drop in support amongst men that followed just fanned the fires. So it's part of a wider and longer story. We're seeing the term continue in the media. Anyway, this thing's got a few more days to run, let's see how it goes. --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think it would be fair to say they did run stories, but except for the Mal Brough follow-on there's been virtually nothing beyond those first few days. What else can you say about a crude joke other than someone made it and some people who shouldn't have been involved in its making had to front the media and stifle their laughter? I'm not convinced it's fair to say this has/will have an impact on her broader career, even in the context of an election campaign that might be the end of said career. Stalwart111 06:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno about a couple of news sources. ABC, Murdoch and Fairfax - which have most of the market - are currently running stories. It's obviously widely covered within Australia and current. Google is showing a host of smaller outlets. Not that I'm carrying a torch for the article, but if Utegate marked Turnbull's demise, then Menugate seems to be ushering Gillard out. --Pete (talk) 01:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pete - I think there's a few of them who would have had a good laugh at the menu in private. It was meant as a joke and satirical menus are a staple of food humour. There are well-known sandwich shops where you can get yourself a Justin Bieber butty or a Lindsay Lohan sub. This was just a bit cruder. But yeah, plenty of time for others to weight in. Stalwart111 08:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see anyone laughing. Nobody was reported as laughing. They all seemed genuinely appalled. It was appalling. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, maybe it's just a matter of me not reading that much into it. Some people created a crude joke and got busted for it. They called it a "light-hearted joke" and I'm inclined to believe that was the intention, rather than that they intended to be appalling (though that may have been the outcome). Stalwart111 11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence doesn't support this. There's nothing to link the menu with anybody but the restaurateur - or even the fundraiser. The fellow who eventually made it public did so as part of the sexism storm that Gillard had created. The second time he had sent it to Labor people and this time it was used to attack the Liberals in the precise context of the sexism/feminism row. This is Tony Abbott's Liberals, this is what they're like and I think the real risk for Australia is if Mr Abbott was ever Prime Minister it wouldn't be a question of what's on fundraising menus, we would see this lack of respect for women littered through all of his government policy documents," the PM said.[1] If Gillard hadn't made a fuss, thinking that she had indeed "busted" the Libs, then there would have been no "Menugate". This is more than just a joke menu. This is part of the wider picture. --Pete (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's kind of my point - that quote is from the restaurateur. He created it as a joke with his son. Someone posted it on Facebook and the ex-employee got his hands on it and suggested it had been prepared for a fundraiser based on his experience of similar menus being created previously. Whether any of that is true? Who knows. But I still don't think it was originally created for anything other than a silly laugh. Stalwart111 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's Julia Gillard's quote. That's what makes this more than a silly joke. We might all chuckle at How Green was My Cactus, but none of the jokes there make it onto the front page as a Prime Ministerial speech. --Pete (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's kind of my point - that quote is from the restaurateur. He created it as a joke with his son. Someone posted it on Facebook and the ex-employee got his hands on it and suggested it had been prepared for a fundraiser based on his experience of similar menus being created previously. Whether any of that is true? Who knows. But I still don't think it was originally created for anything other than a silly laugh. Stalwart111 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The evidence doesn't support this. There's nothing to link the menu with anybody but the restaurateur - or even the fundraiser. The fellow who eventually made it public did so as part of the sexism storm that Gillard had created. The second time he had sent it to Labor people and this time it was used to attack the Liberals in the precise context of the sexism/feminism row. This is Tony Abbott's Liberals, this is what they're like and I think the real risk for Australia is if Mr Abbott was ever Prime Minister it wouldn't be a question of what's on fundraising menus, we would see this lack of respect for women littered through all of his government policy documents," the PM said.[1] If Gillard hadn't made a fuss, thinking that she had indeed "busted" the Libs, then there would have been no "Menugate". This is more than just a joke menu. This is part of the wider picture. --Pete (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, maybe it's just a matter of me not reading that much into it. Some people created a crude joke and got busted for it. They called it a "light-hearted joke" and I'm inclined to believe that was the intention, rather than that they intended to be appalling (though that may have been the outcome). Stalwart111 11:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't see anyone laughing. Nobody was reported as laughing. They all seemed genuinely appalled. It was appalling. --Pete (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pete - I think there's a few of them who would have had a good laugh at the menu in private. It was meant as a joke and satirical menus are a staple of food humour. There are well-known sandwich shops where you can get yourself a Justin Bieber butty or a Lindsay Lohan sub. This was just a bit cruder. But yeah, plenty of time for others to weight in. Stalwart111 08:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A minor story in the broader scheme of things. Proved that there are people with poor taste in society. But we all know that already. Just some excited political animals wanting to document everything they get worked up about. HiLo48 (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering that the first mention of the term was by an ALP attack squad aimed at Mal Brough, I dunno. Different sides of politics get worked up about things the other side would like hushed up, it seems to me. Perhaps we should steer a middle course. The criterion for inclusion is whether we think people will go looking for the term in times to come. If we don't have an entry for it, then their search will fail. Doesn't mean we have to have an article for everything, but hey, storage is cheap. The criteria is notability, not whether anyone personally thinks it should be in or out to suit their political preferences, don't you agree? --Pete (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Stalwart111 and HiLo48: this fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, if it does not warrant an article in its own right, perhaps into [Julia Gillard, section Gender politics] as this is a significant demonstration of the moral character of the Coalition's senior ranks. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it was the restaurant owner, not "the Coalition's senior ranks". Even if it were, how would merging to Julia Gillard be relevant? She was only one of the people "attacked" by the menu. If we had an article for the restaurant, we could merge it there. That's about it. Stalwart111 12:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. --Surturz (talk) 04:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No lasting notability pbp 19:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like we can call this one can't we? It looks like it is a great excuse for a debate but not much of a topic for an article. Djapa Owen (talk) 12:29, 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 10:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan Bedford Forrest II[edit]
- Nathan Bedford Forrest II (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)
May not satisfy WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's my understanding that a Grand Dragon was the head of the KKK within an entire state. Therefore seems notable enough to me in his own right. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have not seen a guideline or even a "common outcome" convention that a state-level head of a racist organization gets inherent notability. Is there a better keep argument than "Seems notable?" Edison (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't one. It merely seems like common sense. The fact the organisation he headed was racist is utterly irrelevant to his notability. The fact he was a senior member of a notable organisation is what makes him notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- though repugnant, article in the NYTs plus being head of a college (WP:PROF#C6, common outcome) gives him notability (notoriety?) in his own right. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: First off, the GNG explicitly debars quotes from a subject on another issue as supporting the subject's notability; since the Times article isn't about Forrest, it doesn't support his notability. Secondly, the "college" was an obscure startup that lasted only four years before going belly up and being sold to the Klan, after which it folded the next year -- and by the bye, Forrest was the "Secretaty" and "Business Manager" of the institution, not its president -- not enough, IMHO, to support WP:PROF. Finally, I agree with Edison; there's nothing about being the state chapter head of a national organization that gives anyone a presumptive pass to the GNG. I just don't think he passes the bar. Ravenswing 04:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Pres. of Lanier University, head of a nation-wide group, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and a Grand Dragon in the Second era KKK - I say thats enough to establish notability. I think his tenure as head of the SCV is perhaps his most notable claim to fame.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some interesting sources on his role in the Tulsa race riot:
The Nightmare of Dreamland, New Article Reveals Tulsa Founder's Violent Past and Role in 1921 Race Riot --Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither, of course, supporting his notability; both articles are about another fellow, the first one according only a couple sentences to Forrest, the second just a single sentence: mentions that short are not, as the GNG explicitly comments, long enough to meet its provisions. Ravenswing 06:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep nomination based on misunderstanding of WP:NOTINHERITED and a complete lack of application of common sense. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Besides the irrelevant ad hominem attack, what reasons do you present for keeping the article, Barney3? Edison (talk) 23:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stu Mason[edit]
- Stu Mason (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 found no coverage. Fails WP:CREATIVE. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I am somewhat doubtful whether the magazine that he allegedly edits is notable; and I note no link to it in the artilce. Even if it was, I do not think that this would make its editor notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The link to this "magazine" is broken, and in any event there aren't any reliable sources discussing it, and in any event even if the magazine cleared the notability standards of which it falls far, far short, notability is not inherited. Article pretty much the sole Wikipedia activity of a SPA who vanished years ago, orphaning it. Fails the GNG and about any other notability criterion. Ravenswing 04:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The claim to notability is being an editor of a magazine, but the magazine is not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OZONE[edit]
- OZONE (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)
Someone's personal hobby project. Not notable; mentioned once on osnews.com, where users can submit posts. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed, might have been interesting in 1997, but seems like development stopped in 2004 and never became notable in the next 9 years. W Nowicki (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Vaporware is vapor. No reliable sources, article substantively unimproved in six years. (Come to that, much like the vaporware.) Ravenswing 04:12, 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 10:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Teens[edit]
- The Teens (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:BAND. Sockmaster evading block. see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Based on G5. If we need a consensus otherwise, it clearly fails WP:BAND as there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. It appears that this was also spammed into Polish and German Wikipedia articles. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1978, the band got German famous award Bravo Otto. The band was the first boy band in Germany. This makes the band enough relevant. 178.11.184.96 (talk) 21:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- spiegel.de: Rock n Roll im Kinderzimmer (German) article by magazine Spiegel 178.11.184.96 (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that 178.11.184.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a sockpuppet evading the block of the article's creator. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Europefan. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sportscast Stars Training[edit]
- Sportscast Stars Training (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ORG. SarahStierch (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam and not notable per WP:CORP Sherwood10 (talk) 15:55, 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 keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cabinet rank[edit]
- Cabinet rank (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:DICDEF. The substantive content of this article is about the supposed "ranking" of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, based on this list of Cabinet members. All references in the article are to the Daily Mail, which is not the most reliable of sources. There do not appear to be any references which support the Mail's thesis that the list has any official significance, and, as such, I would consider it to be misleading (if not downright inaccurate) content. Delete as nominator, without predjudice to mentioning the Mail's attempt at a species of Kremlinology in the Daily Mail article. Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a word or dictionary style entry. The idea that there is a formal ranking of the minsters in the Cabinet is not an invention of the Daily Mail. See Establishing the order of precedence in Cabinet for corroboration. See also WP:BEFORE as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Warden (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. Hennessy's book is a much better source than the Mail (anything is a much better source than the Mail), and, as a minimum, we should change the sources in the article to reflect this. However, he only cites three ministers over the course of the 20th century who have expressed concerns about their position on the list; more importantly, he does not establish that the list has any official significance. Most of the substantive content of the article as it stands, derived from the Mail, should go (in my opinion), perhaps to be replaced with a summary of Hennessy's text. Will that leave us with enough for a full article? Tevildo (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Category:National cabinets Shows there's likely more that could be covered there. Dru of Id (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. It's a weak article -- little more than a stub -- but notable. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 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 Redirected to Nikkei CNBC#Former shows; non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tokyo Market Wrap[edit]
- Tokyo Market Wrap (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 article has been one sentence for 6 years with no assertion of notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected to Nikkei CNBC#Former shows; about as dry a market recap show as you can get, no lasting notability. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 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. Nom banned for sock puppetry, all other arguments are for Keep or Speedy Keep, and bulk of articles nominated argues for SK 2a (Vexatious nominations). Non-admin closure. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Allen Lowrie[edit]
- Allen Lowrie (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 appears to file WP:GNG and does little to establish notability. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [3]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article needs clean up, not deletion. Lowrie is notable as an author of influential books on the carnivorous flora of Australia and for describing dozens of new Drosera and Stylidium species. Rkitko (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and speedy close. As the article indicates, the subject has written a standard scholarly reference work published by a university press, a clear and unrefuted assertion of notability. The nomination statement makes plain that the nominator has not even made a cursory effort to assess the subject's actual notability, but instead believes that lousy articles on notable subjects should be deleted rather than improved. This belief is clearly contrary to applicable deletion policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: In another of these complete failures to do even the most cursory of checks as WP:BEFORE enjoins, I have just one bit of evidence to proffer: if you have doubt on the notability of the subject, do click the link in this AfD to Google Scholar. 'Nuf ced. Ravenswing 04:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the author of a major reference work and other publications. -- 202.124.89.4 (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 the vote from the nominator's nomination. Crtew (talk) 15:45, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Donya Fiorentino[edit]
- Donya Fiorentino (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 per WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. Per expired prod in 2009, WP:NOTINHERITED - neither the article itself nor the provided refs give any indication that this person is notable for anything other than her marriages. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from press mentions in articles about her former husbands. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 12 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 · · 19:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - cannot see any evidence of notability.Deb (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; while the subject's divorce from Gary Oldman appears to have received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources, the subject of this AfD herself has not appeared to have receive significant coverage outside of the event of her divorce, therefore the subject appears to fall under WP:BLP1E. That being said the divorce itself does not appear to have received significant coverage past its completion, and thus the event does not warrant inclusion per WP:PERSISTENCE. Therefore, as no significant coverage of the subject of this AfD has yet to have been created, then I must support deletion of this article at this time, with no prejudice to recreating if such significant coverage is later created.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another Choice for Black Children Adoption Agency[edit]
- Another Choice for Black Children Adoption Agency (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:ORG. nothing in gnews. found no significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 5 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources listed and nothing remotely notable turned up on web search. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 12 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 · · 19:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually, probably would qualify for speedy delete under a7 -- I don't consider merely receiving some government support as a significant claim to importance DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 03:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TeamWarfare League[edit]
- TeamWarfare League (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 gather it has a large number of fans, but I could find no reliable third party source, nor has there been any since 2008. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 06:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 5 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 · · 06:07, 12 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 · · 19:08, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ghans Definition (Modern)[edit]
- Ghans Definition (Modern) (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 only contains an unsourced wiktionary definition. FalkirksTalk 02:49, 5 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 · · 06:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced one line dictionary definition verging on speedy-deletable via A1. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 19 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 · · 19:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy A1. My best guess is that this is a POV fork of Afghan (Australia). Dricherby (talk) 21:34, 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 List of Houston Astros broadcasters. redirect is fine but noone has rebutted the lack of proper sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Romero (sportscaster)[edit]
- Francisco Romero (sportscaster) (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 entire article is a near direct copy from primary reference source, a fan site WP:COPYVIO. Article fails to establish any notability as per WP:BIO and WP:ENT. The two references are primary sources. I don't do the speedy delete thing but if someone wants to nominate this one I won't argue. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the Spanish radio voice of the Houston Astros. Ashbeckjonathan 12:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of Houston Astros broadcasters if he is not notible. Ashbeckjonathan 15:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment' Hey, I don't think that I could do a possibility of creating Francisco Romero (broadcaster), could I? If this is considered deletion, I am going to try creating a new article as Francisco Romero (broadcaster). Ashbeckjonathan 13:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
- The other comment is that you have other Houston Astros broadcasters, for television, such as play-by-play announcers Bill Brown and Alan Ashby, color commentators Ashby and Geoff Blum and studio hosts Kevin Eschenfelder and Bill Doleman, radio play-by-play announcer Robert Forde who replaced veteran Astros broadcasters Milo Hamilton and other former Astros broadcasters Brett Dolan and Dave Raymond and was the studio host for both the Astros and Royals radio broadcasts before moving up into the Astros radio play-by-play booth. You have other current Houston, non-Astros broadcasters, broadcasters as well. For the Texans, you have preseason announcers Joel Meyers and Spencer Tillman with Bob Allen on the sidelines and Marc Vandemeer with analyst Andre Ware and sideline reporter Rich Lord on the radio. Why is this any big deal for Romero? Even the article fails to reach nobility, there's still has to be a way to get the job done. Ashbeckjonathan 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the Spanish-language play-by-play voice of a Major League Baseball team heard on the significant number of stations in the Astros' broadcast network. He crossed the verifiability and notability thresholds as the subject of coverage by multiple reliable third-party sources (like this one and this one). - Dravecky (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first of the above links is a note, not a story, while Romero is mentioned only one time in the second one. Neither of them constitutes significant coverage. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:17, 19 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 · · 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, otherwise, Redirect to List of Houston Astros broadcasters. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wouldn't go for a redirect. I don't see any issues why this article would be redirected to List of Houston Astros broadcasters. Let's say if you improve an article such as Stu Klitenic, then you would keep it as it happened in Jeff Phelps and Klitenic. In my perspective, I would not be okay with a redirect. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see any issues? The article has no sources that constitute significant coverage, and no one has found any. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you go with that perspective, that your opinion. I will disagree no matter what your opinion is. This is a fair discussion. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see any issues? The article has no sources that constitute significant coverage, and no one has found any. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redirect. No third party sources. Hairhorn (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't have an opinion on whether it should be redirected or deleted. I disagree with both options. WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 21:16, 30 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 10:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Batty boy[edit]
- Batty boy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a dictionary item, not a well known word that belongs in an encyclopedia. One Of Seven Billion (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move - to Wiktionary. Notability not sufficiently established to warrant this article. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's already at Wiktionary (see wikt:batty boy) and this article already goes beyond a dicdef. Angr (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good amount of discussion among multiple secondary sources, — Cirt (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator's "not a well known word" is a long way wide of the mark. I have no connection with Jamaica but have been aware of this phrase for all of my adult life of forty years or so. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move - to Wiktionary per User:One Of Seven Billion--Iniciativass (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Angr and Cirt. Good third-party sources and the discussion of the cultural context around the term is suitable for wikipedia. Sprocket (talk) 05:30, 27 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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion or renomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Halabos na hipon[edit]
- Halabos na hipon (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)
essentially a one-sentence article that was thrown in without context and it is certainly no encyclopedic. UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC) [Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [4]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- Comment. The nomination addresses only the quality of the current article: that is not a reason for deletion. (Also, it's taken as read that the nominator supports deletion. Per WP:DISCUSSAFD, you shouldn't add a bolded !vote.) Dricherby (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep Weak nomination rationale apart (being a stub is no reason to delete; "unencyclopedic" is a known fallacy): it is cited a lot in cuisine books [5] -it can be presumed there are reasonable sources in the original (Filipino?) language about it. --Cyclopiatalk 13:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, it's a criteria for speedy, "no assertion of notability". UnrepentantTaco (talk) 18:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[Edit reverted as per WP:BE and [6]. Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)][reply]
- WP:A7/WP:A8 (note, "No indication of importance") applies only to articles about individuals, animals, organizations, web content, event and musical recordings. In general, if you think an article matches one of the speedy deletion criteria, please speedy it instead of bringing it to AfD. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close: 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 nominations - removed. Crtew (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Shrimp (food). It doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources, but it does exist: [7], [8], [9]. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 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. No comments other than the delete rationale but reading the article, obvious A7 Secret account 20:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Senior rahnuma Pakistan Muslim League[edit]
- Senior rahnuma Pakistan Muslim League (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)
Unnecessary list that serves no purpose. We already have an article on the Pakistan Muslim League and articles on the politicians themselves. Mar4d (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For those unfamiliar with Urdu, "rahnuma" is a word which refers to a leader. Mar4d (talk) 06:02, 6 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 · · 18:39, 12 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 · · 18:54, 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lior Varona[edit]
- Lior Varona (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)
BLP subject's notability is not established and article reads as vanity project/resume. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not appear to meet WP:N as no sources found in cursory search. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not cite any reliable secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Searches in Hebrew would seem to be appropriate, such as this one and this one. And, of course, the refs need not appear in the article itself (it is enough that they exist), or in an English language search (presuming that the cursory search referred to above was only an English language search).--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments. From the existing content, one would expect most mentions to be in Hebrew. There is an article in the Hebrew wiki but it is not sourced. Hebrew google gives quite a lot of hits to his name ( ליאור ורונה ), suggesting that he is notable in Israel. I don't have the language skills to evaluate it further. Zerotalk 01:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This source, from the article has the name spelt differently [10] (Verona rather than Varona). I can't tell if it's actually the same person or not. CaptRik (talk) 10:08, 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 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The European Business Club in the Russian Federation (EBC)[edit]
- The European Business Club in the Russian Federation (EBC) (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:ORG. nothing in gnews. created by a 2 edit editor. LibStar (talk) 06:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 5 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 · · 18:28, 12 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 · · 18:38, 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Luis A. Cordero[edit]
- Luis A. Cordero (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:Autobiography with no assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR, and no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deleted once A7 and twice G11 since April, but it doesn't meet either WP:Criteria for speedy deletion now, so taking it to AFD. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How do you know this is an autobiography? The creator's username sounds nothing like the subject's name. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two recent attempts to create this were by User talk:Luiscordero, who's been warned twice on his talk page about autobiographies. The third attempt was by the current editor, and I nominated it for speedy deletion G11. On his fourth attempt he contacted me politely at my talk page asking for review. I cleaned it up and edited it for a less promotional tone, but what's left has a problem with notability. I'm not an admin, so can't compare the original draft with the deleted ones, but I bet they're very close indeed. The level of unreferenced personal detail in the original version also suggest either autobio or close association. Just a hunch, so I'll strike through WP:AUTOBIO in the nomination rationale. Autobiography isn't a reason for deletion on its own, but it's relevant background for determining notability, IMHO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 08:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, I am the creator and editor of Luis A. Cordero. My name is Alicia Berrios, a student at Florida International University. On my first attempt I created an account under the luiscordero because i thought I had to do it under the name of the person that I was going to be writing about. So then I fixed that problem by creating an account under my name. I also did not have references listed and little by little I completed them. I have been figuring how to do all of this the right way by every mistake I have made. Luis A. Cordero was a former president of (AILA), he has achieved many notable awards, which I have pictures of and intend to add after I get this incident resolved. I don't want to advertise about him, but I want to be neutral. I have edited the information according to the notes I received. I hope I can get the help I need to move forward. I really appreciate your time and the help.
- Truly yours, Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have had a hard time navigating through Wikipedia and with the formulas for the references. Little by little I am learning my way. Thanks! Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OMG Captain Conundrum, I just saw you edited my article and fixed my references. Thank you so much! Please advise what I need to do to improve the article. Thank you! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. There are lots of highly qualified lawyers out there, so we need WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources showing how he's notable enough for an encyclopaedia article per WP:Notability (people). This might be in the form of profiles, interviews or in-depth coverage, in mainstream press or law journals. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a lot of articles on him from newspapers, news, journals, awards, and other sources. I need to make a list of all this and added to the article. He is notable, there is no doubt on that fact. I have to be careful so that I don't make it sound as if I am advertising. I am working on it. Thank you.
- Will adding pictures of the articles, awards, journals, news, and other sources help? Please let me know. Thanks!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)
- It sounds like you have some sort of professional connection with the man, so it would be a good idea to have a read of WP:Conflict of interest. Before you go to a lot of trouble scanning his papers, you might want to list what they are here. Quality is more important than quantity. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have connection with him. I have done research for this and been able to get information from newspapers archives and internet. I edited the article. I have few pictures to add, but I don't know how to do it. If there is anything else I can do, I would greatly appreciate it if you let me know. I want to complete this article to move to the next one. I have to say that this has been very challenging. Maybe we can keep in touch so that you can give me feed back in future articles. I am from Nicaragua and there are a lot of notable people, but is going to take me a long time because the information has to come from Nicaragua. Thank you for all your help. Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the connection with Nicaragua, since the article says he's Cuban-American. But if there are reliable references from Nicaragua, then that would be great. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was born in Nicaragua, but I live in Miami, Florida. I study at Florida International University and a class in communication wanted us to do research on people from Miami and introduce it to Wikipedia. This article has no connection to the project from Nicaragua. Nicaragua is more of a personal project, because there is little known about important people. If I succeed at this article, then I most likely succeed with my future articles. Did you see my changes? Do you know how I can upload pictures. I am trying to figure it out. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ask at my talk page or see WP:HELP for questions about improving the article. Getting back to the notability question, you wrote above that it's "going to take me a long time because the information has to come from Nicaragua". Which information about this Cuban American needs to come from Nicaragua? Captain Conundrum (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was born in Nicaragua, but I live in Miami, Florida. I study at Florida International University and a class in communication wanted us to do research on people from Miami and introduce it to Wikipedia. This article has no connection to the project from Nicaragua. Nicaragua is more of a personal project, because there is little known about important people. If I succeed at this article, then I most likely succeed with my future articles. Did you see my changes? Do you know how I can upload pictures. I am trying to figure it out. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the connection with Nicaragua, since the article says he's Cuban-American. But if there are reliable references from Nicaragua, then that would be great. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have connection with him. I have done research for this and been able to get information from newspapers archives and internet. I edited the article. I have few pictures to add, but I don't know how to do it. If there is anything else I can do, I would greatly appreciate it if you let me know. I want to complete this article to move to the next one. I have to say that this has been very challenging. Maybe we can keep in touch so that you can give me feed back in future articles. I am from Nicaragua and there are a lot of notable people, but is going to take me a long time because the information has to come from Nicaragua. Thank you for all your help. Alicia Berrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like you have some sort of professional connection with the man, so it would be a good idea to have a read of WP:Conflict of interest. Before you go to a lot of trouble scanning his papers, you might want to list what they are here. Quality is more important than quantity. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. There are lots of highly qualified lawyers out there, so we need WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources showing how he's notable enough for an encyclopaedia article per WP:Notability (people). This might be in the form of profiles, interviews or in-depth coverage, in mainstream press or law journals. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are understanding me. The Nicaraguan project which will take me a long time has "nothing" to do with the Cuban American attorney. This are two different projects. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this article may be deleted then, if it's not finished within the week, since WP:AFD discussions like this typically run for a week. It's better to take your time on one article, and then move on to another one, rather than work on many articles at once. We could always move this one to a WP:Subpage of your user page, and then you could take as long as you like to improve it.
- Also, please remember to sign your posts here, as explained at your talk page. Thanks, Captain Conundrum (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Morning Captain Conundrum, please review my article because I have made changes. What other changes do you want me to make? I am neutral.Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Alicia Berrios
- No changes have been made since we had that discussion above. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Good Morning Captain Conundrum, please review my article because I have made changes. What other changes do you want me to make? I am neutral.Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Alicia Berrios
- I edited the area you said (Which Awards). Do you want me to delete the last paragraph? That is the part that might sound like advertising, but I am only giving facts about his law firm. I don't mind erasing the last paragraph, what do you think? I don't see any other area as advertising. Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)
- It wasn't nominated for deletion on the grounds of advertising, but for lack of notability. There's still no indication of notability per WP:BIO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the message it says that is considered; advertising, autobiography, and notability. I found an article, where he got a lot of media attention because he won an asylum case for a Russian-Jew who was almost killed in Russia and migrated to the United States. Should I mention that? In addition, there are a lot of awards/recognitions which are listed on his website on accolades. Please guide me.Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- Up at the top of this page, it just says notability. Several times in this discussion I've said the article needs WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources showing how he's notable enough for an encyclopaedia article per WP:Notability (people). His own website is a WP:Primary source, and so is of no use here. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I added information about the Russian-Jew case.Please let me know what you think. Thank you! Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 16:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)
- Many changes have been made. What else do I need to do, so that Wikipedia accepts this article? Do I need to continue looking for more cases about Luis A. Cordero? Please advise. Thank you!Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 17:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)
- We need to get WP:Consensus from more editors on his notability: only two have expressed an opinion here so far. Just be patient, and wait for more editors to give their opinions on his notability. Thank you. Captain Conundrum (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Up at the top of this page, it just says notability. Several times in this discussion I've said the article needs WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources showing how he's notable enough for an encyclopaedia article per WP:Notability (people). His own website is a WP:Primary source, and so is of no use here. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the message it says that is considered; advertising, autobiography, and notability. I found an article, where he got a lot of media attention because he won an asylum case for a Russian-Jew who was almost killed in Russia and migrated to the United States. Should I mention that? In addition, there are a lot of awards/recognitions which are listed on his website on accolades. Please guide me.Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
- It wasn't nominated for deletion on the grounds of advertising, but for lack of notability. There's still no indication of notability per WP:BIO. Captain Conundrum (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I edited the area you said (Which Awards). Do you want me to delete the last paragraph? That is the part that might sound like advertising, but I am only giving facts about his law firm. I don't mind erasing the last paragraph, what do you think? I don't see any other area as advertising. Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 15:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:27, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 19:54, 12 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 · · 18:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Userify or delete, based on content and, most particularly, recent edits by CC. Doesn't seem destined to become a decent article. --Elvey (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good Morning Captain Conundrum, what is going on with Luis A. Cordero article? What does the Userify or delete mean? Let me know what else you want me to do. Thank you! Alicia De Los Angeles Berrios 14:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aberrios13 (talk • contribs)
- (in response to your note on my talk page and the above comment:) Read WP:USERFY. Read (and reread) your talk page and this page and the pages linked to! --Elvey (talk) 17:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears to fail GNG; the mentions of a wildly non-notable book smack of promotion. Hairhorn (talk) 14:47, 27 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. postdlf (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of actors considered for the James Bond character[edit]
- List of actors considered for the James Bond character (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)
Thousands of actors have been considered, tested, accepted or turned down thousands of other roles in the history of film.
Although there are sources, just because there is a source proving an actor auditioned/was considered for the role does not mean this needs to be compiled into a list. The sources do not specifically make the article meet WP:N requirements as a separate topic, and the article in its entirety falls under WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:LISTCRUFT. AldezD (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Oddly, at least to me, reliable sources do seem to address this as an actual topic. See, e.g. The Brit List: The Fifteen Greatest Actors Who Were Almost James Bond. PS WP:WHOCARES links to an essay about arguments not to make for deletion. 24.151.116.25 (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Oodles of references. The media interest in the casting for this particular role is sky high and not expected to fall anytime soon. Nice try, Blofeld, but your plans for Wikipedia domination have been foiled once again. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename List of actors considered for the role of James Bond. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOTESAL since it looks like this topic has been discussed as a grouping, as reflected by the bbcamerica.com link and others like The Daily Beast. With WP:NOTESAL applied, we can draw together other references even though they may not mention the grouping as noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:17, 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. probably should me merged/moved to the adoption project Spartaz Humbug! 16:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trace DeMeyer[edit]
- Trace DeMeyer (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 author, page recently accepted from AfC. The non-fiction works are in 12 libraries total according to [http://www.worldcat.org/title/two-worlds-lost-children-of-the-indian-adoption-projects/oclc/812289694&referer=brief_results
- Weak Delete Article is clearly promotional with no reputable secondary sources. Evidence of notability seems to rest on the awards which IMHO do not meet the standards of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. At least you're being honest enough to write IMHO (In my honest opinion) above, because that's all it honestly is - your opinion. Just because something is not at all notable to you, doesn't mean it isn't notable to other readers. And just because it isn't at all notable to YOU, doesn't mean there is no room for it on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not established. Search results yield only self-published websites and social media hits. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
- Keep Important within a small community for a specific population that is already heavily marginalized. Has indeed written articles and personal details into works like Origins USA.[11] The claims of awards from Native American Journalists Association need to be confirmed, but this would seem to meet GNG if they could be sourced. It will take some time, but the notability claim is there. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources in the article, and the others that I can find, indicate that the Indian Adoption Project(s) is/are notable, and should have an article, but don't have the coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability for Trace DeMeyer. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 12 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 · · 18:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The author has several books published and still in print. She is popular and notable amongst indigeonous American culture, and has recieved awards for her work. D Dayus (talk) 22:37, 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. Given that we have two editors wishing to keep the article and two editors wishing to delete (including the nominator) and the discussion has been relisted twice for an extra two weeks without further comments, a no consensus close is the most sensible outcome. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Garrison[edit]
- Dave Garrison (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)
Procedural nomination. Previous incarnations of this article were subject to speedy deletion, deleted, and re-created by the same user in 48 hours. It appears this person is marginally notable. I'm leaning towards keeping, but after working to clean it up, I am not so certain any more. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#politicians applies. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have included citations for all sourced materials for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerahn (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY. Sourcing has been much improved. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Deletion is not clean up and the improvements have been great for pushing notability. Should be kept under the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the sources currently cited one is an announcement from Garrison's employer[12], three have no more than a mention of his name[13][14][15] and the rest don't mention him at all. On what grounds do the keepers above claim that this amounts to notability? I note that the nominator has withdrawn his delete opinion, but would ask that this should not be treated as a reason for speedy keeping until a proper examination has been conducted of the available sources, which I will try to do by tomorrow. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my analysis of the current sources above and my inability to find significant coverage in any other independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 11 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) 16:54, 12 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 · · 18:27, 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 Speedied. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DarthDuncan[edit]
- DarthDuncan (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 gaming character apparently created by the author of the article. Unreferenced to reliable independent sources. Prod declined. Peridon (talk) 17:40, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Destiel[edit]
- Destiel (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. A meme with no reliable sources; the closest thing is "knowyourmeme.com". Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me) 16:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Delete, possible speedy deletion candidate. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, fails WP:GNG, and as mentioned, WP is not Urban Dictionary. Possible speedy under WP:CSD#A7. Jguy TalkDone 17:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Borderline for speedy on grounds of 'context', maybe? Peridon (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced, unofficial fancruft with no evidence of any notability. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Entirely non notable fan craft. Possibly a candidate for A7 as non notable web content. Safiel (talk) 02:48, 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. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hyman Classic Karate Tournaments[edit]
- Hyman Classic Karate Tournaments (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 karate competition: The only search results are a youtube video and pages on a PR site. The fact that this was created by a user named "SocialMediaBomb" doesn't help my suspicion that this is sheer promotion of a completely non-notable event. TKK bark ! 16:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete This should have been speedy deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought that, but I couldn't figure out what criteria it would meet and since I have a habit of being a little hasty with my CSDs (and have been reprimanded for such in the past) I figured I should just play it safe and AFD it. I would have no objections to closing this and speedying it if it meets one of the criteria. --TKK bark ! 10:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it is here now so let it run its course but I would have marked it as A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events).Peter Rehse (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references, no attempt to display notability. Fails WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete No sources or claims of notability. Jakejr (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete This is an awful artilce--no sources or claims of notability.Mdtemp (talk) 16:35, 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 speedy deleted by admin Jimfbleak. (Non-admin closure). Stalwart111 19:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guihad Daoud[edit]
- Guihad Daoud (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)
Author removed my Speedy tag, so from now on I am just doing AfD's due to this nonsense. Users have gotten smart and remove PRODs and Speedys. This is not a notable person, no RS. Tyros1972 Talk 16:01, 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peace (King Crimson song)[edit]
- Peace (King Crimson song) (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)
Individual song on an album. Wasn't released as a single. Fails WP:NSONG. Prod contested without explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Notable song. Shouldn't be too hard to find various references in books, online etc. The AfD nomination is jumping the gun. Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a short piece (or, rather, three pieces) on a notable and important album. I'm sure there are many references to it in books, articles etc. on the album, but I cannot see how this is a notable song that warrants an article separate to the article for the album. If there are articles specifically about this piece that warrant a separate article, I look forward to seeing them, but the article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. I note you also reverted two other PRODs I did for One More Red Nightmare and In the Wake of Poseidon (song) of a similar nature. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now also done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the Wake of Poseidon (song). Bondegezou (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's a short piece (or, rather, three pieces) on a notable and important album. I'm sure there are many references to it in books, articles etc. on the album, but I cannot see how this is a notable song that warrants an article separate to the article for the album. If there are articles specifically about this piece that warrant a separate article, I look forward to seeing them, but the article has been tagged as unreferenced since January. I note you also reverted two other PRODs I did for One More Red Nightmare and In the Wake of Poseidon (song) of a similar nature. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Without release as a single or some special circumstance it would be unusual to have an article on an album track. I did think about merging into the album, but as there are no references at all there is no cited information to merge.--Salix (talk): 21:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced with no assertion of importance, fails WP:NSONGS. As a further comment to Ohwrotcod, find the notability and references I am happy to change my mind in this matter. Also, merging the information into the album makes sense, especially as KC are known as album/concept band rather than a purveyor of "songs" --Richhoncho (talk) 17:54, 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 09:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plaza Sésamo: Monstruos Sanos[edit]
- Plaza Sésamo: Monstruos Sanos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As near as I can tell, this appears to be a DVD (probably a Spanish dub or version of the 2004 English Happy, Healthy Monsters video listed in List of Sesame Street video releases, about which we lack an article) rather than a broadcast TV show. In any event, I can find no sources anywhere on the Web—other than a couple of places selling the DVD, along with a copy of this WP article—that mention this production, so it appears to fail WP:N and WP:V. Deor (talk) 12:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For all we know from the article, it could be an hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Yintan 11:41, 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 keep. postdlf (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Field of fire (weaponry)[edit]
- Field of fire (weaponry) (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)
nothing but WP:OR, unreferenced since 2005. I've tried to find sources and while I can find the term used in plenty of situations, it seems the best we could do would leave this as a WP:NOTDICDEF. I recommend deletion and perhaps listing at Wiktionary. Toddst1 (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is about the concept of field of fire, not the expression. I'm sure other languages have other terms for it. This takes it out of the dictionary class. However the article could use improvement and sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous books of tactics which discuss this concept in detail such as Rifles and Machine Guns; Infantry Training; Infantry Fire; Machine-Gun Tactics; Tactics and Technique of Infantry; Machine Guns: their history and tactical employment. The idea that this topic is original is quite mistaken. Warden (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve per above - it's about the concept, not the phrase, so not WP:NOTDICT. Ansh666 01:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Ansh666. It is about a well-known concept, not the phrase. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:04, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh Barrett-Lennard[edit]
- Hugh Barrett-Lennard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
per WP:Notability esp. notability is not inherited; priest, army captain; nice chatty little article quite at home on a genealogy site but we do not require an article on him or thousands of his ilk. Baronets are not nobility and do not sneak in as MPs. Crusoe8181 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doesn't he satisfy WP:GNG? You haven't discussed the sources at all. His obituary in the Daily Telegraph seems significant, plus coverage in Burke's peerage. postdlf (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets WP:GNG per Telegraph coverage (and Who's Who, and elsewhere). Clearly not a privacy invasion (he's dead). He receives a few WP:NPOINTS for inheriting a baronetcy, the other things add to that to give a keep package. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No, his relatively junior military and religious posts wouldn't automatically qualify him for an article, but having an obituary in a major daily newspaper most certainly does. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (by nominator) He had an obit in the DT because the DT published obits of titled personages however inconsequential such a personage may have been; the obit being dutifully supplied by the family with such omissions and inclusions as were deemed necessary Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- It is my understanding that the British broadsheet newspapers have obituaries written for them by staff reporters or commissioned from external authors well in advance of the death. I am not clear to what extent these are produced by interviewing the subject and to what extent his friends. However, this is clearly counts as WP:RS, even though not everything that appears in the newspapers is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete People have to do something notable to be notable,, with a limited exception for a few traditional figures like members of royal families. and the few best known socialites who become famous as such. Very few newspapers have standards for obits which would amount to automatic notability. I'd accept the NYT and The Times; if this is representative, I don't accept the Telegraph. "Major national newspapers" is much too broad a criterion for this. Anyone related to nobility gets in Burke's--it's indiscriminate. Who'sWho is the classic example of a source that does not count for notability , though the UK version is just a little more discriminating than the American. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. There are no more than half a dozen (at most) major national newspapers in the United Kingdom which publish proper obituaries. He will not have a full obituary in such a newspaper merely for being a baronet or peer - they are far more discriminating than that. Does an entry in the British Who's Who count for automatic notability? No it doesn't, but it's a pretty good indicator that someone who's included may very well be notable (and I acknowledge that all baronets and peers are included, so that is less an issue here). And unlike many other publications of the same name (and contrary to what many who are used to those publications seem to believe), it is not a vanity publication, but a respected reference work which does not charge those who are included or solicit or accept applications to be included. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a generally accepted heirarchy of national newspapers in the UK, and The Daily Telegraph, along with The Guardian, The Independent and The Times and their Sunday stablemates, sits in the top rank, meaning that we should accept an obituary as conclusive evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, those major London newspapers, and I'd also include regional newspapers with a national outlook, i.e. Yorkshire Post [16], Belfast Telegraph (e.g. [17] [18], The Scotsman [19], Glasgow Herald [20] (and any other I've overlooked). Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is sufficient here to persuade me that he was notable at the time, whatever the reasons. The argument that a person has to do something notable to be notable is fraught with difficulties, because it is clearly possible to be famous for being famous. And it conflicts with the rule that notability in the past is sufficient for WP notability now, since ideas of celebrity and the reasons for it change over time. Take Lady Curzon, somebody who arguably did little except marry the right man, give dinner parties and offer advice and opinions. Yet she made an enormous impression on many of those she encountered and the present article fails to do justice to her fame and influence. I would argue too that the less they are remembered today, the more valuable an WP article, because when we find them mentioned in literature or old documents the greater the need to look them up. Notability is a measure of whether we are likely to to find such past references. --AJHingston (talk) 15:59, 27 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 deleted by admin Jimfbleak (non-admin closure). Stalwart111 19:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creative School of San Pedro[edit]
- Creative School of San Pedro (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)
Since author removed the PROD I am opening an AfD for the same reasons since they cannot close it. no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources. Apparently created by editor with a WP:Conflict of interest. Tyros1972 Talk 11:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as promotional article on non notable organization. See also Creative School of San Pedro. 76.248.151.159 (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I've moved the pages around, so the duplicate is now located at Centre for Creative Learners. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. Article serves only to promote the school. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy under WP:CSD#G11. Reads as promotional. Fails WP:GNG. No Sources. Jguy TalkDone 17:40, 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 List of Wikipedias. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorani Wikipedia[edit]
- Sorani Wikipedia (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 version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can't you just redirect this to List of Wikipedias or something? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting an article without discussion would be kind of tyrannical, I think.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If its only purpose is to document the history of Wikipedia, it should not be in mainspace.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy TalkDone 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 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 Wikipedias. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Northern Sami Wikipedia[edit]
- Northern Sami Wikipedia (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 version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy TalkDone 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 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 Wikipedias. (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sundanese Wikipedia[edit]
- Sundanese Wikipedia (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 version of Wikipedia: the article either includes only non-independent and self-published sources (especially Wikipedia itself), or has no sources at all. (Contested PROD). eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 17:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep under the policy of WP:IGNOREALLRULES, we need to document our own history. Carrite (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Wikipedias. It's not notable but should not be outright deleted. Jguy TalkDone 17:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Other, smaller versions of Wikipedia (such as the Yiddish Wikipedia) have their own articles. The Sundanese Wikipedia would be a strange exception. Chri$topher 18:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason - also, this is SuNdanese, not Sudanese. Ansh666 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the title issue, but I do feel as though this is still a legitimate point. There are multiple versions of Wikipedia with fewer articles than the Sundanese Wikipedia which have had articles on Wikipedia, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are legitimate under certain circumstances. For example "in consideration of precedent and consistency...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into...levels of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". In this circumstance, because different versions of Wikipedia are unlikely to have notability as different versions of Wikipedia (language versions of Wikipedia are rarely discussed as such), it's important to look at precedent. The precedent seems to be such that deleting that article for the Sundanese Wikipedia would make it the exception to the general rule of keeping similar articles. Chri$topher 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the articles with lower page counts (e.g. Silesian Wikipedia or Yiddish Wikipedia) have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore meet notability requirements, unlike the 4 articles currently at AfD. I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid in some cases, but not this one. Ansh666 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. I can see that, now. I was previously unaware that other articles on Wikipedias were being proposed for deletion. I'll change my opinion to redirect, then, unless someone can find sources to declare the Sundanese Wikipedia as notable. Chri$topher 03:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the articles with lower page counts (e.g. Silesian Wikipedia or Yiddish Wikipedia) have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and therefore meet notability requirements, unlike the 4 articles currently at AfD. I agree that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is valid in some cases, but not this one. Ansh666 03:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Corrected the title issue, but I do feel as though this is still a legitimate point. There are multiple versions of Wikipedia with fewer articles than the Sundanese Wikipedia which have had articles on Wikipedia, and WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments are legitimate under certain circumstances. For example "in consideration of precedent and consistency...identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into...levels of notability...and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia". In this circumstance, because different versions of Wikipedia are unlikely to have notability as different versions of Wikipedia (language versions of Wikipedia are rarely discussed as such), it's important to look at precedent. The precedent seems to be such that deleting that article for the Sundanese Wikipedia would make it the exception to the general rule of keeping similar articles. Chri$topher 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason - also, this is SuNdanese, not Sudanese. Ansh666 01:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Jguy. Ansh666 01:50, 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 09:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dushmeenoi[edit]
- Dushmeenoi (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 even released, no RS and not notable for films. Tyros1972 Talk 11:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - if it exists, then stubbify and rewrite. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already edited grammar, stubbified, and bulleted this article. However, it still needs citation. If anyone can find a reference, that would be great. Thank you! PinkTruffles123 (talk) 20:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)PinkTruffles123[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 20 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)
- (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)
- (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)
- Delete I prettied up the article and found its actual name for searches. In looking for the director and actors, I found that IMDB has a 2002 release date as Dushmani,[21] but this could be based upon either a DVD release of the earlier release or release (as with most Indian films before their release) of soundtrack music. There even seems to be a few sites that offer the film and/or its music for download, but I cannot find any confirmation in reliable sources. Pointy here being, the project fails WP:NF. Allow back only if its release can be confirmed and only if it is shown to have received the requisite coverage (maybe under a different name). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:00, 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 a7. No indication that author has been recognized as notable by independent sources, see WP:V. "Read the book and decide if it's worthy" is not how we decide these things. Also, this is apparently the author promoting himself. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard Walker[edit]
- Leonard Walker (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 person. Tyros1972 Talk 11:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you read the book, then decide if his talent and contribution to literature makes this author worthy of note? To have a book published by a reputable publisher incurs a certain amount of de facto notoriety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpaulwalkerjr (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - I am seeing positive proof of WP:COI between subject and article's author (they appear to be one and the same). Additionally, preceding comment rests upon subjective criteria such as 'talent' and 'contribution to literature'. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:06, 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 procedural close - wrong venue, try WP:MFD (non-admin close). Stalwart111 11:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Slim cop/Roy Thockold[edit]
- User:Slim cop/Roy Thockold (edit | [[Talk:User:Slim cop/Roy Thockold|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
subject not notable simontcope 10:57, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of hooligan firms. If any content needs to be merged, this can be done after the close of this AfD. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subway Army[edit]
- Subway Army (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 hooligan "firm", web search reveals only a couple of extremely brief passing mentions in more general articles on hooliganism, nothing in-depth. Most of the article appears to be about general Wolves-relegated hooliganism committed years after this group reportedly disbanded...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Weak Keep' - needs a thorough rewrite to lose the acres of unsupported text, but the Guardian article is fairly in depth about this particular group, and there are enough other (admittedly slighter) references from the BBC, When Saturday Comes etc to establish notability. StuartDouglas (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.#Support as no evidence of any independent notability. GiantSnowman 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- Football hooliganism was a significant problem, mainly in the past. A case study such as this is thus worth having. Since it is largelyu history, I would oppose merger, since including substantial material on a minority of misguided alleged supporters will upset the balance of the main article, though it might briefly be mentioned with a link (possibly via a main template). However we have a vast amount of unreferenced material. Can any of this be verified, for example from lofcal newspapers, such as Express and Star? If not, it probably derives from the memories of participants, which is not WP:RS and must therefore be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of hooligan firms. The article is a shambles, and it is unlikely that enough reliable sources can be found to clean it up properly. But there's no harm in redirecting to a related list. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. As above. No evidence of notability. How this rubbish has been kept on Wikipedia for three-and-a-half years is beyond me. Walls of Jericho (talk) 23:29, 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. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FBI Ghosts[edit]
- FBI Ghosts (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'm nominating this for deletion due to it not passing WP:NBOOK. This is a self-published series and while that doesn't mean that self-published books can't become notable, this series isn't one of those exceptions. There's no coverage to show that this has received notice by any reliable sources. I'm also nominating this along with FBI Ghosts Church of the Fallen, the first book in the series. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]
- FBI Ghosts Church of the Fallen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I feel that this page does not need to be deleted. It is a relevant publication with plans for a multi book series. This title is available for purchase on major online stores including Amazon and Lulu. How else would a self start get notoriety if he cannot make his series information available to the public. If http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chinese_Stars gets a page why not FBI Ghosts: Church of the Fallen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photogeniks (talk • contribs) 15:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a self published work but I do not think it should be deleted. The page is not promotional, it is straight forward and just good info. It is also relevant as there isn't any wiki info on either topics even outside the book. I think the two pages should be merged together. Hellsbane (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It being promotional or not promotional isn't really the actual issue here. What the issue we have here is that the book has not received any actual coverage in reliable sources. Listings in merchant sites, publishers, blogs, or anything that comes from the author will not show notability for the books or the series. The existence of other pages (such as Chinese Stars) doesn't mean that this page merits an entry. All that the existence of another page means is that the band's article hasn't been noticed yet and either improved or deleted. It could also be that the page has something on it that would establish notability. If anything, pointing out other pages with no established notability actually increases the other page's chance of getting deleted. In any case, it won't save any other articles by existing. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the Chinese Stars has *just* enough notability to where they'd merit an article, but just very barely. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of any coverage anywhere upon which to build a verifiable article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The author can publicise his book the way others do: best of all, get with a real publisher and let them do the work (lower percentage of take in royalties, but way bigger sales more than compensates for that...), or failing that, plug it wherever they allow plugging. We don't. We record the arrived, not the up and coming or the struggling. Virtually anything can be listed at Amazon - I've even seen someone asking $98 for a 14 page booklet (wonder how many he sold...). I will say that unlike some self-publishing outfits, lulu do give reasonable space for a webpage. All well and good if anyone knows it's there. Basically, if you're a new author with a regular publisher, you stand a chance of reliable independent reviews. Not all get them. Self-publishers practically never get them. Or the sales. Good luck, anyway. Keep trying the regular publishers - look for a back door... Peridon (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The books are, as has been previously stated, non notable. I have no problem with self published books if they're notable, however these are clearly not. A quick internet search has revealed no mention of them save what the author has already written or listed. --RPhilbrook (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 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? 19:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comillar Kagoj[edit]
- Comillar Kagoj (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)
Leela Bratee 19:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - May not pass N or GNG right now, but an experienced editor with some time may be able to dig up enough native sources to keep this. As it is right now, the stub is just too small, but the website offers more info that I cannot translate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the Bengali name of this newspaper: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nomination should be invalid, as it lacks rationale. As for the notability of this newspaper, it is necessary to search for sources written in Bengali, such as this (?) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, if the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion, then it qualifies for WP:SK#1. But since another editor has given a delete argument, the debate shouldn't necessarily be speedily closed. It is not necessary to search for sources written in a different language, but given that the newspaper probably doesn't have many English sources anyway, looking for Bengali sources is probably a good route to take. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other user didn't give a delete argument, but just a teaspoonful of alphabet soup. And how can anyone possibly determine whether this is notable or not without searching for Bengali sources? Of course it's necessary if we're to base the discussion on evidence rather than guesswork and prejudice. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is Bengali, so I'm trusting that she searched for sources and found them lacking. Woodroar (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator submitted a number of publications at the same time to AfD, and all of those were closed and remain (although improved). You can see the history to verify. To the nominator's credit, the editor found stubs that desperately needed help. I've stayed out of this one as I can't find English sources. Zayeem's contribution below is helpful but there should be more out there. Crtew (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is Bengali, so I'm trusting that she searched for sources and found them lacking. Woodroar (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The other user didn't give a delete argument, but just a teaspoonful of alphabet soup. And how can anyone possibly determine whether this is notable or not without searching for Bengali sources? Of course it's necessary if we're to base the discussion on evidence rather than guesswork and prejudice. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, if the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion, then it qualifies for WP:SK#1. But since another editor has given a delete argument, the debate shouldn't necessarily be speedily closed. It is not necessary to search for sources written in a different language, but given that the newspaper probably doesn't have many English sources anyway, looking for Bengali sources is probably a good route to take. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It must be a major newspaper in Comilla, the government district portal of Comilla ranks the newspaper fourth.--Zayeem (talk) 07:29, 12 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 03:56, 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 21:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guelph Pride[edit]
- Guelph Pride (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)
Local pride festival lacking notability; no credible claim to importance or significance; all sourcing and attention for this festival is derived from local media, which is not an indication of notability. A search for additional sources only found a bunch of social networking profiles and blogs. Notability in accordance with WP:GNG or WP:EVENT has not been established. Respectfully, Cindy(talk) 02:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not have a rule about how geographically distant media coverage has to be from the topic to qualify it as notable under WP:GNG; the only requirement is that they have to count as reliable sources, which every last one that I cited most certainly does. Wikipedia in fact has lots of articles about topics whose notability is primarily "local" in nature and which cite few to no non-local sources — because again, our sole requirement is that the sources be reliable, and not that they have to maintain a minimum physical distance from the topic's location. (And even if there were such a requirement, msn.ca, Xtra! and Chatham This Week would all pass it because they're not local to Guelph.) With eight different citations to six different publications, this article most certainly does contain sufficient sourcing to get it past WP:GNG, and additional sourcing is available, albeit possibly via paid newspaper archives rather than Google News alone — but Wikipedia does not have any further criteria to distinguish "notable" from "non-notable" topics beyond the presence of valid reliable sources in the article. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Contrary to defending comment above, WP:EVENT specifically states that event coverage must normally be national or global to meet notability. There are indeed numerous secondary sources, but the coverage does not seem to rise to the required level. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that both Xtra! and msn.ca, which between them account for nearly half of the citations present, count as national. Therefore "national or global coverage" is present. And WP:EVENT is about the notability of "events" as in news stories (bridge collapses, fires, murders, accidents, etc.), not "events" as in organized recurring cultural festivals staged annually by non-profit organizations — so WP:EVENT is not the guideline that this article even has to live up to. WP:ORG is, and the sources present in this article are sufficient to meet that guideline — ORG requires just one non-local source, and more than half of this article's eight sources pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'm still not convinced. Xtra appears to be a Toronto based gay magazine and would, IMHO, not rise to the level of significant national coverage. The MSN article is only a few paragraphs taken from the local press and seems to be the same sort of thing that pops up on my newsfeed for "local news." As for your characterization of the pride festival as an ORG, that I think would require suspending the common understanding of English. The article clearly refers to it as a festival, not an organization. But I seriously applaud your vigorous defense and am putting this discussion on my watch list. Find some unambiguously national sources and I will switch my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A festival which is organized and staged and managed and run and maintained by an incorporated non-profit organization — which makes it an organization, ergo WP:ORG. And WP:EVENT simply isn't for this kind of thing — it's about the notability of news stories, such as murders and fires and accidents and explosions and the like, and isn't designed to even be applicable to "events" in the sense of recurring cultural festivals .
- Secondly, msn.ca does not do an unfiltered feed of every single local news story that hits the web in any Canadian newspaper at all; they exercise their own editorial discretion to pick and choose content that actually has the prospect of being of broader interest, so if they actually choose to redistribute a story it does count as having gone national.
- And thirdly, Xtra! is not one local magazine located in Toronto, but a chain of three magazines, located in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa, which publish both locally-oriented content in each city and content syndicated across the entire chain — and furthermore, while those three cities are the chain's primary service area they do get distributed to other cities as well. So it does count as national.
- And finally, the definition of "national" coverage does not only mean that the media outlet itself has national mass distribution — that would render something like 99 per cent of Wikipedia's sources essentially invalid, because there are no more than ten or twelve media outlets in all of North America which actually have that. Rather, if a story is getting picked up by sources which are not local or regional in scope to the specific area where the topic is located, then the story is getting regional or national coverage for our purposes even if those media outlets are still "local" or "regional" to another area.
- A newspaper in Toronto doesn't have to cover anything that's happening in Guelph, so the fact that it chooses to do so, by definition, confers added notability. msn.ca doesn't have to resyndicate every last article that shows up in the Guelph Mercury, so the fact that they choose to do so, by definition, confers added notability. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I'm still not convinced. Xtra appears to be a Toronto based gay magazine and would, IMHO, not rise to the level of significant national coverage. The MSN article is only a few paragraphs taken from the local press and seems to be the same sort of thing that pops up on my newsfeed for "local news." As for your characterization of the pride festival as an ORG, that I think would require suspending the common understanding of English. The article clearly refers to it as a festival, not an organization. But I seriously applaud your vigorous defense and am putting this discussion on my watch list. Find some unambiguously national sources and I will switch my vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that both Xtra! and msn.ca, which between them account for nearly half of the citations present, count as national. Therefore "national or global coverage" is present. And WP:EVENT is about the notability of "events" as in news stories (bridge collapses, fires, murders, accidents, etc.), not "events" as in organized recurring cultural festivals staged annually by non-profit organizations — so WP:EVENT is not the guideline that this article even has to live up to. WP:ORG is, and the sources present in this article are sufficient to meet that guideline — ORG requires just one non-local source, and more than half of this article's eight sources pass that test. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Comment. The notability guidelines for events clearly address notability in light of geographical scope. Even the summary states that "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." Reliable sourcing is not the only criteria that we consider when evaluating notability. The guidelines go further, "In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine." Note that the msn.ca is the local Guelph news site and a mirror of the local news from http://www.guelphmercury.com, and in this case, is a press release masquerading as an independent source. The first source from Guelph Mercury focuses not on the festival, but on the impact or lack of impact the senior adults have in the LGBT community. The second source is the student newspaper from the University of Guelph, offering a winter event report by committee members of the Guelph Pride organization. The third source is (as previously stated) the msn.ca mirror of the press release from the local newspaper. The May 29, 2009 source from Xtra! is merely a community calendar (address, time, tickets at the door). The second source from Xtra! was also published on May 29, 2003, which was the festivals first year. While I am unable to verify content, I would surmise that the article, entitled, "It takes a village to raise a Pride" is likely a commemorative community calendar of the inaugural event and festivities. I am unable to verify the May 27, 2008 article from the Guelph Mercury entitled "Pride Week takes flight in city; Mayor on hand to fly rainbow flag" is likely akin to the May 7, 2013, kickoff article, "Pride flag hoisted at Guelph city hall to officially launch Pride Week". I'm unable to verify the May 29, 2006, article in The Record, entitled, "Pride picnic revival planned", but it appears to announce a picnic of sorts. I found the Chatham This Week article [22], but it the focus of the article is on the exhibit at the Thames Art Gallery entitled "A Queer Archive". It doesn't mention the festival, however, it peripherally mentions the Pride committee, as well as "Out On A Shelf" (a project at the Guelph library), acknowledging the committee and library project for donations to the gallery. Honestly, I don't see much here to support or establish notability. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 05:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again: WP:EVENT is not the guideline that a recurring community festival organized by a non-profit organization has to meet, as that guideline is about the notability of news stories. It is about the notability of fires, earthquakes, accidents, and other one-time events, not the notability of regular, organized annual festivals organized by non-profit organizations. A festival needs to meet WP:ORG, not WP:EVENT. Nearly every cultural festival in existence, except a few of the most internationally famous ones, would fail WP:EVENT, because they're not what that guideline is designed to cover in the first place.
- Furthermore, attempting to separate the committee from the festival so that sources about the committee aren't valid in an article about the festival is an underhanded stunt — the committee and the festival are both aspects of the same topic. And regarding the reference that you claim "focuses not on the festival, but on the impact or lack of impact the senior adults have in the LGBT community", I can't tell whether you were deliberate or merely negligent in eliding the fact that the article's actual primary topic is a panel discussion which was organized by and staged as part of the 2013 Guelph Pride program.
- And furthermore, Wikipedia does not have a requirement that our sources be web-accessible; print-only sources (books, newspapers, microfilms, etc.) are acceptable, so the fact that you can't specifically find a source on Google does not render it invalid. And finally, the Chatham This Week article does mention Guelph Pride in conjunction with the book donation: "Thanks to a partnership with Guelph Pride and the Guelph Public Library, the local Pride committee has received hundreds of books.... That reference is not being used to cite anything that isn't properly supported by what the article explicitly says, so it is not an invalid reference. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are going to have to agree to respectfully disagree. In the meantime I will keep an eye on the thread in case someone posts a pov not covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)05:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bearcat, you seem to be conflating sourcing for verifiability with sourcing for notability. Your description of the Chatham This Week source makes it sound like a passing mention of the committee donating books to a library, which is fine for verifying that fact, but passing mentions do not, in general, establish notability. Also, I'm surprised to find myself reminding an administrator to assume good faith: we don't go around accusing other editors of being "deliberate or merely negligent" and attempting an "underhand stunt". However, I do agree that WP:ORG is the more relevant guideline. WP:EVENT refers to things like "past, current, and breaking news events" (which I understand to mean "past news events, current news events and breaking news events", rather than "past events, current events and breaking news events"), and an "incident that gains media coverage"; it gives examples such as murders and natural disasters, though it does also mention, for example, "Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences". The article here is about a series of festivals run by a particular group and, while each individual festival is, I think, an event in the sense of WP:EVENT, the article is not about the individual festivals. An analogy would be the difference between a sports match (event) and the league it's part of (organization). Dricherby (talk) 11:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we are going to have to agree to respectfully disagree. In the meantime I will keep an eye on the thread in case someone posts a pov not covered. -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)05:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Regardless of the range of meanings of "event" and which specific guideline might cover this topic, we end up getting guidance on whether or not any topic is likely to be, or can be presumed to be, notable. Also, we have recourse to the general guidelines (which talk of "a single event" and not of locality) with, probably, somewhat different guidance which again is not prescriptive. All this makes me think that the "notability" demonstrated for this topic is marginal, possibly less that is suggested for normally accepting as a separate article. Although I therefore respect the view that the article should be deleted, I also want to consider whether it has other good or bad features, most importantly whether it is reliably referenced, impartial and well in accordance with our policies. Since it scores rather highly here I think we would do best keep the article. Thincat (talk) 11:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage among multiple different references. — Cirt (talk) 19:55, 11 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 03:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems to have a sufficiency of national coverage for notability StuartDouglas (talk) 11:20, 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. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here as this is not unverifiable speculation, and the "keep" arguments are stronger on notability. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I Didn't Do It (TV series)[edit]
- I Didn't Do It (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:CRYSTAL. All I could find were announcements that Disney had ordered the series, and that people were cast. No in-depth analysis from reliable sources, or anything else to suggest that at this time, the subject is notable. Also, WP:NFF, while about film articles, makes a good paint when it states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production." I would argue that applies here as well. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An order announcement has been made, nothing else. CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Nate • (chatter) 05:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. Sufficient coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject for a stub at least. It is not WP:CRYSTAL as there is an official announcement. Not WP:TOSOON now as now sufficient secondary sources for an article - it was when only the pilot was announced, a pickup is significant. We have well-referenced info on cast and crew and a production schedule. Pickup was announced yesterday but ghits show interest from sources we can't use as references. This is a valid use of a stub. Let this article grow. Tag it as requiring references but that should be all that is done. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same as User:Geraldo Perez. References are all there, cast is there, announcement is made. Meets WP:N and WP:FICTION. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as there is an official, reliable sourced announcement on its production. Jguy TalkDone 17:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete I'm not sure what planet anyone else is on, but WP:CRYSTAL is very clear in this case. There is NO current sign that this show is notable whatsoever - its existence or future existence does not guarantee notability. Let me re-emhpasize: existence is NOT the same notability (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is notable because reliable secondary sources have taken note of it with more than passing mention. That is basic criteria for inclusion. Also it is guaranteed that this show will remain notable as it is being broadcast on a major network. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL, obviously. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way does WP:CRYSTAL apply here? This is no speculation or prediction - a pickup has been announced, it is listed as an upcoming show on a major network, it is referenced that this show will be broadcast and that production has begun. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is sourced across the board — the show, production, and actors. — Wyliepedia 10:22, 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bethany Kennedy Scanlon[edit]
- Bethany Kennedy Scanlon (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)
Having looked into the subject of this biography in some detail, I have concluded that Bethany Hughes Scanlon does not meet the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). More specifically, as an author (the evident claim to notability) she does not meet the creative professionals guidelines. I can find no external evidence for significant coverage of her work at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC) (note - I've no idea where 'Hughes' came from - I obviously intended to refer to Scanlon AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 5 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, Theopolisme (talk) 04:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any independent coverage about her (independent reviews of her books published by notable magazines/newspapers etc.) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:56, 11 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 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO for lack of extensive sources. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Finnegas (talk) 14:42, 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. (non-admin closure) czar · · 09:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bedford Biofuels[edit]
- Bedford Biofuels (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 company has been ordered to cease trading/raising capital by the relevant securities regulatory authority, and has declared bankruptcy. Given that their plans to develop their business in Africa never really began, I don't think this article needs to stay around. If it is preferred that it stay, I will clean it up a bit to reflect the cease trade and bankruptcy, but I don't think it's notable. FinnHK (talk) 03:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some sources: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Under+fire+from+some+investors+Alberta+Securities+Commission+boss+defends+actions+weeding+fraud/8019949/story.html and http://naturecanadablog.blogspot.ca/2013/06/bedford-biofuels-kenyan-plantation-in.html FinnHK (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:12, 4 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, Theopolisme (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References seem to be sufficient. Perhaps more could be found in Kenyan media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the company seems to be notable [23], however, the section "Bedford activities in Kenya" seems to me slightly promotional. @nominator: the fact that a company went bankrupt has little to do with its notability. But you are right, the article should be updated to reflect the current state. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notability is not temporary so, if the company received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources while it was trading, its bankruptcy doesn't stop it being notable. Wikipedia has many, many articles on defunct companies. Dricherby (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alright, I've made some edits to reflect the current status of the company. I'd still argue for deletion, based on the company not being notable. There's no indication any crop was ever produced from the small number of trees planted, and most of the investor money seems to be gone. FinnHK (talk) 01:33, 12 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 03:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- FinnHK, notability has nothing to do with whether crop was ever produced from any trees or whether a company provided a good return on investment. It is solely about whether the company received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Nothing else. Dricherby (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, go ahead and take a look at the page following my edits, and tell me if you think it's notable. I've used all the sources I can find. FinnHK (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes notability, and notability is not temporary. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 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 no consensus. This debate has been relisted twice and we're no nearer having a firm consensus either way, as such a no consensus close is the only sensible option. This is of course without prejudice to the article being renominated in the future. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thirukumaran Entertainment[edit]
- Thirukumaran Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail our WP:GNG for WP:ORGS. SarahStierch (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 07:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - new successful Tamil film producer mentioned in reliable sources: The Hindu, Behindwoods, IndiaGlitz, Times of India, etc. -- Dravidian Hero 09:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 5 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, Theopolisme (talk) 04:08, 11 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 11. Snotbot t • c » 09:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the company participated in multiple notable productions, which is confirmed by multiple reliable sources. [24][25] --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of in-depth independent coverage as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:42, 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, LFaraone 03:51, 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 Britain's Got Talent (series 7). Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Richard and Adam Johnson[edit]
- Richard and Adam Johnson (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)
Notable for one event, that being being contestants on Britain's Got Talent. They didn't win. They came third, which is no different to coming second of fourth or tenth. All information about them (other than their day jobs, which isn't notable - they make sandwiches for a living), is covered already in Britain's Got Talent (series 7). Losers of these shows do not normally get their own article until they go on to become notable beyond that show, and as it only ended a few days ago, Richard and Adam Johnson have not done that. There's a good precendent for this, the most recent example being three AFDs for Fifth Harmony, who also finished third in a competition. –anemoneprojectors– 15:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think it should be deleted. Notability of this group requires an article. They are rumored to be signed to Syco label - and we should wait for this to be confirmed/denied in the coming weeks. Fifth Harmony notability is lacking, Richard and Adam's is not. Bruno Russell (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As of yet, they have done nothing noteworthy outside of the show, unlike Jack Carroll or Francine Lewis (possibly also MckNasty), who all had a brush with notability before entering BGT. If and when they receive press attention for something outside of the show (like a record deal) then an article can be created. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 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, LFaraone 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the show's season. No independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the series finalists page. 94.173.99.52 (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the content: they are clearly NN, but I see no objection to the redirect, as long as some one will watch that the redirect is not reverted to being an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 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. Secret account 20:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anime Midwest[edit]
- Anime Midwest (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 event. The only sources that cover it in detail are not independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy. I couldn't find anything to show that this is notable enough for its own article. The stuff on the article doesn't really show notability either. The ANN articles read more like re-printing of press releases and AnimeCons.com is just a database of convention dates and info. It's sort of like the IMDb of anime conventions, in other words. The Patch article looks to be just a collection of photos. While Chicago Now is run through the Tribune, I don't think that it really counts as a RS since it looks to be the type of place where almost anyone could have a blog. Even if we were to count it, that article is just a notification of an upcoming event, not actual coverage. The Chicago Tribune link is just a notification as well- not something that could give notability. Given its size, I'm actually a little surprised at the lack of coverage. While it's nowhere near as big as AX (few are), it's still big enough to where I'd have thought that at least a few local papers would've given it some coverage, so if anyone can find anything to show this merits a keep I'm open for persuasion. I have no issue with anyone userfying this to work on for a while until the point comes when it does merit an entry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Adding that this wouldn't be a bad idea if someone wants to userfy it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:27, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For full disclosure, I recently did serious revision work on this article, and removed many sources that do not meet reliable and independent. Others might wish to investigate sources in older versions of the article, but most were fan blogs and other fan publications of those varieties. Esw01407 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being a fan publication does not necessarily disqualify a source as being reliable if it is independently (not self) published, including Kotaku, Escapist Magazine, and ScrewAttack. ANN reported very briefly on the event for having a Japanese guest. There's only a brief mention in the Daily Herald, but it helps show multiple sources. Patch and ChicagoNow articles are more in-depth coverage. ChicagoNow is overseen by Chicago Tribune editors. Kopf1988 (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a number of the other members of Template:Anime_conventions_in_North_America are tagged for notability and/or appear borderline to me. Is there some suitable merge and redirect target? Stuartyeates (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't as List of anime conventions wouldn't include the article after it's deleted. Many also have sourcing issues similar to this article, but due to paywalls and various other reasons WP:Goodfaith, or lack of support/apathy at AFD has caused them to be no consensus or kept. Also several just aren't updated. Esw01407 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like its time to do another run through like I did with the Defunct and on-hiatus conventions: Talk:List of anime conventions#Defunct and on-hiatus conventions most of the time the article was deleted but some looked okay while others just needed a bit more sourcing. Rather than mass delete articles I will go through the ones we have and continue this discussion on the article's talkpage. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't as List of anime conventions wouldn't include the article after it's deleted. Many also have sourcing issues similar to this article, but due to paywalls and various other reasons WP:Goodfaith, or lack of support/apathy at AFD has caused them to be no consensus or kept. Also several just aren't updated. Esw01407 (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can only find routine mentions in papers on Highbeam as well; no major independent coverage. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Im not so sure this is a clear case of non-notability, the event has coverage in a-lot of sources, plus I am finding more. [26], [27], [28]. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of those are press releases and the last doesn't have in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:52, 11 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) 19:29, 11 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 03:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The big problem with the Yahoo source is that it's ultimately a blog. Yahoo Voices is essentially Yahoo Blogs when you get down to it because rather than it being written by an official Yahoo news staff member, these are articles written by anyone with a log-in. Pay very close attention to the line "Share your voice on Yahoo! websites. Start Here." right under the author's name. The other two sources you gave aren't usable as RS either. Geek Calendar essentially serves the same purpose as AnimeCons.com in that it just reports upcoming conventions and isn't actually coverage of the event in RS. The other site, Convention Scene, is also a press release but even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be the type of site that would be usable as a RS. That said, I'll look through the sources on the article. Offhand not many of them look to be usable in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a rundown of the sources: Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
|
---|
|
- Delete per Tokyogirl79's always-excellent analysis. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reliable sources are just not there right now. I support userfying of an copy of the article if it ends up being deleted, as the article will be back sooner then later if the conventions growth is true. Esw01407 (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete and move to userspace, without prejudice against future recreation - Now this is probably going to be a rare case of systemic bias on North American articles, because in this case I would support deletion of the article even though, despite the fact the fact that this is one of the largest anime conventions in the States and we do have articles on many of the other ones. I honestly want this article to be kept, if only for the con's size. But here's the thing: despite the fact that the con is quite prominent, there's a surprising lack of coverage for it in reliable sources. Sure there are mentions here and there in some newspapers, but they're either press releases, announcements, or otherwise non-significant coverage. For now, I would suggest that someone work on the article in their userspace and at least try to find any more sources, or wait for notability to be established in the future. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this being userfied. I'll add that to my vote. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:25, 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 no consensus, defaulted to delete. Whereas I do not see any consensus in the discussion whether an article on this topic can exist as standalone, the current article is 100% copypasted. Therefore I delete it without prejudice for recreating another article with the same name, but without copyright violations.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The formation of Malaysia[edit]
- The formation of Malaysia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Born as an unattributed copy/paste of material we removed from the history of 20-point agreement, this 'article' is, basically, a content-fork - the work of User:Omdo.
User:Omdo, it would be fair to say, is pretty much an WP:SPA, concerned with adding 'content' slanted towards the 'rights' of Sarawak and Sabah. Thus we have what I can only describe as a copy/paste to 'save' the discarded material, followed by brief, disjointed, often unintelligible 'points' on subjects this user finds important, or relevant to the 'cause'. Anything remotely useful in the article is a duplication of content, the rest is the 'thoughts' of one editor, not known for neutrality on this subject, as evidenced by the bizarre 'UN' decolonization section, and the choices for inclusion of tangential material slanted to the POV.
This 'article' is not of any value to wikipedia, and will not become useful. I know xFD regulars insist on policy based arguments, so I'll link WP:SOAP, WP:NOTESSAY, and WP:CONTENTFORK, but I'd much prefer that commenters read my arguments and related talk pages etc, to form a view.
Now you are all going to tell me, "but there could be a nice little article there...", and indeed there might be one day, by the natural expansion of content from History of Malaysia#Towards Malaysia, but this is not the way to do it. This will not be developed in that way, by this editor, who has refused that kind of discussion.
Editors inclined to vote 'keep' because this could be 'cleaned up' need to consider who will do the cleanup (I contend that nobody is likely to), and how much damage having this 'mess' there does to our credibility in the meantime. Begoon talk 22:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to History of Malaysia#Towards Malaysia per this discussion, and also as a potential search term. Ansh666 01:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (much more detailed analysis) - I've read all of History of Malaysia#Towards Malaysia, 20-point agreement, and The formation of Malaysia. One issue is that, as marked on the page up for deletion, it is a complete copyvio of an old version - which is fine in itself, as this can be fixed by editing. However, the latter two articles I've linked here are quite messy, especially the last, the one up for deletion here. The topic of the title in itself is notable, but the real question here is whether or not the article actually discusses the topic of the title as its main subject - Begoon doesn't think so, and hence the deletion discussion (Warden below may have misunderstood this element - Warden, it may do you well to read the nomination and the articles carefully instead of just voting keep citing half-relevant policies - and yes, I mean vote, not !vote). In my opinion, the article only briefly touches upon the actual process of the formation of the country, and much more on bases for which the country should not have been formed as it did. For this reason, I suggest a WP:TNT redirecting. Hopefully that made sense. Ansh666 04:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC) (Also, on a tangential note, I can't help but notice that 20-point agreement isn't linked to from History of Malaysia#Towards Malaysia.)[reply]
- Indeed it was not linked, I think it once was, but thanks for pointing out that omission - fixed here. Cheers. Begoon talk 05:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The current title for the topic seems more natural and sensible than the rival ones such as 20-point agreement, which is a poor title contrary to WP:PRECISION. The topic is notable as there are entire books written with this or similar titles — The Formation of Malaysia; Australia and the formation of Malaysia; Ghazali Shafie's Memoir on the Formation of Malaysia; The Formation of Malaysia and Secession of Singapore: 1963-1965. If the topic is disputed then that's a matter of ordinary editing and dispute resolution. If there's a problem with a particular editor then that is best dealt with elsewhere. Warden (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you may have misunderstood a little, my fault for trying to be brief. I'll explain a little more. 20-point agreement is an article on a negotiation process which was a relatively small part of the process of the federation of Malaysia. It's an ok little article, but it's certainly not a 'rival' for any putative 'Formation of Malaysia' article. It is, however, the article which the POV irrelevant content used to start this 'article' had previously been removed from. There are no 'rival' titles.
- I take your point about dispute resolution, and I understand you are far more experienced around these parts than I am, so I'll ask for your advice: what is the correct procedure when an article is created at a location at which it is valid to have an article, but the content is unusable as an article, and no other editor has yet seen the need or found the time to create such an article building on the perfectly valid content we already have in other articles?
- If the accepted answer is - we just leave it there, as a confusing duplication and WP:COATRACK, until someone does have the time - then I'll shake my head and move on. Really. Begoon talk 09:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagreements about the developments of articles are routine but AFD is not cleanup. There are numerous alternatives to deletion and you had already started a merge discussion for this page, which has not yet closed. This is clearly a complex topic and we might expect resolution to take years. Wikipedia is a work in progress and if you think there's a problem which you are unable to fix immediately then a cleanup tag is commonly used. Warden (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well, I'll hold to my belief that displaying misleading, unreadable junk like this for days, let alone years, is damaging to the encyclopedia, and the fact that a feasible title has been chosen should have no bearing on retention of such an 'article'. Presenting this 'article' as a result of that search term cannot be good for wikipedia, when we have good content on the subject in other articles. Perhaps you're right, and I should not have started the discussion with a merge/redirect discussion still open, but I did so out of a firm belief that the longer we leave content like that visible and prominent, the worse the encyclopedia looks. It's fine to have a long-term plan for how a series of articles might be organised in future, but leaving bad and misleading content as a 'place-marker' for possible future articles? No thanks. The article, if and when it is written, needs to be written properly, from existing and new content, and this is no step on that path. Begoon talk 09:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have over 4 million articles and only about 1% of them have been rated good. That means that the vast bulk of our content is not good. Leaving it there in the hope that it will be improved is the way we operate and that's policy. Warden (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time. You've been helpful. I respect your position of "defending" articles, and I know you do good work (both serious comments). Nevertheless, if this discussion ends by supporting your position on this 'article', then it will be a sad process of disillusionment to me to learn that we we would rather disinform than inform our readers. Incidentally, the link to an essay you gave me above also says: "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option" and I at least agree with that. Let's see what other editors think... Begoon talk 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your understanding. What's not clear to me is what you think is misinformation here. The main faults seem to be that the content is unpolished and incoherent. What else, please? Warden (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh... I can actually understand why you ask that. The point of view is presented so poorly it is hard to understand. The material included has been selected to 'support' the minority opinion that Sabah and Sarawak deserve greater status and independence than they currently have. Hence the emphasis on those 2 states, and matters of barely relevant international UN treaties, anything to tangentially support the position... The basis for this belief is that 'promises' made at the time of formation have not been 'kept'. Proponents of this idea have an 'equation' in mind that Malaysia was supposed to be formed as (existing Malaya + Sabah + Sarawak + Singapore), so for instance Sabah should = 1/4 of Malaysia in importance, and not just one of 14 states as was actually the case. This is a bugbear to them. They might even be right to some degree. This article was created as a copy/paste of material originally contributed to a different article to support these views. Malaysia articles have suffered from this kind of POV editing for a long time, and regular editors in that area are quite familiar with it. I hope some will comment.
- Now sure, minority opinions need coverage, but balanced coverage, and I contend that there is no way to "fix" this article without WP:DYNAMITE and a lot of work. At the moment it's a slowly developing WP:COATRACK that nobody is likely to improve. Improvement may happen sooner, but probably later, and possibly much later. In the meantime the article damages the encyclopedia with its innaccuracy, incomprehensibility and omissions to the extent that we would be better with nothing than we are with it.
- Here's the important thing - it's worse than the coverage we had before it existed, because it actively gets in the way of people searching for our existing good content. I've rewritten a couple of smaller Malaysia articles that have been in this state, with other editors, and I'd write an article over the top of this if I had time, but it would need to be a sizeable article to supplant our existing good content and I shouldn't need to do that to get this removed in the meantime. Begoon talk 13:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your understanding. What's not clear to me is what you think is misinformation here. The main faults seem to be that the content is unpolished and incoherent. What else, please? Warden (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time. You've been helpful. I respect your position of "defending" articles, and I know you do good work (both serious comments). Nevertheless, if this discussion ends by supporting your position on this 'article', then it will be a sad process of disillusionment to me to learn that we we would rather disinform than inform our readers. Incidentally, the link to an essay you gave me above also says: "With that said, if an article is so bad that it is harmful in its current state, then deleting now, and possibly recreating it later, remains an option" and I at least agree with that. Let's see what other editors think... Begoon talk 12:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have over 4 million articles and only about 1% of them have been rated good. That means that the vast bulk of our content is not good. Leaving it there in the hope that it will be improved is the way we operate and that's policy. Warden (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, well, I'll hold to my belief that displaying misleading, unreadable junk like this for days, let alone years, is damaging to the encyclopedia, and the fact that a feasible title has been chosen should have no bearing on retention of such an 'article'. Presenting this 'article' as a result of that search term cannot be good for wikipedia, when we have good content on the subject in other articles. Perhaps you're right, and I should not have started the discussion with a merge/redirect discussion still open, but I did so out of a firm belief that the longer we leave content like that visible and prominent, the worse the encyclopedia looks. It's fine to have a long-term plan for how a series of articles might be organised in future, but leaving bad and misleading content as a 'place-marker' for possible future articles? No thanks. The article, if and when it is written, needs to be written properly, from existing and new content, and this is no step on that path. Begoon talk 09:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete along the lines of WP:dynamite. Sure, an article on this topic could probably be written, but at the moment readers are far better served by being directed to the main history page, which unlike this page wasn't made as some poorly written attempt based on interpretations of primary sources to push a fringe POV. Focusing on a merge is pointless, as most of the page was copy pasted from other areas anyway, and most of the sources are as noted primary ones that have been interpreted to fit a viewpoint. There are few editors in this area, and they shouldn't be forced to 'clean up' something that has to be rewritten from scratch. CMD (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dont see much of what you say selective inclusion of materials to support the fact that Sabah and Sarawak deserves greater rights. Would appreciate if u could point them out. Further, I dont see why inclusion of such materials would warrant deletion of the article, or even mere removal of it from the article if the material is relevant to the article. Surely any such objections or demands made by Sabah and Sarawak prior to merging with Malaya is relevant to this article? Provided of course they are true and sufficiently cited. CAveat: I do personally support greater Sabah/Sarawak rights in respect of its position within Malaysia, so I might not be entirely objective here. But i do hope i made some wikisense ќמшמφטтгמtorque 02:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Kawaputra, lots of wikisense, thanks. Of course the views are relevant. I thought I'd tried to point that out in my comments above. I very much believe that a section properly dealing with precisely that issue should be included in any article we write on the formation. It's probably under-represented right now in our existing articles.
- There are really 2 significant problems - I actually think this first one is the most important - that the content is so poorly written and incomprehensible that only a complete rewrite would save it. That would be ok if we didn't already have good content on the subject elsewhere. As it is it just serves to obscure that content in searches, and confuse the reader. Leaving it there until someone rewrites it therefore damages our coverage of the subject, and because it is so poor, slanted and incomplete, that damage is significant.
- To me, it's obvious that the author has selected material to support this POV only. The incoherent UN decolonisation treaty material is a good example of this, in that it takes a primary source and attempts to interpret it to suit. The rest of the article is a mish-mash of things the author feels can support the POV. The funny thing is, it's so badly written the POV itself is almost unintelligible. In the very few places you can actually find a coherent sentence in it, that's because it's copy/pasted (with no attribution) from other websites or other wikipedia articles or their histories. CMD seems to see it much as I do, but I'm struggling to explain much better if you don't. Anything else I'd add would be repeating the (too much) I've already said here. Thanks. Begoon talk 04:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Author and main editor User:Omdo has been blocked for 1 week for copyright violations. Ansh666 02:28, 16 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 03:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs major work -- I consider that we should keep an article like this but it needs heavy pruning. Redirecting to History of Malaysia#Towards Malaysia will lose us valuable content, and that section looks poorly presented. This article should instead be lined there via a "main" template. Conversely, the copied material from 20-point agreement should be removed, with a summary being left and a "main" template linking to that article. Thus we end off with a hierarchy of articles going form the general to the detailed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't want to comment again here, because I'm conscious that I have already said a great deal, but I do need to respond briefly to this. I completely understand that you feel that an article at this title would be valid. The problem is that by the time one removes the copyright violations, irrelevant material, POV interpretations of primary sources and purely unintelligible content, there is very close to nothing left. So your recommendation amounts basically to starting from scratch. In the meantime, this "article" masks our current, acceptable content from search, and thus damages the encyclopedia significantly. That, to me, does not seem an acceptable solution, especially bearing in mind, as CMD points out above, the very few active editors in this area, and the considerable amount of time the "fixing" of this article to a point where it is at least as good as that existing content seems likely to take, assuming that any editor wishes to take on such a task in the immediate future. Begoon talk 15:12, 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 Keep. The New York Post reference counts as an RS and the others are also probably reliable. Sources themselves do not have to be notable, just reliable. King Jakob C2 14:19, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Roy Nachum[edit]
- Roy Nachum (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 was previously deleted by AfD for lack of notability. The new version still appears to lack notability. There are sources but they don't seem to meet WP:N and WP:RS. If I'm missing something here let me know. The artist sounds interesting, just not notable. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just as a note, it's probably not necessary to include the previous discussion here. I added a link to the previous AfD discussion, which I think is sufficient. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed I didn't add the previous discussion. It appears to have been done automatically and I thought it best not to tamper with it. - Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Discussion was tacked onto the old one. Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD tag on the main article now links only to the old discussion, not this one. - Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's a fairly long list of references at the bottom of the article, some of which are non-trivial write-ups in reliable sources. The article has issues, but rather than nominate it for deletion, why not try improving it? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:59, 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, LFaraone 03:46, 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. Sufficient consensus after the relisting. I note the arguments at AfD1 was based on the presence of mere announcements and similar nonsubstantial items. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caribou Mathematics Competition[edit]
- Caribou Mathematics Competition (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)
my original nomination stands, fails WP:GNG. mere 1 gnews hit [54]. and nothing from a major canadian broadcaster [55] . LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC) (categories)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question The nomination says "my original nomination stands" but it is identical to the previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Caribou_Mathematics_Competition which resulted in "Keep". What has changed in the past few months? Spectral sequence (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- original nomination contained some weak arguments for keep, also consensus can change. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons given at the previous AfD. -- 202.124.74.33 (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — 202.124.74.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete: Lack of substantial coverage in multiple indpendent reliable sources. Coverage is routine, mostly from websites of the schools that took part, about what would be expected for a comptetiton of this type. Nothing indicating broad significance or notability, or indicating that this is not just a WP:Run of the mill contest. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:50, 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, LFaraone 03:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lots of university math departments run similar school competition. Liverpool have a fun-math program[56] Leeds as another. There might be scope for the for a wider article of the extension activities as a group. --Salix (talk): 22:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of notability; nothing in the article or above that satisfies GNG.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:32, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BlueGrace Logistics[edit]
- BlueGrace Logistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just another 3rd party logistics provider. No indications of any particular notability of this company. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's notable as the largest company of the class on the Inc. 5000. Needs a lot of cleanup though, as it seems to have been created by a COI editor (if the username is any indication) LeadSongDog come howl! 17:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What, really, does the Inc. 5000 list tell us other than that the company has experienced rapid growth? That could easily mean that it went from really really nothing to simply nothing in a short time. Listings such as this indicate that a company should be notable (i.e. it might be a criterion to keep the company off of the speedy deletion rolls), but without other significant coverage, there's not enough in that one fact on which to build an entire article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To WikiDan61 I disagree that any company can be ranked on the Inc 5000, as I feel attaining an Inc 500/Inc 5000 status is a respectable milestone for any corporation. As far as going from really really nothing to simply nothing does not accurately portray a growth of $1 Million to $63 Million from 2008 to 2011 (which was over a year ago). BlueGrace Logistics is among the leaders in third party logistics industry, is known as an innovator in logistics technology beyond its Inc 500/Inc 5000 position, and has developed proprietary software called BlueShip® which is transportation management system. JLJ13BG (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To LeadSongDog I am unsure who created Blue-Grace Group as this has existed prior to my edits. My intention for my edits was to provide updates on the accuracy of the article (such as to correct the company title error, update current company statistics, and add any notable information. I will continue to monitor this to be a fact based article, with references, and remove any appearance of it being anything different. This is my first time making edits on Wikipedia; however, I do have an understanding of the purpose and will make sure that any information has proper orientation. Any suggestions on how to clean it up? Thank you JLJ13BG (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created by this editor, but that is really not the point. We develop articles based on published reliable sources, not just "facts" that editors happen to know (see wp:NOR). Very few documents a company publishes are considered objective and reliable on the subject of that company, so we look for sources with substantial independent comment (not just trade publications that routinely regloss press releases). This can be challenging for articles on smaller companies, but that's the standard we work to. The Inc. listing is, after all, just a number, not substantive comment. Has some other source published more in-depth on your company? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not know who that editor is unfortunately. Here are four other published sources, one of which mentioned BlueGrace Logistics along with C. H. Robinson Worldwide in regards to 3PL companies going into the Transportation Management System market. Article from Inbound Logistics Article was published by Inbound Logistics, which is one of the leading publications for the logistics and transportation industry. An article by the Business Observer formally Gulf Coast Business Review highlighted BlueGrace Logistics and CEO Bobby Harris. Article from Business Observer Bank of America recently featured BlueGrace Logistics and CEO Bobby Harris in their Small Business Community articles. Article from Bank of America Curated Insight also published an article on BlueGrace Logistics and its new approach in the logistics industry. Article from Curated Insight Let me know if these work, there are quite a few more, but this gave a wide spread from different resources. Thank you again for your help. JLJ13BG (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- BlueGrace Logistics has also been listed in Inbound Logistics 2013 TMS Buyer’s Guide that offers a best-of-breed shortlist of some leading TMS providers and solutions (section 'The 3PL Alternative'). Inbound Logistics TMS Buying Guide. In researching other current 3PL companies on Wikipedia, Coyote Logistics is a similar example of a company with relative nobility to BlueGrace Logistics with Inc 500/Inc 5000 recognition, 3PL services, young history, as well as has similar accolades from local Best Places to Work (Tampa Bay Business Journal 2011-2013) and CEO Bobby Harris has been an Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year finalist 2011-2012. JLJ13BG (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- New Source BlueGrace Logistics and CEO Bobby Harris was featured on the cover of Smart Business. Smart Business Cover Story Smart Business Article on CEO Bobby Harris and BlueGrace Logistics JLJ13BG (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created by this editor, but that is really not the point. We develop articles based on published reliable sources, not just "facts" that editors happen to know (see wp:NOR). Very few documents a company publishes are considered objective and reliable on the subject of that company, so we look for sources with substantial independent comment (not just trade publications that routinely regloss press releases). This can be challenging for articles on smaller companies, but that's the standard we work to. The Inc. listing is, after all, just a number, not substantive comment. Has some other source published more in-depth on your company? LeadSongDog come howl! 15:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What, really, does the Inc. 5000 list tell us other than that the company has experienced rapid growth? That could easily mean that it went from really really nothing to simply nothing in a short time. Listings such as this indicate that a company should be notable (i.e. it might be a criterion to keep the company off of the speedy deletion rolls), but without other significant coverage, there's not enough in that one fact on which to build an entire article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you WikiDan61 I appreciate your review on this article. JLJ13BG (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update WikiDan61 How will this be resolved? Also, if I organize the page the same way as Coyote Logistics, is this an acceptable format as well as would not have the appearance of an advertisement? I would like to learn how to clean this page up to be able to add notable information on the company, but make sure it is not an advertisement. Thank you. JLJ13BG (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The resolution of the AFD process is that at the end of the initial seven day period, an administrator will evaluate the discussion and decide whether the article should be retained or deleted, or if the discussion needs to be extended for more input to reach consensus. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Update WikiDan61 How will this be resolved? Also, if I organize the page the same way as Coyote Logistics, is this an acceptable format as well as would not have the appearance of an advertisement? I would like to learn how to clean this page up to be able to add notable information on the company, but make sure it is not an advertisement. Thank you. JLJ13BG (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you WikiDan61 I appreciate your review on this article. JLJ13BG (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spammy article for a smallish company, per WP:CORP. -- Y not? 17:57, 18 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 03:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Y I attempted to correct the spam by matching it to an equivalent logistics company Coyote Logistics. BlueGrace Logistics is a notable company due to its combination of being the largest company of the class on the Inc. 5000 as commented by LeadSongDog, having a wide range of published articles (local, regional, and national), is noticed for its movements as a technology focused and social media driven company in the logistics industry (both of which had limited or no presence prior), and is a recognized leader among third party logistics providers. What determines a company being large enough to be on Wikipedia versus being a "smallish" company? BlueGrace Logistics has surpassed $100 Million, is a part of every major circle of companies in the logistics industry, and is one of the youngest companies among the leading providers. Instead of proactively trying to have this deleted, how can we all improve the page and what information would be notable or worthy to upholding this notable corporation in the logistics industry? So far, all examples I utilize from Wikipedia pages are altered for being spam, but were directly mimicking pages that appear to have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. Thank you JLJ13BG (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Coyote article was purely promotional, I deleted it outright under WP:G11. -- Y not? 13:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Y Is there a page I could use as an example of a proper page for a company that is not spam or an advertisement that I can model after? I would like to edit this page to be a worthy Wiki page and provide notable sources. Would a section highlighting industry recognition be appropriate? I have been searching for corporate examples and several seemed to have a industry recognition section. Thank you JLJ13BG (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You might browse through for examples. We don't seem to have any A-Class or FA-Class, so that'll have to do. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Y Is there a page I could use as an example of a proper page for a company that is not spam or an advertisement that I can model after? I would like to edit this page to be a worthy Wiki page and provide notable sources. Would a section highlighting industry recognition be appropriate? I have been searching for corporate examples and several seemed to have a industry recognition section. Thank you JLJ13BG (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Coyote article was purely promotional, I deleted it outright under WP:G11. -- Y not? 13:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Y I attempted to correct the spam by matching it to an equivalent logistics company Coyote Logistics. BlueGrace Logistics is a notable company due to its combination of being the largest company of the class on the Inc. 5000 as commented by LeadSongDog, having a wide range of published articles (local, regional, and national), is noticed for its movements as a technology focused and social media driven company in the logistics industry (both of which had limited or no presence prior), and is a recognized leader among third party logistics providers. What determines a company being large enough to be on Wikipedia versus being a "smallish" company? BlueGrace Logistics has surpassed $100 Million, is a part of every major circle of companies in the logistics industry, and is one of the youngest companies among the leading providers. Instead of proactively trying to have this deleted, how can we all improve the page and what information would be notable or worthy to upholding this notable corporation in the logistics industry? So far, all examples I utilize from Wikipedia pages are altered for being spam, but were directly mimicking pages that appear to have been accepted by the Wikipedia community. Thank you JLJ13BG (talk) 13:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The new source from Smart Business seems to address any question of wp:N.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What source would that be, Lead? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Oh, I see which one you mean: it's here in the discussion, not on the actual article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources I added some of the sources mentioned above to BlueGrace Logistics (those that were the most notable). I did not know what section to call it, thoughts? JLJ13BG (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Oh, I see which one you mean: it's here in the discussion, not on the actual article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What source would that be, Lead? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears unbiased and not an advertisement. Notable by combination of sources and logistics leader, agree not just Inc 5000 alone. Sherwood10 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on this edit, I have a strong suspicion that you are a re-incarnation of JLJ13BG. Closing admin should take note of the COI all over this AfD. -- Y not? 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Y I am confused, who are you connecting me with or what COI is on this page? Sherwood10 LeadSongDog WikiDan61? Those are the only people who have commented on this AfD and I have not spoken to any of these people outside of these posts on here. My only interest in this article was to correct it with a proper title. Once that change occurred, it was nominated for AfD. Since I have been trying to provide proof of the nobility of the company. I have made edits on the page to remove any marketable information and have added sources from notable publications that featured BlueGrace Logistics. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, but since learning about the editing rules through my discussions on here I have only presented information that is notable for retention and only on this AfD page for acceptance. All the information that was considered an advertisement I have made a point to edit or remove entirely. Now it is simply providing historical and/or current information with notable sources. I believe this meets the expectation of any Wiki page. Thank you. JLJ13BG (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on this edit, I have a strong suspicion that you are a re-incarnation of JLJ13BG. Closing admin should take note of the COI all over this AfD. -- Y not? 16:48, 27 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 Crystal Lacey Winslow. Spartaz Humbug! 16:56, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Melodrama publishing[edit]
- Melodrama publishing (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'd like to welcome you today to a discussion that could have been avoided if this was speedy deleted as it should have been. The sources provided do not pass WP:GNG for WP:CORP. The sources are either from Amazon, or focus on a author. There is one source that has the name of the business in the title but then talks about an author and the genre. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - thank you for your welcome HIAB! I couldn't find anything that would count as a reliable source beyond the one or two mentions provided as sources in the article and those are not "significant coverage". I removed the ridiculous Amazon search results masquerading as "sources" and removed some of the duplicates as well. When you consider what's left, I think WP:CORPDEPTH is a struggle. Stalwart111 09:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete all the gnews hits are very small mentions. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Crystal Lacey Winslow, making the appropriate edits to refocus the article on the author/owner of this publishing company, whose notability is established by the substantial coverage already cited from the New York Daily News[57], Publishers Weekly[58] and Black Enterprise[59]. Obviously, I also agree with the administrator who concluded that this article was not suitable for CSD#A7 in light of the multiple sources cited; A7 is satisfied by a "credible claim of significance or importance" (not notability), whether or not that is supported by reliable sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Normally I won't ask these questions because your opinion is your opinion but the sources you see are credible, how does it credibly show that the business is notable? No where even close to being credible, we may have enough for a stand alone on the Author but even then it would be a stretch to pass WP:AUTHOR. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Create author page and merge the business mention there; it is likely to pass GNG with everything included, but the business itself does not seem notable/GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:42, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:47, 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, LFaraone 03:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The content merged should not include the list of titles, which by our general practice has been considered promotional content for publishers. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
30,000 Leagues Under the Sea[edit]
- 30,000 Leagues Under the Sea (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)
Inadequately sourced article about a minor film, consisting of mostly plot detail. I was only able to find a couple of newspaper articles that make trivial mention of the film in the year the film was released. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. - MrX 20:09, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - MrX 20:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The_Asylum#Filmography. I couldn't find anything other than in passing reference, such as "he also starred in this film" or "another version of the Verne novel is" type of mentions. It might be a worthwhile enough redirect to the Asylum filmography, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I found available independent (poor) sources listed here. In connection with its cast and production, I found more about the production on The Wrap Dread Central and multiple books which can be used to bring this article up to snuff. It ain't some super blockbuster, no... but it has been written about in enough places to merit inclusion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Doesn't pass N or GNG. The minor cites don't save it in this case. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:21, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:53, 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, LFaraone 03:43, 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. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Thulin[edit]
- David Thulin (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)
Minor producer who fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Sources reference small number of sites, which link back to primary site. No original sources. Not released anything of worth or rather notability. scope_creep 19:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (orate) @ 20:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Producer does not yet meet WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. The only WP:RS is a trivial mention of the producer's album. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:54, 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, LFaraone 03:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Walter Görlitz. Article does not document notability, neither do internet searches return meaningful realiable sources on the person or his music. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 14:31, 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. This is without prejudice to me userfying the article for anyone that wishes to work on it. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 22:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hollow Bodies[edit]
- Hollow Bodies (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)
May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Album currently does not meet notability criteria, but it will by mid-August. I'm not opposed to keeping it, but not because notability isn't challenged. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking sources to show in depth coverage. If extra sources are added to the article, feel feel to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak KeepAdded some sources, they'll need cleanup. This article appears to (almost?) meet WP:NALBUMS. Jguy TalkDone 18:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources:
- http://www.rocksound.tv/news/article/blessthefall-announce-new-album-hollow-bodies is primarily a track listing with some hype. Not significant coverage. With no author, not a RS.
- http://puregrainaudio.com/news/blessthefall-reveals-album-artwork-and-track-listing-for-new-album-hollow-bodies has an author who appears to be the site's founder & CEO (http://puregrainaudio.com/staff/) but I don't believe that the coverage here is significant with the track listing taking-up over half the material, and I don't know that the source is reliable either.
- Not sure it meets NALBUMS. Still a case of WP:TOOSOON. I don't mind having it moved to my user space until RSes can be found or are written. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources:
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's why I said it almost meets NALBUMS. I tried, I didn't think those sources would be very reliable after I added them (and looked at another case where a similar source was used and then regarded as not reliable). Learning. :P It definitely appears that it could meet it in the future, so incubate or support your userfy. I don't want to see an article completely trashed when it could be recreated as possibly something great in 8 weeks. Jguy TalkDone 12:19, 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Monaco–United States relations[edit]
- Monaco–United States relations (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. given Monaco is such a small state, there really isn't much to this relationship. like all countries (except Italy and France) the ambassador is Paris. there would not be treaties etc. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 04:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually there are three agreements, including a treaty dating back to 1939. There is a 150 year history of diplomatic relations. Although it seems farcical at times (as noted in two of the sources), the diplomatic relations have been maintained, and plenty has been written about them. I've added some sources, but there are plenty more. --99of9 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes the General Notability Guideline from footnotes showing. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hint for those making a preoccupation with challenging X-Y Relations articles: United States or United Kingdom relations with just about any national political entity on the planet are going to have sufficient sources to sustain a notability challenge, so please exercise discretion to save us all from shoveling snow... Carrite (talk) 17:29, 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 speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no other editor supports deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Majid Rafizadeh[edit]
- Majid Rafizadeh (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 just an absurd overlinked WP:COI, WP:Advert with no clear indication of WP:Notability. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator Now that the article has been completely revamped and cleaned up, I now see that there are sufficient reliable sources on the subject to fulfill notability. This article must still be watched though for WP:Advert, WP:NPOV, and WP:COI concerns. Especially COI - far too many sock puppets flying around this page. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Plot Spoiler agree with all your points and note the sock-puppet issue too. Seeing as I spent a lot of time resolving the many issues with the article I will be keeping a close eye on it. Best wishes Flat Out let's discuss it 01:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - suggest this and this suggests the subject is notable. Definitely overlinked and there has been an issue with COI but can be saved and a number of editors are assisting. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - suggest notability. The page has been up for a while. Sandrkam (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Sandrkam (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have done a major overhaul of this article. Citations are properly formatted, meets NPOV, puffery deleted and there are some decent secondary sources. A few primary sources confirm claims of 'editor' etc and as such are appropriate as there is no interpretation. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:17, 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.