Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 21
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep arguments, particularly Joe Decker's, made a stronger case for keeping. J04n(talk page) 13:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community[edit]
- Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was nominated for deletion previously with the proviso "keep and clean up." Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community. The clean-up has not happened, and several editors have posted on the talk page that the article is unencyclopedic and problematic for BLP reasons. Dianna (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NB: I've made a number of changes to the article since its nomination which address some concerns below. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This[1] is how the article appeared when originally created by LonelyBoy2012. This[2] is how it appeared prior to –Roscelese recent contributions.Brooklynch (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - My views haven't changed since the last nomination: "Not an encyclopedic topic. This is an attempt to string together essentially unrelated independent events under a single banner, very possibly to make some sort of nationalist political point. Yech." Carrite (talk) 02:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This article (and a growing number of others), has become a refuge to attack members from certain groups of people. See What Wikipedia is not. Brooklynch (talk) 04:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Y not? 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in line with Catholic sex abuse cases and its many sister articles. Obviously an article of this nature needs to be carefully monitored for attack-type material, and I encourage everyone, including the delightfully-named single-purpose account Brooklynch, to do exactly that. But deletion is not the right remedy for that. This is as good a series of topically related crimes as any, and gets routinely covered by all sorts of most-respectable RS. -- Y not? 13:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from user:Roscelese in the last debate, "It is a fundamentally notable topic - check out the sources (NYT, for instance) which discuss individual incidents in relation to a broader trend. Crisco's statement that the collection of these incidents is synth is thus not borne out by the sources, which do link them together. (In the same way that "individual" Catholic child sex abuse cases are linked by reassignment and cover-ups, questionable admission of priests, and so on, sources point out issues that span cases: mesirah, internal/extra-judicial means of resolution...)" -- Y not? 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Catholic sex abuse cases among priests is a topic that is not specific to just an small area of New-York and also that is widely discussed. It is not comparable with the article here. Sex abuse cases in the Haredi community would be more acceptable but at the conditions that sources regarding this precise topic can be found. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of bringing that up on the talk page, actually. Do you have sources on other sex abuse cases in Haredi communities elsewhere? I posted a book on the talk page that seems to include a case in Massachusetts, but I haven't been able to take a look and it's unclear if it'll prove to be relevant enough to this article to change the scope. (since, as people have said, not every incident of sexual abuse by a Haredi person is remotely within the article's scope) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pluto, under the main Catholic article there are dozens and dozens of narrower daughter articles. Compare the nominee here against Sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic diocese of Orange, or for that matter most of the articles within Category:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse cases in the United States... Fits in just fine, right? Right. -- Y not? 14:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of bringing that up on the talk page, actually. Do you have sources on other sex abuse cases in Haredi communities elsewhere? I posted a book on the talk page that seems to include a case in Massachusetts, but I haven't been able to take a look and it's unclear if it'll prove to be relevant enough to this article to change the scope. (since, as people have said, not every incident of sexual abuse by a Haredi person is remotely within the article's scope) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Catholic sex abuse cases among priests is a topic that is not specific to just an small area of New-York and also that is widely discussed. It is not comparable with the article here. Sex abuse cases in the Haredi community would be more acceptable but at the conditions that sources regarding this precise topic can be found. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote from user:Roscelese in the last debate, "It is a fundamentally notable topic - check out the sources (NYT, for instance) which discuss individual incidents in relation to a broader trend. Crisco's statement that the collection of these incidents is synth is thus not borne out by the sources, which do link them together. (In the same way that "individual" Catholic child sex abuse cases are linked by reassignment and cover-ups, questionable admission of priests, and so on, sources point out issues that span cases: mesirah, internal/extra-judicial means of resolution...)" -- Y not? 14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Contrary to the nominator's claim, cleanup has addressed a number of the issues identified in the last AFD. Could it still use work? Sure. (As I said at the time, the "list of incidents" format is not useful for incidents that are not themselves especially notable. But we can look at the incidents and then talk about features common to many of them, eg. kicking accusers out of school, without naming names.) But to repeat myself, it's an obviously notable topic and the article is nowhere near poor enough to justify a WP:TNT. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "But we can look at the incidents and then talk about features common to many of them..." — Which is pretty much a definition of an original essay, yes? These are unrelated incidents. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion that they are unrelated is not shared by the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A thorough examination of the sources in the article shows that the only relationship between the incidents (the "list of accused"), is that they are all members of one religious group, and that they were convicted around the same time. (User "Roscelese"s recent edits on the article has not corrected this.)Brooklynch (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's clearly not true. A number of sources - including the Channel 4 that you tried to include as a palliative, as well as the NY Times source which discusses both specific incidents and broader trends, etc. - explain that there are issues broader than individual cases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The relationship between the 7 of the 8 people posted on the article is simply that they are members of the same community. Obviously every crime in such a community will have shared factors. When a news site reports an incident of a person convicted of a crime it is normal to look at the history of that community or area. Unless you are saying that every community member who is ever convicted of any crime (against a fellow member), will be suitable to go up on the site since you will find common ground mentioned in a newspaper. (Moving the names to bottom of the article or to the Talk page (or deleting them) is a minor patch to the problem). Brooklynch (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, you have to be deliberately trying to ignore sources in order to make a comment like this. The sources specifically point out commonalities in the community response; it's not simply that most of the perpetrators are Haredi or that there's some purely incidental connection, because you're right that a list of crimes by Haredis would be completely biased and unencyclopedic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The relationship between the 7 of the 8 people posted on the article is simply that they are members of the same community. Obviously every crime in such a community will have shared factors. When a news site reports an incident of a person convicted of a crime it is normal to look at the history of that community or area. Unless you are saying that every community member who is ever convicted of any crime (against a fellow member), will be suitable to go up on the site since you will find common ground mentioned in a newspaper. (Moving the names to bottom of the article or to the Talk page (or deleting them) is a minor patch to the problem). Brooklynch (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's clearly not true. A number of sources - including the Channel 4 that you tried to include as a palliative, as well as the NY Times source which discusses both specific incidents and broader trends, etc. - explain that there are issues broader than individual cases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A thorough examination of the sources in the article shows that the only relationship between the incidents (the "list of accused"), is that they are all members of one religious group, and that they were convicted around the same time. (User "Roscelese"s recent edits on the article has not corrected this.)Brooklynch (talk) 04:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion that they are unrelated is not shared by the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to be noted about some recent votes, that user –Roscelese(talk) did make changes in the article - which corrected a small portion of the comments. However, the user was making previous comments look foolish by not letting new users know on this page about the new changes (until recently when the user was reminded to do so and put up the NB).Brooklynch (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ::If someone would have created an article about “How the Black community leaders handle crime”. Or “Hispanic community leaders that were convicted on rape” or “Catholic clergy members accused of molestation” There may have been legitimacy.
- However, an article that was originally created [3] (by LonelyBoy2012) and is named, for the purpose of listing people convicted crime on the sole basis that they are members of a certain religion or race, does not seem legitimate.
- Almost year ago – a few users posted that the article be renamed and restructured. Not only was little done - but users (such as “Y not?”) continued to contributing to the “list of names”.
- Other users on the talk page including snunɐw• and Pluto2012 agree that the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and should be deleted. Brooklynch (talk) 18:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - without addressing specific problems (which could be solved by normal editing processes), I share Carrite's concern about synthesis. Looking at the article's history, I see a lot of edit-warring and trolling, which gives me pause. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. I'm not aware of any source - in or out of the article -- that specifically discusses the topic of "sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community." --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could start by looking at the sources in the article. Even a brief glance makes it clear that your comment here is incorrect. Did you not bother to look at the sources, or are you making comments that aren't true because getting the article deleted is more important than following policy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop blabbering and show me the source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- .......is there a source coming along?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're theoretically literate in English and know how to use the Internet, since you're here, so it's amazing that you don't have the basic competence to look at the reflist yourself. Seriously, a child could do this. [4][5][6] Honestly, your behavior has worn out the assumption of good faith that we commonly work with here, so I'm not really expecting that you will change a vote that's clearly based on partisanship and not on sourcing; what I do hope is that other users, and perhaps the closing admin, will see it for the empty non-policy vote that it is and not bother to waste their time with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the User Brewcrewer is pretty accurate. The News sources brought are tiltled and focused on the community method of reporting crimes to secular authorities - accusing the community for having "their own justice system".(One is even titled "The Shomrim: Gotham's Crusaders""). This also leads to failure to report child molestation. (And remember WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). Someone decided to write an article and post 6 names of accused child molesters naming it "sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community" is not supported by the sources.Brooklynch (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'll read the sources, the lack of reporting to the authorities is part of the problem, but, as the sources also point out, retribution within the community also occurs. These points are all made by the various sources which take an in-depth look at this issue, not some imagined list of trivial news articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the User Brewcrewer is pretty accurate. The News sources brought are tiltled and focused on the community method of reporting crimes to secular authorities - accusing the community for having "their own justice system".(One is even titled "The Shomrim: Gotham's Crusaders""). This also leads to failure to report child molestation. (And remember WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). Someone decided to write an article and post 6 names of accused child molesters naming it "sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community" is not supported by the sources.Brooklynch (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're theoretically literate in English and know how to use the Internet, since you're here, so it's amazing that you don't have the basic competence to look at the reflist yourself. Seriously, a child could do this. [4][5][6] Honestly, your behavior has worn out the assumption of good faith that we commonly work with here, so I'm not really expecting that you will change a vote that's clearly based on partisanship and not on sourcing; what I do hope is that other users, and perhaps the closing admin, will see it for the empty non-policy vote that it is and not bother to waste their time with you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- .......is there a source coming along?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop blabbering and show me the source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could start by looking at the sources in the article. Even a brief glance makes it clear that your comment here is incorrect. Did you not bother to look at the sources, or are you making comments that aren't true because getting the article deleted is more important than following policy? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if there are proven cases of sexual abuse in the Haredi Community of Brooklyn, it is WP:OR to point out these cases out of all the sexual abuse cases in the world. Why makes the ones of the Haredi community or the ones of Brooklyn so special that they deserve a special article in wikipedia ? Do we expect to create an article for each community of the world and for each eara in the world that would have the size of Brooklyn ? That is would be nosense. By comparison, writing an article about gastric cancer in Japanese community is justified because that is something that was specifically discussed by specialists and that can be sourced (per WP:V) but there is nothing comparable with the current article. I add that we are also in the same context as WP:BLP. It is true that WP:BLP is dedicated to a given person and not a group but the philosophy of the rule is to prevent the introduction of material that could uselessly and without justification attack living people in discriminating them among others. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming there's some sort of good faith here: no, it's not OR to repeat connections that a reliable source, such as the ones in our article, has made. It's only OR if we connect unrelated incidents on our own initiative. Do you understand now? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The arguments so far as noted above lead me to support a keep. Bearian (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Why is the community of religious Jews singled out? Why do they get a special page slandering them and some of their individual members members?
- If the users are interested in neutral informational biography – why haven’t they ever made a page about any other subject on the Brooklyn Haredi Community?
- One User mentioned that we could protect the page. However, an article named “Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community” which is deliberately to slander a group of people, how will it remain neutral?
- The user relates it to Catholic sex abuse cases. I have not done a through investigation into the issue and history of Catholic sexual abuse cases and why it has received so much media attention. However, a quick skim through that article showed that the focus of the article was about “media coverage”, response of “leaders” and priests and general allegations against their “leaders”. This article on the other hand is meant to slander the Haredi community as a whole.
- In addition, in that specific article I have not come across a “list of names” or specific catholic community members listed as convicted. This above article on the other hand, was originally created with a list of several accused and convicted members- dominating most of the article. Now, some names still remain without any explanation of relationship.
- Also, if that is the case there could have been an unlimited amount of articles with such a title. A (random) example would be a recent May 14, 2013 Los Angeles Times report about a school teacher charged with child molestation. The article then links other recent child molestation cases in that same district, and continues to report how the school district previously mishandled abuse and failed to promptly report suspected cases, as required by law.[1]
- Would that justify starting an article “Child molestation in Los Angeles Unified School District”?
- If anything wouldn’t it make more sense to add these “allegations” on to the existing Los Angeles Unified School District (or black community) page?
- Of course you could make a thorough investigation and identify some differences between those two specific cases and the above article – but there are unlimited cases similar to the example that don’t and won’t get a Wikipedia page. As I mentioned in the Talk page – You could either look for answers and find reasons to blame this group of people for being different and why they deserve extra coverage, convictions and persecution. Or you could look at the general picture - This is similar to what has been happening to the Jews for the past 2000 years.
- In addition, Unlike a school district, the biography of a person (or of a minority group of people) needs extra scrutiny. This is even more important when slandering a group of people with a well-documented history of being persecuted and singled out.
- After the article was again put up for this current deletion review, user:Roscelese has made several changes to make the article look more legitimate. (The user has not discussed on this page that the article is now different from when it was put up for deletion). Among the changes (-as of today-) was adding an opening statement at the beginning of the article (attempting) to set a tone that the article is only attacking the community for how they handle teachers and leaders. The actual article and the sources brought do not support that, rather it attempts to slander the community in relationship with all members. The user also moved the list of names of convicted members from the community to the bottom of the page, but they remain there along with the other 5 names in the history of the article (begging for more). The user also added a comparison in the article to the Catholic sex abuse cases using a source from an unverifiable statement made by an activist - the user stated it as a fact, and further altered the wording to make it sound as if this is usual procedure.
- [More troubling about the above statement alteration, is that even this long standing legitimate user-user:Roscelese, who has just advocated about stopping and blocking poor behaving editors, went ahead and imposed the unverifiable allegation (either against the community or against their unidentified “board of Rabbis”) that teachers in the community schools that are found molesting children – are usually assigned to work at another school!! These are his words: "...rabbis, teachers, and youth leaders found to be abusing children are usually reassigned to another yeshiva, perhaps after seeing a board of rabbis.[citation]"]
- As I see users insisting that some of the information in the article is useful and appropriate – even if we were to take that stance, the allegations could be addressed in an existing Haredi Judaism or Orthodox Judaism article, under a controversy section. This would leave a possibility for a neutral point of view on the issue. This is especially true because the slander and allegations are against that specific community as a whole (and not only it’s leaders). Brooklynch (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that was a very long comment, but what I'm getting out of it is that you don't care what sources say or cover if it's unfavorable to the community. Like the bit about molesters getting reassigned - that's right in the Voice (in both the author's words and a quote from a rabbi), but you're pretending it's some unsourced smear. The fact that there are long in-depth investigative articles on this topic (not newsflashes) that you don't care about because they're "slander," even though they're perfectly in compliance with WP:RS. Your loyalty is admirable, but right now it's conflicting with Wikipedia policy.
- I have some comments on your suggestions for other articles (however sarcastically you meant them), but I'll leave them on your talk page since they're not really related to this conversation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (It seems that the above comment was not clarified): Among the wikipedia violations stated above are the following:
- WP:NOTADVOCATE Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise.
- WP:NOTSCANDAL Scandal mongering, promoting things "…Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard … should not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.
- WP:POVFORK Because there already exists articles on these people - creating such an article - creates a point of view (POV) fork which is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive
- WP:ATTACK An attack page is a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion. … and warn the user who created it .. using the. Attack pages may also be blanked as courtesy. (Some PUBLIC FIGURES (such as priests - especially deceased) are exempt from part of this rule).
- (The following issues were partially resoved: ::WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WP:BLPCRIME. According to Wikipedia, a person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law – The creator of the article posted non convicted people, editors kept on putting it back - and they remain in the history of the article). Brooklynch (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you also describe Catholic sex abuse cases or Islamic terrorism as violations of NOTADVOCATE, NOTSCANDAL, POVFORK, and ATTACK? After all, those also cover unfavorable information about particular groups. Of course not - reliable sources report them neutrally, and we follow the lead of reliable sources in reporting them neutrally. Following the policies you list does not entail scrubbing the encyclopedia of all unfavorable information; containing only favorable information destroys Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask again: Explain why this defaming allegation against this community of living people does not violate each of these rules WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:POVFORK, WP:ATTACK and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER?
- Because it's not advocating anything, written using high-quality sources without attacking anyone, not a fork (let alone a POV fork) of any other article, doesn't exist primarily to disparage anyone (or at all to disparage anyone, "primarily" aside), and isn't written in a blow-by-blow newsy style about events with no lasting significance. Answer my question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously anyone who defames a minority community will always say "I'm not attacking them". If an article "Sexual abuse cases in Brooklyn's Haredi community" and an opening sentence "The response of Brooklyn's Haredi Jewish community...has drawn scrutiny" (let alone the rest of the article and its founding[7]) - does not violate WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:ATTACK - what kind of article DOES?
- There exists articles about Haredi Judaism - insisting that these allegations against a community receive a new article, isn't that precisely a WP:POVFORK?Brooklynch (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Because it's not advocating anything, written using high-quality sources without attacking anyone, not a fork (let alone a POV fork) of any other article, doesn't exist primarily to disparage anyone (or at all to disparage anyone, "primarily" aside), and isn't written in a blow-by-blow newsy style about events with no lasting significance. Answer my question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I ask again: Explain why this defaming allegation against this community of living people does not violate each of these rules WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:NOTSCANDAL, WP:POVFORK, WP:ATTACK and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER?
- Would you also describe Catholic sex abuse cases or Islamic terrorism as violations of NOTADVOCATE, NOTSCANDAL, POVFORK, and ATTACK? After all, those also cover unfavorable information about particular groups. Of course not - reliable sources report them neutrally, and we follow the lead of reliable sources in reporting them neutrally. Following the policies you list does not entail scrubbing the encyclopedia of all unfavorable information; containing only favorable information destroys Wikipedia's credibility as an encyclopedia. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:59, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In regards to your comparisons: Wikipedia clearly states that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", this even applies to existing articles never mind a NEW article. Not every time a person/company/thing/public figure etc. is defamed in the news do they get a special encyclopedia slanderous article, in fact, that almost never happens.
- I already explained in my comment, that I have not made an investigation why a few unfavorable information about public figures or mainstream religions were not included in their pages. However, I do want to point out that in regards to living persons, especialy minority groups, "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brooklynch (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "what kind of article DOES?" ...uh, an article that doesn't rely completely on investigative journalism from reliable sources, borrowing its analysis of community response from them? One that used poor sources, made inferences that weren't directly present in the sources, generalized the crimes of individuals to criminality of the sect, etc.? Is this even a real question?
- Re POVFORK - would you then recommend merging all this information to the article on Haredi Judaism? That seems like a poor decision, and the sort of thing that would be suggested by a person who wanted the main article on this sect to be overwhelmed with undue negative information.
- Well then it's a lucky thing, isn't it, that this isn't an article of every news story of a Haredi abusing a child, but rather neutrally uses analysis of trends in the long term?
- The burden of proof is amply satisfied by the sources presented. I'm not sure you understand BLP and BLPGROUP; it means the sources have to be very high-quality (and they are), not that they're subject to veto by any individual who feels that Wikipedia's coverage of their group isn't wholly flattering.
- Answer my question. Do articles on Catholic sex abuse or Islamic terrorism violate your laundry list of policies? Is it against policy to contain well-sourced negative information, when that information may be applicable (per sources) across a group and when it entails individual events, even if the events are not named in the main article? If not, why are Haredis an exception to the rule that everyone else follows?
- 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously passes GNG. Not liking something is not grounds for deletion. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample coverage found for this. You have a group that gets coverage for regularly covering up sexual abuse. Dream Focus 20:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: See related: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 26#Category:Haredi sex abuse cases. IZAK (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have not gone back and looked at older versions of the article, I'm evaluating id 556822444. With regard to claims of synthesis, when I look through the references, I see articles that talk about them as a group. The articles themselves appear to be from generally reliable sources. Not a lot of WP:GEOSCOPE, but some (e.g., [8]). And while some of the coverage within the article so far has a short time window, sources such as [9] reliably tie a pattern of issues with sexual abuse in the community with the 2009 Kol Tzedek program, three years earlier and again, which shows this is a coherent topic, with effects that go far beyond a single news cycle, and which have a WP:LASTING effect. Certainly there are more notable patterns of events than this, but this seems above the bar. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Joe Decker's sound and accurate analysis. It passes the bar. Cavarrone (talk) 05:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 23:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet[edit]
- Sir Cecil Bisshopp, 10th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability. Members of the baronetage are not presumptively notable and the article makes no claims to the contrary. Sir Cecil married, was ordained, and then died at the young age of 28. The article claims that he helped establish Christ Church, Jerusalem but (a) that's not in the linked source, (b) the linked source is simply a list of British people who lived in Malta 1800-1900, and (c) such involvement probably isn't enough to establish a claim of notability. Otherwise the bare biographical details are in Bishopp baronets, and anyone who wants the details of his marriage can consult Debrett's. The article was previously the subject of a WP:PROD, which was rejected by Rudi2004 (talk · contribs), the article's creator. Mackensen (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is documented in multiple sources and is therefore notable per WP:BASIC. There seems to be some confusion about the details though as sources such as The Gentleman's Magazine have him as the 9th baronet of that line. But AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BASIC requires more than simple documentation though. It requires that a person be "the subject" of multiple independent sources and the coverage needs to be "substantial" and not "trivial." Most sources don't get much beyond genealogical detail, which I'd expect for a baronet but that doesn't establish notability. The obituary in the The Gentleman's Magazine, once you cut away the gloss and puffery, doesn't go beyond what you'd find in Debrett's. Mackensen (talk) 21:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I consider there is just about enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, that if re-written and better sourced, it should be an easy keep. Lots of notable people died young in those days. A merger (emphasis: not a redirect) into Bishopp baronets may also be approriate. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. At the risk of badgering, I think it would help the closing administrator if someone explained why this person is notable. No amount of better writing and/or sourcing will make him more or less notable. Why is he notable? Mackensen (talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A search under Cecil Agustus Bisshopp provides a few more links: see the second entry on this page. He also is mentioned at the Charles Church, Plymouth-article. These sources make me think that the article can be improved. So let's see if that can be done before, say, September. If the article hasn't improved then, we can give another AfD a chance.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thepeerage is well known to me but it's a self-published source and it doesn't address the question of notability. Is it possible for us to get beyond straight genealogy? Why does this person pass WP:GNG? Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline explains why — "[the] topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the coverage significant? The listings in Debretts & such don't qualify--all baronets are listed there. If such coverage is significant then all baronets are notable, which we know is not the case. I feel that we are dancing around the issue. What coverage is significant, and why? I'm not trying to be obtuse on purpose; I have looked at the same sources as everyone else and I don't what makes this young man notable. The mention at Charles Church, Plymouth is also quite trivial. Mackensen (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SIGCOV, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content.". There is no requirement for topics to be especially important. Warden (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't accept that the sources presented meet that standard--in effect any person who has an obituary or a listing in Debrett's would meet the GNG, which cannot be the case. Even peers are considered notable not because of these things but because all peers pre-1999 were (with a few exceptions) members of a national legislature. I have been unable to find anything relevant beyond what's presented here, which in all cases amounts to no more than genealogical information and the fact that he was apparently well-liked by all who knew him. Note the second line of SIGCOV: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." One column in one issue of The Gentleman's Magazine, 2/3 of which is devoted to a glowing and wholly unencyclopedic encomium, cannot possibly be significant. Mackensen (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thepeerage is well known to me but it's a self-published source and it doesn't address the question of notability. Is it possible for us to get beyond straight genealogy? Why does this person pass WP:GNG? Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep The coverage meets our ordinary requirements. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 21:34, 28 May 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. NOQUORUM with no prejudice against speedy renomination (NPASR). J04n(talk page) 13:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Roxanne Dubé[edit]
- Roxanne Dubé (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:BIO, WP:DIPLOMAT, and WP:GNG. coverage merely confirms her existence. there is no inherent notability attached to being an ambassador. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. czar · · 06:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google Books does reveal some tidbits but it's hard to see what they add up to. Hansard reports that she was commended a senator for her work in dangerous conditions, and she seems to be a Fulbright Scholar. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a permanent ambassador, I presume that significant coverage can be found, perhaps in off-line sources, if someone spent the time to look. Pburka (talk) 03:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide actual evidence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That essay was created with material deleted from WT:ATA and has been repeatedly rejected as representing Wikipedia policies and guidelines, see WT:ATA#History of TMBS. Unscintillating (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- please provide actual evidence of sources. WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 22 May 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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clementina Velutini Couturier[edit]
- Clementina Velutini Couturier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently a Venezuelan socialite. I am reluctant to nominate for deletion a person with an article in their language region's WP, but I dont think from what is given someone with her lack of career would be notable in the enWP. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Spanish versino of this page at es:Clementina Velutini Couturier has been speedy deleted by es:user:Eduardosalg, so it's hard to see what it says. However, I don't think this meets our A7 criteria. Being a socialite is an important career, and it seems she had obituaries in the Venezualan national press. She is deceased, and I think the bar is little lower for dead people. I also think there is an inherent bias in Wikipedia against those not considered "notable" by their own actions, having acquired wealth, status and married people, even if there is plenty of coverage (and by one measure at least coverage = notability), and that is wrong, at least because I think Wikipedia editors are demonstrating their male gender bias. The alternative merge to her husband's article. OK, which one? Or do you just pick one at random? So I go for Keep. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not seeing anything here, whether in the article about travelling in the president's car or in the obituary notice and directions to the cemetery, that indicates notability in Wikipedia terms. The Spanish deletion as "el contenido era no enciclopédico" seems right. AllyD (talk) 05:57, 22 May 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 per WP:G4. Article is substantially the same as the one deleted by AFD in February. — CactusWriter (talk) 05:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Floyd “Timeless” Thomas[edit]
- Floyd “Timeless” Thomas (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)
highly promotional in tone. no evidence of widespread coverage in media. of the references on the article, one is dead, one doesn't mention the subject, one is YouTube, a non WP:RS, and the last one is a local paper in Ft Wayne, Indiana. Not exactly coverage reaching WP:NMUSIC. Article on same person was deleted in February of this year. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 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. After deleting will redirect to Bocconi University School of Law, if anyone wants to merge any of it I will be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bocconi Legal Papers[edit]
- Bocconi Legal Papers (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 PRODded with reason: "No independent sources, not indexed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation premature". Article was deprodded by anonymous IP who in the edit summary stated that the journal is indexed in DOAJ and the Washington and Lee Library Law Journal Database. Neither of these is selective (DOAJ covers all OA journals, Washington and Lee all law reviews). Subsequently, some references were added to the article. One is an in-passing mention of a previous incarnation of the current journal (the Bocconi School of Law Student‐Edited Papers), the other an interview on a blog. The other two references are from the journal itself. In short, the PROD reason still stands, hence : Delete. (PS: a previous version of this article was speedily deleted during a previous AfD - see article talk page). Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is me who edited the entry without logging in, as anonymous IP, since I could not remember my login details (umpf!). As you can see from my profile, I originally created (about 3 years ago) an entry for this journal. That entry was nominated for deletion, incubated and subsequently incorporated in Bocconi School of Law. I did not create this new page myself, but thought I'd address some of the concerns raised by Randykitty when nominating for deletion. Here is where I feel my knowledge of this particular item can help the Wikipedia community make an informed decision:
1) The journal (under a previous name) is indeed mentioned in a scholarly paper, though as the only current example of a possible formula to adapt American student-edited legal publications to a European academic market. I would therefore be inclined to give rather more weight to this particular mention, especially as not all journals get discussed in other journals. The journal might have changed names for admin reasons, but I think that's beyond the point. 2) Also, I found one source (though internal to the issuing University) announcing the imminent inclusion on HeinOnline and EBSCOHost. [4] 3) On a more general level, I am not completely clear about relying so heavily on the inclusion in a "selective" database. In particular, while it can surely be a guide, I think it could privilege subscription-based publications, which - in itself - is not something directly relevant to notability? It might be my own ignorance here, but just thought I'd flag it. All in all, I think this particular publication is somewhat in a grey area,and I would be inclined to keep, according greater weight to the scholarly mention and reducing the import of the "non-inclusion in selective databases", both for the possible bias in favor of non-open access publications and because it seems that the journal is on its way to be included in some such databases anyway. Hope this helps. Grasshopper6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. czar · · 19:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the journal is not "discussed" in that single academic paper that you mention, it was just mentioned (we call that an in-passing mention). Being included in HeinOnline or EBSCOHost is not very impressive for an open-access journal either. However, that doesn't constitute a bias against OA journals (those databases donot count very heavily for notability anyway), because more prestigious databases (like Scopus and the Science Citation Index have absolutely no barrier against OA journals. If anything, there's a bias in favor of OA journals here on WP... --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even a journal, but a working paper compendium. Student editorship aside, Bocconi University alone must have a dozen of those, and no one cares until bona fide peer-reviewed publication.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't it be redirected to Bocconi University School of Law? James500 (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to the school Interesting publication, but I think on balance that the best verdict is Not Yet Notable individually. The merge was suggested at the previous AfD , and it should have been acted on. It's the best solution for borderline articles where there is something to merge to. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abyssinian Creole[edit]
- Abyssinian Creole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable hip hop group, from the looks of it never made it. Koala15 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 5. Snotbot t • c » 23:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:BAND's guidelines for music. Unless more significant coverage could be found, which is about the only way this article could make the criteria of the band notability guideline (and I doubt it), the subject is not notable. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 01:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Short of WP:BAND. Trivial media visibility, with the one review of a local concert I found lukewarm at that.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two notable members. Enough coverage to at least have a short article. --Michig (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Passes point #6 of WP:BAND: "...an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians..." Northamerica1000(talk) 10:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While they would technically pass #6 of WP:BAND, they still need WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. They just don't have the significant coverage to support the article. Also not sure if #6 would apply as it looks like the "notable" members are up for deletion themselves. I will leave a comment for them as well, judged independently of course. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If this is to be kept because we have two members of the band notable enough for their own articles.... and then those two members have their articles deleted, then what? It might not be unwise to relist this once so that we can evaluate this article in terms of the notability of its members. Perhaps a group nomination might have been simpler, on that point. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Exactly, great question! Also, regardless of the members being notable or not, would you support an article about a band with "notable" members, even without the band receiving any type of significant coverage? I just hate to say that the band is defacto notable as some of their members are notable. I feel taht WP:GNG still need to be met before evaluating them for WP:BAND. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 05:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just updated everything, with reliable sources from Allmusic, Seattle Weekly, The Stranger, The Seattle Times, Bumbershoot and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.191.231 (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Both members have been deemed individually notable at separate AfDs. --Michig (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted for discussion of the new additions, which may reach Heymann standards. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I'd agree with Michig here. In addition to the coverage that 24.18.191.231 has been good enough to add to the article, I see other bits of significant coverage off-line, for example "Hip hop slides in for summer"; Scanlon, Tom. Seattle Times, 23 June 2006: I6. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 20:17, 26 May 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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TransGoldfields[edit]
- TransGoldfields (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)
bus companies are not inherently notable. this one fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. it merely has 3 bus routes. trove just says routine government announcements about new buses. nothing indepth in mainstream media. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. czar · · 07:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Seems more of a second website plus Only sources I can find are Business Directories .... -
- →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 10:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 13:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of individuals with obsessive compulsive Disorder (OCD)[edit]
- List of individuals with obsessive compulsive Disorder (OCD) (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)
Discussion required on necessity of this list. Karl 334 Talk--Contribs 21:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or improve An article on this subject may be doable, but it would have to be sourced very well and only use confirmed psychological diagnoses (and, perhaps, informed speculation on historical subjects) and not gossip media or other speculative sources. The current source in the article is not strong enough to cite this condition for BLPs... I will go ahead and remove the living entries momentarily. ThemFromSpace 03:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then consider making an article, which would be based on the usual criterion of people in WP with a confirmed reliable diagnosis--at least in retrospect, by qualified historical experts using modern criteria, and where it affected their career. The easiest incliusions will be modern entertainment figures who have openly self-identified, and where qualified 3rd party sources have confirmed. The criteria for the presence of people on this list is their inclusion in the ref. given, which seems to be based primarily on commons-sense observation, which is not a good basis for a diagnosis as far as an encyclopedia is concerned. But the article doesn't even follow it. For the very first entry, Einstein, the ref says " It is also thought that he had OCD" For Charles Darwin, the reference says " It has been speculated that one of Darwin's conditions may have been Obsessive Compulsive Disorder." It might be possible to justify them on such a list, but not on the basis of such statements. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Obsessive–compulsive_disorder#Society_and_culture. This list does have potentional for expansion at a point in the future though. Note to closing admin that the nominator hasn't actually given any valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - misuse or unreferenced names on this list can result in people being labelled - and open Wikipedia to criticism for discrimination or libel Gbawden (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be said of any list on WP. What policy-based rationale do you have for deletion? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a train wreck. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since there is a lot of potential for slander. I agree with User:Bearian's train wreck argument as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I personally don't feel that this condition is rare or significant enough to have a standalone list of those affected by it. Yes, when it is severe enough it does generate interesting case studies. However, as it is now, I think it's on the borderline leading to gossip. I think transfering the information to Obsessive–compulsive_disorder#Society_and_culture as Lugnuts suggested is a good idea. —Σosthenes12 Talk 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Strong Delete without a merge or redirect. Criteria for inclusion on the list are weak - unacceptably so for sensitive biographical information like this. Many of the individuals on the list are included based on a post-mortem hunch rather than a Reliable Source diagnosis. About half are cited to the website Disabled World; typical "evidence" offered by that site: "It has been speculated that one of Darwin's conditions may have been Obsessive Compulsive Disorder."[10] Eight others are cited to an article about Howie Mandell [11] that doesn't even mention the others. The very existence of this article just begs for people to be added based on rumor or gossip. I think we would do a real disservice to Wikipedia and to the individuals on the list if we do anything other than Delete. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 22 May 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 Soft delete. LFaraone 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bhavya Gowda[edit]
- Bhavya Gowda (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, no evidence of significant coverage from reliable sources. Peter James (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If she had actually gone on to represent her country in a notable beauty pageant, she would qualify. Much of this seems actually quite spurious. None of the beauty pageants listed appear to have articles of their own - she won one minor regional heat of the Miss Earth selection process, if she did at all, which is certainly not notable enough for an article. She is certainly not mentioned on Miss Earth 2010. Next to nothing on Google News - one breast cancer article and that's pretty much it! I'm sure she's a success in what she does, but I see no real evidence of notability. Mabalu (talk) 01:18, 23 May 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. LFaraone 02:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aranmula Aviation Ltd[edit]
- Aranmula Aviation Ltd (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)
Only one of the reference points to the existence of the company. That reference cannot be considered as reliable. The approval of said airport is still under cloud and the chances of the same to get approval is very less. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what seems like it could be a hoax. From the lead: "The objective of the fictitious company is to build..." So the company isn't even real? The airport hasn't been built? What is this? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:40, 26 May 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. LFaraone 02:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ogasawara Nagatada[edit]
- Ogasawara Nagatada (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)
See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A review of Nihon jinmei daijiten here shows a few sentences. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Ansei (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The development of consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abe Motozane (2nd nomination) may be a helpful guide, especially the descriptive overview of Nihon jinmei daijiten here by Michitaro and the summary analysis here by DGG.
Is this AfD a mistake or unnecessary because there is something about 小笠原長忠 at kotobank.jp? --Ansei (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This AfD is not a mistake. Nagatada was a general in the Kamakura Period. He had a very small role in the "Shimotsuki Disturbance" (霜月騒動). He is not notable for much else other than being the third head of the Ogasawara clan. There is too little on him for WP:N to pass, since he has no significant role in larger events. Jun Kayama 13:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if he is notable enough or not, but the person described in this article did not live in the Kamakura Period and I don't see how he may have had a role in the Shimotsuki incident of 1285. Perhaps he has a namesake? 5.12.68.204 (talk) 05:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article in JA Wikipedia is here for reference. [12] The son of 氏興 is actually 信興, the name of 長忠 is only in very limited use in some records. The actual 長忠 is the one from the Kamakura Period. Article for 信興 is here. [13]. After further research, these are my findings.
- 1. There are two named 長忠. One is sixth in descent from Minamoto no Yoriyoshi [14] and lived during the Kamakura Period.
- 2. The second is 小笠原与八郎長忠, whose first given name was 氏助, then changed to 信興, who also was referred to colloquially as 与八郎 and referred to in military chronicles as 長忠 after his ancestor. He is 19th in descent from Minamoto no Yoriyoshi [15] on the same chart.
- 3. To separate the two, JA Wikipedia has the article here [16] for the more famous descendant, who fought in major engagements such as the Battle of Anegawa in 1570.
- Both the 13th and 16th century 長忠 are referred to in print sources in Japanese. The evidence available online information in Japanese language is in solely in blogs, which do not meet WP:RS. This article is still worth Deletion but if someone really wants to contest the findings, I am wondering how historically significant the two 長忠 are in primary language print sources. Jun Kayama 18:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In the absence of any other sources, I'm not convinced that a short entry in the Nihon jinmei daijiten alone constitutes the minimum level of coverage or sourcing required for biographical articles. --DAJF (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article falls in the same category with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ogasawara Ujioki. I appreciate User:Tenmei's efforts to help this article but it should never have been created.Chris Troutman (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to his Japanese Wikipedia article, he has an article in 日本人名大辞典 (under the name 小笠原長忠), which is a reputable, published Japanese encyclopedia. Despite what Chris Troutman says, this is different from Ogasawara Ujioki, who does not have such an entry. He was also a key figure in the first siege of Takatenjin. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I will also point out that the Japanese entry [17], though it is lacking inline citations, does reference a different, reputable, published academic source (「高天神小笠原信興の考察」『武田氏研究21号』 1999年。), published by Motoki Kuroda, a professor at Surugadai University. The text of the English Wikipedia article matches that of Japanese Wikipedia and 日本人名大辞典. Bueller 007 (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not quite certain 信興 qualifies for an independent biographical article in his own right. The majority of battles he participated in such as Siege of Kanegasaki, Battle of Anegawa, Battle of Mikatagahara are not engagements in which he played a pivotal role. Siege of Takatenjin (1574), he lost the castle to Takeda Katsuyori, and it was a relatively minor engagement. I agree with expanding the articles with his role where relevant, but even if this article were kept, it would lack both achievements and a significant number of citable sources. Jun Kayama 13:18, 26 May 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. LFaraone 02:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RetroVision Entertainment[edit]
- RetroVision 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)
No in-depth secondary sources establishing notability, no significant coverage. WP:COMPANY. I get the feeling the article is created for free advertising. Crispulop (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 24 May 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. LFaraone 02:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aditi Technologies[edit]
- Aditi Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is intended for promotion with no valid reliable sources. Benedictdilton (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ADVERT. I mean, this article about a company called Aditi Technologies had much of its content added by a user called...Aditi Technologies. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I can see multiple mentions in leading newspapers like
- Reuters India
- Business-Standard
- DNA India
- SiliconIndia
- Economic Times
- TheHinduBusinessLine
- Indian Express
- MyDigitalFC
- DeccanHerald
- Samachar
- Telegraph India
- and more...
If the article is written like advert, it requires clean-up, not deletion! --Tito Dutta (contact) 07:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: source 3, DNA India, is a press release - "Agency: PR Newswire". That's not a valid source as it is essentially self-published. I haven't looked in detail at the other sources, but it would be worth checking to see if they are churnalistic rewrites of the press release. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Titodutta has provided the references to meet GNG. Advert alone is not a valid reason for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Titodutta has provided good number of references.-- Chinmayisk 11:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinmayisk (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Telstar Logistics[edit]
- Telstar 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)
I tried, but cannot locate anything that I would consider WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. There is a Make Magazine reference, but it looks more like dialogue between the magazine and the company founder as opposed to anything that would go towards WP:GNG. There are some promotional references out there, but the article does not reach WP:CORPDEPTH and therefore should be deleted. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gimme a break! This "fictional company" is "an exercise in urban camouflage and commercial phenomenology. Originally created as a way to elude parking tickets." Wikipedia is not for something made up one day, not even a truck with a phony name painted on it to evade parking tickets. --MelanieN (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subject has received passing mention in reliable sources, but none of those mentions are in-depth significant coverage of the subject, and thus the subject fails notability as defined by WP:GNG. I would also note that the article name is also used as a writer's pen name for someone on Wired, however that individual is not the subject of this AfD.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:07, 28 May 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. LFaraone 02:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Paterson (politician)[edit]
- Neil Paterson (politician) (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 subject ran for office but was not elected and therefore does not meet the threshold for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN. Half of the sources in the article are for newspaper articles about his brother who was involved in stock fraud and Neil Paterson (the WP subject) is mentioned only in passing. The remaining sources likewise mention the subject only in passing. A complete analysis of the sources is given here. Editors on the article talk page and at the notability noticeboard seem to favor deletion. I'm interested in hearing what other editors have to say and coming to some final consensus about what, if anything should be done about this BLP. Thanking you in advance for your participation. — Keithbob • Talk • 17:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability isn't there. The most notable claim, regarding his involvement in the founding of a minor political party, doesn't have a reference and the rest of the article's claims don't satisfy WP:Notability. Lexlex (白痴美國) (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The subject is not notable. Newspaper coverage only resulted from his having been a founding member of the Natural Law Party of Canada. Although he ran in three elections, he garnered only a small percentage of the vote, and his party subsequently disbanded with little or no lasting legacy (their advocacy of applying science to government, and their promotion of Transcendental Meditation were both unusual and might even be considered a breath of fresh air, but seem to have made little impression on either the public or on Canadian government). Paterson is apparently a businessman, but is not known for any other achievements, and he was not even personally involved in the small scandal that is reported briefly in the article. This is perhaps the least relevant article in the Transcendental Meditation project, having very little to do with that topic. David Spector (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ogasawara Ujioki[edit]
- Ogasawara Ujioki (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)
See list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Historical people. A review of Nihon jinmei daijiten here is unhelpful. A quick search of Google books shows no support. The stub article does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Ansei (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ansei (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He betrayed his lord Imagawa Ujizane for Tokugawa Ieyasu and then died bedridden. Not a candidate for independent article per WP:N. These Medieval Japanese articles generally do not benefit from searches in Google Books. They generally require printed primary language sources, but even then they usually do not provide enough material for separate biographical articles. Jun Kayama 00:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is one of the many unreferenced stubs created by User:Exiled Ambition before he was blocked. It should never have been made into its own article without the proper sourcing. Even the Japanese-language version is an unreferenced stub. Chris Troutman (talk)
- Delete. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:56, 25 May 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 Death Valley Unified School District. J04n(talk page) 17:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tecopa-Francis Elementary School[edit]
- Tecopa-Francis Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elementary schools are not notable enough as per WP:LOCAL. smileguy91talk 16:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Uniquely named elementary school, viable search term; redirect to its parent Death Valley Unified School District where it is already justifiably listed. Dru of Id (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to school district per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. --MelanieN (talk) 23:04, 23 May 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 move & redirect. (non-admin closure) czar · · 00:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shoshone Elementary School[edit]
- Shoshone Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Elementary schools are not notable enough as per WP:LOCAL. smileguy91talk 16:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Redirect - Move to Shoshone Elementary School (California) (there's another which should become Shoshone Elementary School (Idaho), and redirect this one to it's parent Death Valley Unified School District, where it is already justifiably listed. No significant coverage to support a separate article. Dru of Id (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect in the manner specified above by Dru, per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 17:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move and redirect per Dru's excellent analysis. I would add, move without leaving a redirect, since the name is not unique. --MelanieN (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Stanton[edit]
- Joseph Stanton (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)
Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:CREATIVE. Article was created by a single-purpose account and appears potentially autobiographical. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- full professor of poetry, published multiple times in solo anthologies by substantial poetry presses and anthologized in top mainstream presses (Viking-Penguin, in particular), fits PROF#C1. Can the nominator say why he doesn't fit the notability criteria rather than just asserting that he doesn't? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Poetry is a problematic area for Wikipedia — even poets that would be considered quite prominent by other poets can be hard to find enough sourcing to justify notability. But in this case I think with sources like these: [18] [19] [20], and with the awards he has won, the case is clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Phelps[edit]
- Jeff Phelps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Local sports broadcaster. Lack of in-depth and significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 15:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by nominator Vjmlhds has found a reliable, independent source verifying subject's notability based on WP:ANYBIO #1 -- specifically, NSSA's singular "Ohio Broadcaster of the Year" award (1994). "Well-known and significant" enough, in my view, to establish notability. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 04:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have got to be kidding. I had it deleted last time and I am certainly not going have it deleted for the second time. I have tried to look for sources for it and maybe I will look for more sources in order to make it notable. Ashbeckjonathan 16:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I do not see any reason why this article for deletion. I don't care how hard I try, I am going to try harder than my best to find a reliable source on this article. I say keep. Ashbeckjonathan 19:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please note that this nomination does not necessarily have to do with a lack of sources within the article. It has more to do with a general lack of "significant coverage" online and elsewhere. Passing references to the subject's role as a host/announcer at sporting events do not establish notability. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (edit conflict) Erm, he's won a notable award (three times in fact). Thus he passes WP:ANYBIO criterion 1. King Jakob C2 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably, he has won *local* Emmy awards. These sound more "well-known and significant" than they are, merely because they have "Emmy" in the name. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 16:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, per WP:BIO, and in response to WP:ANYBIO #1: "... meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An Emmy is an Emmy...it's nothing to sneeze at whether at the national or local level (talk) Vjmlhds 16:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Emmy Awards, and then there's Regional Emmy Awards. Phelps won local awards in 1991 (out 54 winners in Cleveland market alone), 1993 (out of 41 winners in Cleveland), and 1999 (out of 26 winners in Cleveland). Also consider that there were winners from multiple other markets in the same chapter, and that currently, there are 19 other regional chapters handing out local awards. So, no, Jeff Phelps' three local Emmy awards are nowhere near as "well-known and significant" as, say, Bryan Cranston's three Emmy awards. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Feran, Tom (June 9, 1991). "WKYC is tops again in Local Emmy competition". The Plain Dealer.
- Feran, Tom (June 6, 1993). "Carl Monday of TV-8, WKYC top Local Emmys". The Plain Dealer.
- "Indianapolis TV station dominates Emmys". The Plain Dealer. June 13, 1999.
- I never said National Emmy = Regional Emmy. Obviously it's apples and oranges. All I said was don't just poo-poo a Regional Emmy like it doesn't mean anything. (talk) Vjmlhds 17:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "poo-pooing" anything. You said "An Emmy is an Emmy". I merely pointed out that, considering how numerous they are for a single TV market like Cleveland (let alone the broader regional chapter), Local/Regional Emmys aren't particularly unique or significant. I really don't see how individual Local/Regional Emmy awards, like those given to Phelps, are particularly notable. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, the other two awards (apparently on a statewide level and only given to a few dozen people total [not per year]) should confer notability. King Jakob C2 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only seeing one non-Local-Emmy award. Depends on how "well-known and significant" this "Ohio Sportscaster of the Year" award is; and as of right now, the only verification is the subject's own online bio. I'd be more likely to conclude this national award establishes notability if a reliable and independent source verifies that Phelps was awarded this in 1994. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, here it is straight from the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association, verifying Phelps' 1994 Ohio Sportscaster of the Year Award. (talk) Vjmlhds 04:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm only seeing one non-Local-Emmy award. Depends on how "well-known and significant" this "Ohio Sportscaster of the Year" award is; and as of right now, the only verification is the subject's own online bio. I'd be more likely to conclude this national award establishes notability if a reliable and independent source verifies that Phelps was awarded this in 1994. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 23:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, the other two awards (apparently on a statewide level and only given to a few dozen people total [not per year]) should confer notability. King Jakob C2 23:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not "poo-pooing" anything. You said "An Emmy is an Emmy". I merely pointed out that, considering how numerous they are for a single TV market like Cleveland (let alone the broader regional chapter), Local/Regional Emmys aren't particularly unique or significant. I really don't see how individual Local/Regional Emmy awards, like those given to Phelps, are particularly notable. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said National Emmy = Regional Emmy. Obviously it's apples and oranges. All I said was don't just poo-poo a Regional Emmy like it doesn't mean anything. (talk) Vjmlhds 17:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Emmy Awards, and then there's Regional Emmy Awards. Phelps won local awards in 1991 (out 54 winners in Cleveland market alone), 1993 (out of 41 winners in Cleveland), and 1999 (out of 26 winners in Cleveland). Also consider that there were winners from multiple other markets in the same chapter, and that currently, there are 19 other regional chapters handing out local awards. So, no, Jeff Phelps' three local Emmy awards are nowhere near as "well-known and significant" as, say, Bryan Cranston's three Emmy awards. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An Emmy is an Emmy...it's nothing to sneeze at whether at the national or local level (talk) Vjmlhds 16:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Phelps has more meat on the bone resume/crediatials wise than Pawlowski (decade of being lead sports anchor for the CBS affiliate, daily host on an NFL flagship radio station, Ohio Sportscaster of the Year, Ohio Broadcasting Hall of Famer). Sources for notablily can always be found with some digging (talk) Vjmlhds 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means, dig away. Now is the time to establish notability. If you are certain that sufficient reliable, independent sources can establish the subject's notabilty, then please provide them. I myself already performed a thorough online search via Google news, books, etc., to find any evidence of "significant coverage", and I couldn't find any (incidentally, I contacted you about this yesterday after you asked for my input [21]). Levdr1lostpassword / talk 17:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about regional awards: I didn't know such awards were issued, ergo unless I'm much more ignorant than the average person, they are not "notable awards" in the WP:ANYBIO sense of the word. Comment about using a source - even a reliable one - which just says "he won 3 Emmy Awards" without clarification will lead readers to slap a "disputed" tag or some equivalent challenging the source's accuracy (even reliable, reputable sources sometimes get the facts wrong). Therefore, IF these local Emmys are restored they should cite s reliable source which clearly indicates the circumstances of the Emmy, including who gave it, the year, what it was won for, etc. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete None of the references on the article are anything other than passing mentions. There was some content on awards, but it was unreferenced and even if it was, was of questionable use in vetting notability. A TV announcer that is strictly local is just notable. Even if he has actually won a local Emmy wouldn't change that. Saw nothing in a Gnews search other than the passing mentions already on the article...and a check of the Ohio broadcasting Hall of fame did not turn up his name. Fails WP:ANYBIO Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See to it, I will completely disagree with this part on the delete; I don't care what you say. If it is deleted, I am going to keep trying to bring notability to it. I see keep. Some of the other users say keep. Ashbeckjonathan 23:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. The "Ohio Sportscaster of the Year" and the "Ohio Broadcasting Hall of Fame" honors are fairly impressve and the CBS article about his awards is a good source. Spanneraol (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Spanneraol, are you aware that the CBS citation is not a news story from CBS but his Bio as their employee? It is not independent and most likely not vetted in any way as it is not a news story. And I found no mention of one of the awards that article claimed he had gotten on the organization that awards its website. That, to me brings the whole bio into question. see here. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The best article I have created is Adam Amin and I think that you win the Ohio Sportscaster of the Year, that makes him notibility for Wikipedia. Ashbeckjonathan 02:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- You have already shared your recommendation. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that already. Why do you keep saying that? I think it's about time to make a decision whether to keep it or not. Ashbeckjonathan 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- WP:CLOSEAFD. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know that already. Why do you keep saying that? I think it's about time to make a decision whether to keep it or not. Ashbeckjonathan 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
- You have already shared your recommendation. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 02:48, 27 May 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. LFaraone 02:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of people who have been called a polymath[edit]
- List of people who have been called a polymath (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 premise that this subjective list is acceptable as it is a "list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources" is inherently flawed as reliable sources are only reliable for statements of fact and not for statements of opinion (see WP:RS). As there are no objective criteria for determining who is a polymath and no recognised scholars of polymathism, all the references in this article which describe someone as a polymath are necessarily statements of opinion rather than fact and therefore cannot be considered to be reliable sources. As one example, The Independent is a reliable source for news, but when the Independent leader for 24 July 2002 opines that Rowan Williams is a polymath because he "can speak seven languages and lecture in five" (confusing polyglot and polymath) that should not be considered a reliable source for Williams being a polymath. In fact the Independent leader describing Williams as a polymath is no more reliable than a blog by Joe Bloggs or any other unreliable source, so it is fallacious to have an article defined as being a "list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources" as there are no reliable sources for describing polymaths. This article is on the same par as List of people who have been called nice, and should be equally unacceptable on an encyclopedia. On the other hand, compare this list with List of polyglots which is acceptable as there are objective criteria for determining polyglotism and reliable sources for how many languages someone speaks. BabelStone (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article has been previously nominated for deletion under the titles List of polymaths (delete) and List of people who have been called "polymaths" (keep). BabelStone (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If reliable sources call them a polymath, then they are on the list. If you see anyone on there not backed up by a reliable source, then they'll be removed. Dream Focus 15:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what does an unreliable source look like in this instance? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See the talk page for an example. [22] See how it easy it is to read the actual source, and determine what's reliable and what's not through proper discussion? Dream Focus 17:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And what does an unreliable source look like in this instance? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to nominator, List of polyglots does not exist except as a redirect, there no such list. And all information on Wikipedia on any subject is backed up by reliable sources, so it no different here. Dream Focus 15:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 15:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Much too vague. No precise requirements exist for being a polymath, and there are no authorities whose opinion should be particularly trusted (in contrast, even something like list of people who have been called filmstars - "filmstar" being a subjective term with no clear qualification criteria - could rely on authorities like the American Film Institute, and would therefore be slightly more objective, but there is literally no respected body with any authority to say who is a polymath). Examples of people called polymaths by multiple sources could be included in polymath, to help elucidate what the term means and how it is used, but it's impossible to have a representative list of polymaths in view of the differences of opinion (of course it's even more impossible to have a comprehensive list, but a list doesn't have to be comprehensive). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've been vaguely disconcerted by this article ever since I first encountered it. BabelStone has very ably put his or her finger on the precise problem with this article, and for that deserves our thanks. It's just too subjective. Any person in the world can be "called" a polymath in any marginally reliable source, and he or she gets a listing in this article. Even Gawker will do, as was made very clear to me in the talk page of this article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the same reliable sources used in this article, are used in other articles, do you discredit them also? Gawker is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. [23] Gawker is used only on one entry, which has several other references as well for it. Dream Focus 19:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're totally missing the point of this debate nomination. What matters is the total subjectivity of this list. But yes, the sources aren't so hot either and no, I don't think that we should be including people in this list based upon what a gossip website says. Coretheapple (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If the same reliable sources used in this article, are used in other articles, do you discredit them also? Gawker is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. [23] Gawker is used only on one entry, which has several other references as well for it. Dream Focus 19:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Maybe its title could be changed, or inclusion criteria clarified. All the included people bar one have a blue linked article. This list is useful, interesting and well sourced. The only problem is the inclusion criteria, and that should not be a reason for deletion.Martin451 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too vague and subjective a criteria for which there are no WP:RS because there appears to be no authority on polymathy. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--Per several above, particularly colapeninsula. I was actually considering AfDing this article myself. Way too vague a premise, with the potential for endless bickering and abuse therein. Called by whom? The title says nothing about reliable sources, and who do we consider reliable in this context anyway? What definition of a polymath are we using? As pointed out on the article talk page, one of the sources used to justify people here also includes George Foreman, yet he's not on the list, so clearly we're not going by just what the reliable sources say. What, then, is the definition we're using, and why are we using it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The George Foreman bit was not from a reliable source but a blog, which a guy said he just asked people around his office who should be on a list, it not something that passed quality standards of a magazine editor for a proper article. This was discussed on the talk page. We wouldn't allow things like that to get into the article. And the title doesn't have to be unnecessarily long since List of people who have been called a polymath by news media and books considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards of notability wouldn't look as good. There isn't really any endless bickering other than from one guy who keeps appearing as different IP addresses that have no other edits usually, and making the same exact whinny argument to remove him, despite what four reliable sources in the article say proving he was a polymath. Dream Focus 23:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's been serious questions raised about the Steve Jobs entry, by logged-in and not-logged-in users, not just one user with different IPs. I for one do not believe he should be on the list, and that the list itself is ridiculously subjective, based on the opinion, often offhand, of anyone employed by websites like Gawker. Coretheapple (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The George Foreman bit was not from a reliable source but a blog, which a guy said he just asked people around his office who should be on a list, it not something that passed quality standards of a magazine editor for a proper article. This was discussed on the talk page. We wouldn't allow things like that to get into the article. And the title doesn't have to be unnecessarily long since List of people who have been called a polymath by news media and books considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards of notability wouldn't look as good. There isn't really any endless bickering other than from one guy who keeps appearing as different IP addresses that have no other edits usually, and making the same exact whinny argument to remove him, despite what four reliable sources in the article say proving he was a polymath. Dream Focus 23:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an important list especially from the viewpoint of inspiring young people to aim high and accomplish difficult tasks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakunneed (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with the above - this is an article based around opinions. We could also have an article on "List of people considered 'a great asset to the community' or 'hard workers'" and also find reliable sources saying so, but that would not make the article proper.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A list of people who have been described using a particular word? Utter nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with AndyTheGrump that the list is utter nonsense. It's like a list of "Geniuses" or "Brilliant people" or "Talented people." The living or recent entries just seem to be to honor public figures someone likes. The labellings of someone as a "polymath" are often just casually thrown into a bio article and hardly qualify as reliable sourcing that the person has met some accepted standard of achievement in some required number of disciplines or arts which are sufficiently varied from one another. Sometimes the person does one thing for money, and has a hobby of music or painting and has appeared on TV or written something related to his main lines. These days it is common for rich celebrities or entrepreneurs to appear in media, or to launch product lines. It meant something different hundreds of years ago, when most people had little or no education. Now it is dirt common for a college graduate to have multidisciplinary concentrations (law, music, English literature for one, or statistics, music, computer programming for another who comes to mind, or physics, music for another). Selective colleges even expect to see polymath tendencies in the applicants they accept (any of: won a science competition, on champion athletic team, writes popular blog, plays cello, winner of mathematics competition, published author). It fails reliable sourcing, because the refs typically express the casual opinion of someone that the individual has the quality. Similarly, an article in a "reliable source" like Time magazine or the New York Times, might say that some female celebrity was "sexy" but no collection of such opinions should justify List of persons who have been called sexy. Edison (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like a list of "Geniuses" or "Brilliant people" or "Talented people." ... or even a List of Renaissance men. BabelStone (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a list of people who have many/multiple areas of expertise, not just what you would expect from the average person, but people who are famous in more than one area. e.g. Da Vinci was one of the best painters ever, he also designed a helicopter hundreds of years before it was invented, and did substantial work on anatomy. It is an article that deserves to be on wikipedia, but unfortunately looks like it won't because there is no absolute definition. I think this is a failure of wikipedia, but that failure is based up WP:OR which is fundamental to the encyclopedia.Martin451 (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's like a list of "Geniuses" or "Brilliant people" or "Talented people." ... or even a List of Renaissance men. BabelStone (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The List of Renaissance men is another list with daffy inclusions, like Teddy Roosevelt. Let's see his diverse areas of excellence: he went around shooting animals (the great explorer, hunter and naturalist), shooting people (the great militarist), running for political office (as befits a great militarist), and writing about his shooting, travel, and politics. Kind of a narrow slice of the spectrum of human endeavor. You could as easily include George W. Bush: Militarist (national guard aviator), sports figure (owned a baseball team), businessman (Harvard MBA, on corporate boards), humorist (created more malapropisms than Yogi Berra), politician, author, and since his retirement, motivational speaker and painter. He sounds like more of a renaissance man than Teddy. Many of the renaissance man entries are just respected public figures who don't really meet the definition. Edison (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As an illustration of how arbitrary this list is, consider the situation where a foreign-language source is used. As an example, Google translate tells us that 'yleisnero' is Finnish for 'polymath' (see also Finnish Wikipedia entry [24], and Google translation [25], which seems to suggest that 'yleisnero'is a synonym for 'Renaissance man') but does it mean exactly the same thing? Quite possibly not - it seems to me that it would original research to 'decide' what was meant in a particular context. Or is this just a list of people who have been described as 'polymath' in the English language? If so, it violates WP:NONENG policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the point. This article will be deleted for the right reasons, but that deletion will be wrong. It is just a pity there is no absolute criteria for inclusion. I suspect list of Renaissance me will also go in the next week as well.Martin451 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is well-intentioned and I've actually added a couple of entries to it myself (the explorer Richard Burton and T.E. Lawrence). The problem is that by listing people "called" polymaths, which on the surface made good sense, it opened the door to subjectivity. The "renaissance men" list has its own set of problems, and in some respects it is more open to abuse and fancruft. Coretheapple (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the point. This article will be deleted for the right reasons, but that deletion will be wrong. It is just a pity there is no absolute criteria for inclusion. I suspect list of Renaissance me will also go in the next week as well.Martin451 (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As an illustration of how arbitrary this list is, consider the situation where a foreign-language source is used. As an example, Google translate tells us that 'yleisnero' is Finnish for 'polymath' (see also Finnish Wikipedia entry [24], and Google translation [25], which seems to suggest that 'yleisnero'is a synonym for 'Renaissance man') but does it mean exactly the same thing? Quite possibly not - it seems to me that it would original research to 'decide' what was meant in a particular context. Or is this just a list of people who have been described as 'polymath' in the English language? If so, it violates WP:NONENG policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The List of Renaissance men is another list with daffy inclusions, like Teddy Roosevelt. Let's see his diverse areas of excellence: he went around shooting animals (the great explorer, hunter and naturalist), shooting people (the great militarist), running for political office (as befits a great militarist), and writing about his shooting, travel, and politics. Kind of a narrow slice of the spectrum of human endeavor. You could as easily include George W. Bush: Militarist (national guard aviator), sports figure (owned a baseball team), businessman (Harvard MBA, on corporate boards), humorist (created more malapropisms than Yogi Berra), politician, author, and since his retirement, motivational speaker and painter. He sounds like more of a renaissance man than Teddy. Many of the renaissance man entries are just respected public figures who don't really meet the definition. Edison (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just because a journalist writes for a big newspaper and uses a word or because somebody publishes a book published by a big publishing house does not mean that a common use of a single descriptive word makes the basis for an encylopedic list. (We all worship the chimera of so-called "reliable" sources too much, by the way. I'm in the middle of a book project with a big academic publisher and trust me when I say the information in it was more reliable until those guys got their inept hands on it....) Carrite (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This isn't a list of polymaths. This is a list of people who have been called polymaths. Or people who have been called something by somebody else. It really doesn't work under any circumstance. It might be knowledge, but it's certainly not encyclopedic --Richhoncho (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per AndyTheGrump. Ridiculous article with some highly ridiculous entries (Steve Jobs?!?). It's extra silly because it's entirely unnecessary: the historically legendary polymaths such as Da Vinci are already noted in the Polymath article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: meaningless distinction. I echo Andy and Cola's concerns. pbp 19:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The nom says: "reliable sources are only reliable for statements of fact and not for statements of opinion" And if it was List of polymaths I could perhaps agree. But, while being a polymath is (maybe) an opinion, to be called a polymath by the source is a fact (the fact being, "sources call X a polymath"). As such, being this the list of people who *have been called* polymaths, no problem of subjectivity. --Cyclopiatalk 15:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a statement of fact that Coretheapple has been called an idiot, but that still makes it an opinion. A valid opinion, perhaps, but still an opinion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAfter reading through the discussion, it seems that we need to have well-defined criteria to include people in this list. To minimize the role of subjective preferences, we can consider people who have been very versatile in the arts, craft, and sciences. Wikipedia is a good source of information and it is important to expand the information base, while ensuring accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakunneed (talk • contribs) 20:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And your non-subjective measure for someone being "very versatile in the arts, craft, and sciences" can be found where, exactly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have struck through this user's vote because he already voted above. But I echo Andy's concern that neither of his votes have sufficient rationale for keeping pbp 20:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To illustrate just how arbitrary this list is, I note that it includes Alok Bhargava, an Indian-American professor of economics, citing a book review published (or at least, available) on a University of Houston College of Liberal Arts and Social Sciences website: the sole use of the word 'polymath' occurs here: "In many ways, this is the most interesting chapter with the greatest amount of uncertainty over relationships, interventions, and research methods. It is a long chapter, but I would have liked to have seen even more of this forward-looking work, perhaps also drawing links between undernutrition and overnutrition as two sides of the same dysfunctional food-governance system. Perhaps there could be more of a political perspective, but this would be stretching even Bhargava’s polymath powers." [26] And on the basis of this single word, we include Bhargava on a list that includes Pythagoras, Aristotle, Omar Khayyám, Roger Bacon, Leonardo da Vinci... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a content issue, and as such it has little to do with deletion. If you disagree with a specific entry or you want to narrow criteria, this can be done, but it has nothing to do with the article per se. --Cyclopiatalk 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be ridiculous. The fact that the list is arbitrary, and based entirely on a single word being used about a person, is the reason it is being proposed for deletion in the first place. I'm not arguing that Bhargava should be deleted from the list (as it stands, his listing meets the arbitrary criteria), I'm arguing that we shouldn't have created an arbitrary list in the first place. If this is a 'content issue' it is an issue with the entire content of this list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's discuss inclusion criteria. Again, this is an issue about content, not the topic of listing people that sources address as polymaths. I would totally agree on requiring e.g. three independent sources for each entry. --Cyclopiatalk 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing one set of arbitrary criteria with another set of arbitrary inclusion criteria won't solve the problem the the criteria are arbitrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "arbitrary", in this context? Are there Wikipedia article inclusion criteria written in the laws of physics? I thought we were meant to take this kind of decisions -after all, the very deletion/inclusion criteria for articles we debate here are "arbitrary". Anyway, if sources consistently refer to someone as a polymath, I see nothing whimsical in that, and much of informative and reliable. --Cyclopiatalk 18:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd think that a "list of people who have consistently been referred to as a polymath" would be a rather short one. Does every source on Leonardo da Vinci refer to him as a polymath? I very much doubt it. Or would 'consistently' just mean 'often enough to suit whoever is editing the article at the time'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by "arbitrary", in this context? Are there Wikipedia article inclusion criteria written in the laws of physics? I thought we were meant to take this kind of decisions -after all, the very deletion/inclusion criteria for articles we debate here are "arbitrary". Anyway, if sources consistently refer to someone as a polymath, I see nothing whimsical in that, and much of informative and reliable. --Cyclopiatalk 18:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Replacing one set of arbitrary criteria with another set of arbitrary inclusion criteria won't solve the problem the the criteria are arbitrary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's discuss inclusion criteria. Again, this is an issue about content, not the topic of listing people that sources address as polymaths. I would totally agree on requiring e.g. three independent sources for each entry. --Cyclopiatalk 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be ridiculous. The fact that the list is arbitrary, and based entirely on a single word being used about a person, is the reason it is being proposed for deletion in the first place. I'm not arguing that Bhargava should be deleted from the list (as it stands, his listing meets the arbitrary criteria), I'm arguing that we shouldn't have created an arbitrary list in the first place. If this is a 'content issue' it is an issue with the entire content of this list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a content issue, and as such it has little to do with deletion. If you disagree with a specific entry or you want to narrow criteria, this can be done, but it has nothing to do with the article per se. --Cyclopiatalk 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The requirement for entry says: "The following is a list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources", which translates to "The following is a list of people who have been called a polymath by anyone". The reliability of a source is expressly dependent on the claim made. Since the list is "people who have been called a polymath", not "people who are polymaths", all sources are in fact reliable for what they have said. In essence this means the entry requirement for this article is: if anyone has ever said X is a polymath he goes on the list. That is so vague as for it to be meaningless to have an article, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Narrowing the inclusion criteria can be discussed, of course, but it has little to do with the article existence per se. --Cyclopiatalk 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a different inclusion criteria then you include different people and you exclude others. It will be a different list, with its own arguments for and against deletion, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a "list of people who have been called a polymath by anyone". Its by reliable sources obviously. If any there are any entries you don't agree with, then discuss them on the talk page. Dream Focus 17:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What counts as a 'reliable source' for an assertion that someone is a polymath? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A college level textbook, a major newspaper, a science related magazine, etc. Obviously some gossip magazine wouldn't be taken seriously for this, nor someone's personal unpublished rant on a blog somewhere. Dream Focus 18:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing in WP:RS that states that 'science related magazines' for example are necessarily reliable sources for statements that an individual is a polymath. And how exactly is anyone going to know what 'etc' means? All you are proposing is to add a layer of subjectivity to already arbitrary criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was giving examples of good places to look. Those things would be reliable sources for any article, with the gossip tabloid or a personal blog not considered a reliable source anywhere either. You can go to WP:Reliable Sources and read the explanation there. Or if something looks doubtful to you, talk on the talk page of the article, or ask for more opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Dream Focus 19:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent WP:RS policy. There is no such things as "reliable sources for any article", and if you really still think that after your years of editing Wikipedia, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a university level textbook, a magazine like Wired, or a major newspaper like the New York Times would be considered a reliable source in any article. Dream Focus 20:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link to one article where these sources I mentioned are not considered reliable sources? Dream Focus 21:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop making BS up and read our guidelines like WP:MEDRS and WP:HISTRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines? WP:HISTRS is just a personal essay without enough support to go to the guideline stage. WP:MEDRS only deals with medical articles. Neither has anything to do with this. Dream Focus 21:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop making BS up and read our guidelines like WP:MEDRS and WP:HISTRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you link to one article where these sources I mentioned are not considered reliable sources? Dream Focus 21:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, a university level textbook, a magazine like Wired, or a major newspaper like the New York Times would be considered a reliable source in any article. Dream Focus 20:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not misrepresent WP:RS policy. There is no such things as "reliable sources for any article", and if you really still think that after your years of editing Wikipedia, I have to question your competence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was giving examples of good places to look. Those things would be reliable sources for any article, with the gossip tabloid or a personal blog not considered a reliable source anywhere either. You can go to WP:Reliable Sources and read the explanation there. Or if something looks doubtful to you, talk on the talk page of the article, or ask for more opinion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Dream Focus 19:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is nothing in WP:RS that states that 'science related magazines' for example are necessarily reliable sources for statements that an individual is a polymath. And how exactly is anyone going to know what 'etc' means? All you are proposing is to add a layer of subjectivity to already arbitrary criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A college level textbook, a major newspaper, a science related magazine, etc. Obviously some gossip magazine wouldn't be taken seriously for this, nor someone's personal unpublished rant on a blog somewhere. Dream Focus 18:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What counts as a 'reliable source' for an assertion that someone is a polymath? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its not a "list of people who have been called a polymath by anyone". Its by reliable sources obviously. If any there are any entries you don't agree with, then discuss them on the talk page. Dream Focus 17:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a different inclusion criteria then you include different people and you exclude others. It will be a different list, with its own arguments for and against deletion, IRWolfie- (talk) 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC entertainment section [27] calls Howard Marks a "polymath and pothead". Would that be suitable for inclusion? What about [28]? Josh Ozersky [29]? The fact is that lots of people are called polymaths, even though they don't appear to be actual polymaths, IRWolfie- (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief unexplained bit on a movie review, what looks like a site that lets people self published just about anything, and a blog where someone talks about barbequing for the holiday. Would any of those be considered reliable sources for any Wikipedia article at all? Dream Focus 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if a satirical program on the BBC (a reliable source?) called a less-than-academically known entertainer "a polymath" then they would be entitled to be added in this list. It is, after all, a list of people who have been called a polymath, not a list of polymaths. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The start of the article explains the inclusion criteria. "The following is a list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources." Obviously a satirical program isn't a reliable source. The name should be changed back to List of polymaths, its just people kept arguing if various people were or weren't, so to end that pointless debate, the name was changed to list of people who have been called a polymath. We could add "by reliable sources" in the article title, but that'd make it needlessly longer. Dream Focus 12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A statement that 'X is a polymath' is opinion, not fact. All sources are reliable for their own opinion. An opinion stated in a source cannot be converted into a 'fact' on the basis of 'reliability'. This list is arbitrary, unencyclopaedic and devoid of merit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The start of the article explains the inclusion criteria. "The following is a list of people who have been described as a polymath by reliable sources." Obviously a satirical program isn't a reliable source. The name should be changed back to List of polymaths, its just people kept arguing if various people were or weren't, so to end that pointless debate, the name was changed to list of people who have been called a polymath. We could add "by reliable sources" in the article title, but that'd make it needlessly longer. Dream Focus 12:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, if a satirical program on the BBC (a reliable source?) called a less-than-academically known entertainer "a polymath" then they would be entitled to be added in this list. It is, after all, a list of people who have been called a polymath, not a list of polymaths. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief unexplained bit on a movie review, what looks like a site that lets people self published just about anything, and a blog where someone talks about barbequing for the holiday. Would any of those be considered reliable sources for any Wikipedia article at all? Dream Focus 20:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Narrowing the inclusion criteria can be discussed, of course, but it has little to do with the article existence per se. --Cyclopiatalk 12:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A hopelessly indiscriminate list that would even include little old me, as I was described as such by some reporter when I graduated from high school. Sorry, but the criteria for this list are far too broad abd subjective, and I highly doubt that there is any hope of writing more selective and objective ones. I don't see much encyclopedic value in doing so. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almessi CF[edit]
- Almessi CF (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 cannot find any information on this football club, or the league it plays in. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 13:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of existence, let alone notability. – PeeJay 14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete for G3, looks a lot like a hoax. – Kosm1fent 16:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is either a bad joke or a really, really unnotable club. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-existent team. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - can't find any sources that confirm the existence or notability of this club. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The resemblence with this is uncanny, to say the least.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SumZero[edit]
- SumZero (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 WP:Advert. FusionLord (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. czar · · 08:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve: yes it's definitely written in a promotional tone at the moment, but that can be fixed. The site is notable, with a good deal of WP:Secondary coverage online, so I'll try to tone down the worst of the promo now. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done, but perhaps further improvement can be made. Captain Conundrum (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 03:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 15. Snotbot t • c » 06:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Has it been revised? Please point out any remaining instances of WP:AfD. - 64.134.46.169 (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a not so notable company formed by notable people. Thus, indirectly it is notable. The article may be improved, but definitely cant be deleted. DebashisMTalk 13:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Divya Narendra#SumZero. I don't agree with the WP:INHERIT argument since only one of them currently meets WP:BIO. Most of the sources given are either press releases or not independent, meaning it does not meet WP:WEB. A mention in the notable founder's article should suffice. Funny Pika! 17:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus of those who commented on our policies were that this person does not meet WP:PROF at this time. Black Kite (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leif-Eric Easley[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Leif-Eric Easley (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 do not believe, having read WP:PROF that this article qualifies - I cannot find anything outstanding or particularly notable in the text. Stephenb (Talk) 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am an intern with a top policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. As a Wikipedian with primary interest in building a helpful, informative online community, and a young professional in foreign policy, I find this article on Dr. Leif-Eric Easley not only a source of inspiration but an informed piece of writing in conformity with Wikipedia's criteria. In addition to the general and specific requirements for an entry, the piece meets notability criteria for academics, a primary point of contention in this debate, noting that the original claim made for deletion of the piece predicates entirely on the academic not being "outstanding or particularly notable."
1. Notability According to Wikipedia, "academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable" (notability criteria were previously cited): scholarly impact; academic honor; membership or fellowship in a major scholarly society; impact on higher education; high-level academic post; impact outside academia; chief editor of a journal; or being in the field of fine arts meeting notability criteria. Dr. Easley meets not one but at least three of these elements, thereby qualifying as a notable academic worthy of a Wikipedia entry. First, the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. This is demonstrated by the professor's publications in numerous academic journals, which are clearly documented in the entry. A Google search demonstrates that his publications have been cited by other academics in sources such as:
-- John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno and William Wohlforth, International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
-- Jing Men, “The EU and China: Mismatched Partners?” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 21 (2012), pp. 333-349.
-- Taku Tamaki, “’Surrounding Areas’ and The Recalibration of Japan’s Threat Perception,” East Asia, Vol. 29 (2012), pp. 187-213.
-- Robert Weiner and Yuki Tatsumi, “How Does the Democratic Party of Japan Affect Security Policy?” U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Report, No. 2012-008 (2012), pp. 1-51.
Second, the person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. A Google search uncovers that the professor's academic work has been assigned on course syllabi at Harvard, MIT, American University, Boston University, and the U.S. Air Force Academy, among other institutions. The entry also documents the professor's contributions to teaching at multiple institutions: Harvard, Stanford and Ewha (the world's largest women's university).
Third, the person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. In the policy-relevant community, the professor is quoted by the media and is well known in Korea to be involved in policy dialogues with government officials from South Korea, Japan and China. It is also well known that the professor regularly offers policy advice to U.S. diplomats and officials. The entry provides many citations to various independent sources that indicate the professor's policy contributions. Also, Ewha University has a list of publications online that includes over 50 articles written by the professor, most of them with clear policy relevance.
2. Verifiability Wikipedia's another important principle is "attribut[ing] all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." The article's sixty-seven references and seven external links to academic sources including Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, USC, and Ewha Women's University and global think tanks like CSIS and KEIA, in addition to renowned news sources as The New York Times, The Economist, and China Daily, are clearly evidence of adherence to Wikipedia's verifiability criteria.
There hardly is a statement or an argument subject to challenge in the article that is not properly cited. More importantly, the person who has challenged the authenticity of this article has not provided a supported rationale.
3. General Requirements The comments below in support of keeping this article have already pointed out other requirements which the article satisfies (see below).
For reasons thus far supported with reliable sources including Wikipedia's own and materials provided by renowned, global academic and research institutions, building on my belief that the preservation of this article will inspire many other aspiring policy-makers and students like myself, I believe the biographical piece on Dr. Leif-Eric Easley should be kept. In-young Esther Park (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park. — In-young Esther Park (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Howicus (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I find this article as sufficiently satisfying the qualifications presented by Wikipedia. Under Wikipedia's specific criteria notes, it is stated "for the purposes of partially satisfying Criterion 1, significant academic awards and honors may include, for example: major academic awards (they would also automatically satisfy Criterion 2), highly selective fellowships (other than postdoctoral fellowships); invited lectures at meetings of national or international scholarly societies, where giving such an invited lecture is considered considerably more prestigious than giving an invited lecture at typical national and international conferences in that discipline; named lectures or named lecture series..." The professor was invited to several national and international scholarly societies to publish his work; he was invited to be the keynote speaker at the Doshisha University and also invited to speak at the International Studies Association, the most respected and renowned academic conference in the field of international studies. This is in addition to meeting Criterion 2, 3, and 4. Considering the fact that meeting any one of the criteria is enough to satisfy the qualification of notability, the article's quality is significantly above par. Keeping this article will certainly be a positive contribution to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihwaseong (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am a student at Ewha Womans University and glad to find Wikipedia article on one of our professors. It was probably written by one of my classmates. The professor had an assignment a couple years ago where students had to contribute to knowledge by adding an article related to globalization. That made more students interested in helping Wikipedia. Now somebody made an article about the professor and I don't understand why you would want to delete it when it is written and sourced much better than many Wikipedia articles written about professors in the US. This professor is well known in the foreign policy discipline and is one of the best teachers at a top school in Asia and also the largest women's university. Clearly the subject and also the professionalism of the writing and citations meet Wikipedia standards. Please keep the article.--203.255.190.57 (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article on Leif-Eric Easley meets the criterion for notability(academic) sufficiently enough. Also, I find this article very helpful in a sense that it gives well-organized information about his works and biography. The notability test, also called as the professor test, asks the academic to be someone engaged in scholarly research or higher education and here academic notability refers to being known for such engagement. Most academics are or have been faculty members (professors) at colleges or universities. Also, many academics hold or have held academic or research positions in various academic research institutes. Leif-Eric Easley is a professor of Ewha University which is one of the high ranking universities in the Republic of Korea. Currently, he is a researcher in the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, which is a prominent think tank in Korea. Working as a member of the Asan Institute, Dr.Easley contributes to policy formation and enrichment of understanding on the international relations. Considering these facts, this article on Leif-Eric Easley meets the guideline for the Professor test. Moving on to the specific criteria, Wikipedia requires the Academics to meet any ONE of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. I find Dr.Easley meeting two specific criteria, #4 and #7. On #4. Dr.Easley passionately writes and publishes articles for the better understanding of international relations in Asia. There is no doubt that his hard work is making a significant impact in the area of higher education. Furthermore,consistently interacting and working with other scholars, he is affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. On #7. Not only as a Professor of Ewha, but also as a person, Dr.Easley is a inspiring mentor. He encourages and helps students to be active member of the society. In this regard, the person has made substantial impact outside academia. He inspires young people who will be the next generations of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhkyuri (talk • contribs) 22:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The entry is about a well-known professor in Korea. He is one of the younger voices that is actually influential in the policy debates over security in East Asia. The article appears well documented with inline citations, and seems to reference reliable, published sources.--115.140.90.112 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is about a well-known professor in South Korea.
- According to the criteria mentioned in WP:PROF, the article qualifies for #2-4 at least.
- 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- 3. a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor
- 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
- And each statements are supported with reliable sources in the article.User:Ewha_ohsoo (Talk) 12:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.142.231.90 (talk) [reply]
Comment I think later today I'll take a look at all of those sources, and see if there's enough for an article. Howicus (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he's non-tenured, and I don't see significant coverage about him, rather than his research. Has anyone looked in the level of the citations of his work? If it's good (high h-score), then I could change my mind. Otherwise, this is not an article, it's a LinkedIn page or an electronic resume. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previously Howicus had commented that the person is "next to nothing to establish notability," mentioning the "mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios" as his reasons. Though this comment has been removed, I would still like to comment, as I think it would be helpful for the future. In order to support this statement, Howicus would be better advised to show that his personal definition of what constitutes one's notability (e.g. what does he consider "minor" and "do next nothing"?) necessarily coincides with that provided by Wikipedia (please refer to the notability criteria linked in my top comment). As he mentions "mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios," which in no way is in itself a supporting example but rather another subjective statement, what must first be established to make his case is to provide from which standpoint he considers these awards in any way "minor," and then to list the qualities about the awards (the criteria for rewarding the award, what honors are related to the award, the impact of the award, etc.) that fail to sufficiently meet the criteria provided by Wikipedia. Moreover, what about the short bios meet Wikipedia's criteria? If the bios were three sentences longer, for instance, would that represent a more notable achievement? If Nelson Mandela only had one line in his bio, saying something about fought for men's freedom, would that make him less notable? Furthermore, if Howicus' belief is that the citations/reference work in Dr. Easley's articles are insufficient and use that as his rationale for deletion of this article, then it is his burden of proof, not that of those arguing for keeping this article, to show that they are indeed insufficient (low h-score). Without further clarification, I'm afraid to point out that Howicus' statements do not successfully form a contributing argument.In-young Esther Park (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
- Reply First, a minor point: the comment you're referring to wasn't removed, it's right below this comment. Second, the burden of proof is not in any way on me: see WP:BURDEN. Third, I'm sure that Dr. Easley did a fine job in writing his articles, but the articles say nothing about Dr. Easley, and do not help to establish notability. Howicus (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply First, my bad about thinking that the comment was deleted! The editing page is getting more crowdy. Second, WP:BURDEN is not referring to the burden of evidence in the circumstance of a discussion on the deletion of the article. The purpose of the verifiability page is to refer the editors, in drafting their articles for entry in Wikipedia, to cases in which, when the administrators of Wikipedia challenges the verifiability of the sources an editor cites, the editor is to provide evidence of the verifiability of the sources not the administrators. However, in this case, we are not debating the verifiability of a source itself, but sustainbility of your own statements. If you were to make a clear, contributing case, you should be able to provide substantive and specific evidence as to why your statements are helpful in this discussion. Therefore, under the circumstances of having a debate, not in drafting an entry, the burden of proof lies with you. As to your third point, please see my reply at the end of this page.In-young Esther Park (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
- Reply First, a minor point: the comment you're referring to wasn't removed, it's right below this comment. Second, the burden of proof is not in any way on me: see WP:BURDEN. Third, I'm sure that Dr. Easley did a fine job in writing his articles, but the articles say nothing about Dr. Easley, and do not help to establish notability. Howicus (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Previously Howicus had commented that the person is "next to nothing to establish notability," mentioning the "mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios" as his reasons. Though this comment has been removed, I would still like to comment, as I think it would be helpful for the future. In order to support this statement, Howicus would be better advised to show that his personal definition of what constitutes one's notability (e.g. what does he consider "minor" and "do next nothing"?) necessarily coincides with that provided by Wikipedia (please refer to the notability criteria linked in my top comment). As he mentions "mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios," which in no way is in itself a supporting example but rather another subjective statement, what must first be established to make his case is to provide from which standpoint he considers these awards in any way "minor," and then to list the qualities about the awards (the criteria for rewarding the award, what honors are related to the award, the impact of the award, etc.) that fail to sufficiently meet the criteria provided by Wikipedia. Moreover, what about the short bios meet Wikipedia's criteria? If the bios were three sentences longer, for instance, would that represent a more notable achievement? If Nelson Mandela only had one line in his bio, saying something about fought for men's freedom, would that make him less notable? Furthermore, if Howicus' belief is that the citations/reference work in Dr. Easley's articles are insufficient and use that as his rationale for deletion of this article, then it is his burden of proof, not that of those arguing for keeping this article, to show that they are indeed insufficient (low h-score). Without further clarification, I'm afraid to point out that Howicus' statements do not successfully form a contributing argument.In-young Esther Park (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
- Delete - Ok, I have taken a look at every single reference (whew) in the article as of this revision [30]. About 80-90% of the references are papers, articles, letters, etc, written by Easley, which do next to nothing to establish his notability. The rest are a mixed bag of passing mentions, minor awards, and short bios on university sites. There isn't enough on the guy to meet WP:PROF, or even WP:GNG.Howicus (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further CommentThe people who are !voting Keep say that he meets the criteria, but just saying it isn't enough. Independent and Reliable sources are needed to show that he actually does meet any of the WP:PROF criteria. Howicus (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would Howicus please show with substantive, detailed support what exactly he means by not meeting "independent and reliable sources"? As others who have argued for keeping this article have taken the effort to provide detailed reasoning referring to the specifics of Wikipedia's criteria, I believe it would be at least respectful of anyone arguing otherwise to take equally laborious effort in proving his case. According to Wikipedia's criteria, all of sixty-seven citations come from independent and reliable sources as I have shown in my comment on top. If Howicus believes otherwise, I recommend that he refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion. I particularly would like to call his attention to a paragraph under "Discussion": "Always explain your reasoning. This allows others to challenge or support facts, suggest compromises or identify alternative courses of action that might not yet have been considered. It also allows administrators to determine at the end of the discussion, whether your concerns have been addressed and whether your comments still apply if the article was significantly rewritten during the discussion period."In-young Esther Park (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
- Reply Most of the sources are not independent of Easley, because they were written by him. Howicus (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Does Howicus believe John Mearsheimer is not a notable academic, as all citations are sources written by Dr. Mearsheimer himself? Please take a look at the circumstances in which the parts are cited. The citations are used to direct the readers to the person's work, which clearly warrants original citation. If I were forced to believe President Obama was not a notable figure, I would point Wikipedians to the citations on his Wikipedia page which include his own work. Moreover, see my comment for "keep" at the very top. I have listed several independent sources off the top of my head. Should Howicus wish that these merge with the existing citations in the article, please let the editor know. In-young Esther Park (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
- Reply Most of the sources are not independent of Easley, because they were written by him. Howicus (talk) 00:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Stephenb's comment seems to take issue with this being a younger professor, and he is right to imply that consideration for notability should not include a individual's potential - however impressive their career trajectory might be - absent documented accomplishments. But the professor in question does indeed meet several of the notability requirements specified in WP:PROF, as clearly documented in the other "keep" votes above and in the entry itself.
Howicus makes a good point that many of the citations provided in the entry link to articles written by the professor himself. But there is clearly a reason for this: the entry is attributing academic arguments and policy positions to a living person, and according to Wikipedia's policies, such attribution needs to be documented. What better way of corroborating someone's position than by providing links to the full text of what they wrote/said? Moreover, many of the links provided in the references section of the entry are NOT written by the professor. By quick glance I count over 20 external sources which verify the content of the article in terms of the professor's personal history, educational contributions and policy impact. The entry thus has much more rigor (and offers more academically useful and policy-relevant content) than most Wikipedia pages I've seen about professors. Let's look at some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_A.C._Brown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Swami http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mucahit_Bilici http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxanne_Dunbar-Ortiz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heleen_Mees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Christophe_Valtat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Perreau http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Brennan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Marvin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Lui_(professor)
There are indeed hundreds of examples, and I'm not suggesting that any of the above articles be deleted. Rather, they ought to be improved to meet the standards of the very entry we are debating here. Many Wikipedia pages about professors which have been up on the site without controversy for a long time basically draw upon a bio about that person posted on their institution's website. This present entry clearly goes into much more detail, not only about biographical information, but also on why this academic is making notable contributions to scholarship and policy, and it does so while citing more external references than many existing entries about professors. So I don't think this entry can be evaluated in a vacuum. Look at many other existing pages about professors, you'll see how this entry is above par in quality while meeting the notability standards set out in Wikipedia's guidelines.
I do have a suggestion for the entry's improvement and I'd appreciate it if Stephenb, Howicus and others could weigh in on this point. Perhaps it would help to have separate reference sections for external sources that corroborate facts about the professor (references) and links to articles written by the professor that cite his academic arguments and policy views (notes). See for example the article about this assistant professor at Tufts who is in a similar field:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sung-Yoon_Lee
--203.255.184.220 (talk) 03:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)— 203.255.184.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Slightly baffled, as I said nothing about his age, which wasn't the reason for nominating this article. As for other professors: whether or not they are notable enough for an article is immaterial: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I still think this one fails WP:PROF Stephenb (Talk) 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The more I see of this the debate, the more I think this a strong keep. I hope those who have expressed pro-deletion views will more adequately address the points made by others in this discussion, including my replies below.
- Stephenb expresses his opinion that the article doesn't meet WP:PROF criteria. He says he sees nothing notable. But I do not see elaboration or evidence for his opinion. Meanwhile, In-young Esther Park, Yhkyuri, Mihwaseong, Ewha_ohsoo and other anonymous users have cited Wikipedia guidelines and external, independent, reliable sources. If you do not agree with the editors who vote to keep the article, why don't you address their arguments and evidence? Clearly the article itself includes external references. Clearly the professor is widely cited (In-young Esther Park provides several examples which she says are just a sampling - academic book, journals, policy report - in addition to what is referenced in the entry itself).
- Stephenb references WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as if it invalidates points in my previous post, but in fact, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS supports my argument: "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain. Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested…and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing…identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability…and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." Let me be clear: my point was not only that there are hundreds of articles about professors that are not as well written and sourced as this one (that alone would be weak justification to include an article). Rather, my point is that some contributors to this discussion may not be properly applying Wikipedia's standards. I provided examples of other professors' pages which Stephenb summarily dismissed, but I am yet to be convinced otherwise.
- To Bearian's comment that the professor is not tenured, where in WP:PROF does it say that tenure is a necessary requirement for notability? WP:PROF states that "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following [nine] conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable." Yhkyuri, Mihwaseong and Ewha_ohsoo have addressed this professor's qualifications on several of the nine criteria, even though any single one would be sufficient. The entry itself has many reliable external sources cited (prestigious universities, think tanks, journals, media organizations) and In-young Esther Park's lengthy post above mentions additional external sources that cite the professor's published work:
- -- John Ikenberry, Michael Mastanduno and William Wohlforth, International Relations Theory and the Consequences of Unipolarity (Cambridge University Press, 2012). -- Jing Men, “The EU and China: Mismatched Partners?” Journal of Contemporary China, Vol. 21 (2012), pp. 333-349. -- Taku Tamaki, “’Surrounding Areas’ and The Recalibration of Japan’s Threat Perception,” East Asia, Vol. 29 (2012), pp. 187-213. -- Robert Weiner and Yuki Tatsumi, “How Does the Democratic Party of Japan Affect Security Policy?” U.S. Naval Postgraduate School Report, No. 2012-008 (2012), pp. 1-51.
- In addition, while Google Scholar is by no means complete (like other citation indexes and search engines, it misses a lot of academic references) this simple search: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Leif-Eric+Easley yields 77 results, which given the professor's unusual name, all seem to refer to him and probably represents only a portion of the academic mentions of the professor's work. Is that Nobel Prize economist level notability? Of course not. But we need to proceed according to stated and hitherto applied Wikipedia standards, and this article clearly meets at least one (and probably several) of those criteria.
- Finally, what about my suggestion that the original editor separate reference sections for external sources that corroborate facts about the professor (references) and links to articles written by the professor that cite his academic arguments and policy views (notes)? This seems to be effective in the case of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sung-Yoon_Lee and in my opinion would address Howicus' concern. --203.255.184.220 (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)— 203.255.184.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. No sign of meeting any of the WP:Prof criteria. Far too early. The fan-club support does not help the cause of the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I must say it strikes me that proponents of this entry provide reasoned arguments based on Wikipedia policies and offer clear evidence to independent verifiable sources, whereas those who post comments against the article tend to do so without clear justification, without adequately considering the evidence presented by proponents, and while making unprofessional and even insulting comments. If you read Wikipedia's guidelines, it is discussed how experienced editors should welcome and mentor junior editors, treat them with respect, and look to improve contributions rather than dismissing other's efforts. I hope we can raise the quality of discussion a bit here. A good place to start would be for opponents of the article to engage the proponents' arguments and evidence and give suggestions for improvement. --121.128.1.24 (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)— 121.128.1.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I am a Korean foreign policy expert based in Seoul. I know Prof. Easley's work, so in addition to the reliable external sources provided by other discussants here, I can attest to the professor's notability. He is involved in many high level "Track 2" negotiations about security in Northeast Asia. He can be found at many of the most important policy discussions and academic exchanges that take place in Seoul. But don't take my word for it, check the Korean media. Some of you may not be familar with Korean media, so let me give you a couple links.
- First, on occasion of President Obama's reelection, Easley was quoted as a major analyst of U.S.-Korea relations along with another professor from Seoul National University: http://koreajoongangdaily.joinsmsn.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=2962015.
- Second, the president of Harvard University recently visited Korea to give a big speech. Of all the high level people involved in President Faust's visit (ambassadors, university presidents, business leaders), any of whom could have been mentioned, this news article mentions only President Faust, Prof. Park and Prof. Easley: http://www.dhnews.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=23121.
- In my opinion, the discussion here should not be about whether to delete the article, but rather how it can be improved. For example, I don't think many people care about Easley's "early life." That section can probably be discarded. What makes Easley notable is his academic research that is actually having impact in the foreign policy community. And those sections of the Wikipedia article are excellent. --121.128.1.24 (talk) 04:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)— 121.128.1.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisions implemented. Please note that in response to several comments and suggestions on this discussion page, the following revisions have been made to the entry:
- 1. In addition to existing citations, further independent and reliable sources were added, including those suggested on the discussion page showing that the professor's work is widely cited and is assigned reading at other universities, and that he is quoted in the media.
- 2. To avoid confusion about external sources that mention the professor vs. external sources representing the professor's own research and policy input, there are now two separate sections for the links for inline citations: "References" and "Notes".
- 3. Hyperlinks were added to the "Publications" section.
- 4. The "early life" section was removed because some editors argued it does not help establish notability and may not be of general interest.
- 5. Minor edits were made throughout the text to make the article read more professionally and smoothly.
- I hope you will find that I have addressed all concrete suggestions offered for the article thus far; I am happy to make other specific edits and consider other specific recommendations. Regarding the general concerns raised by some posts in this discussion, I believe you will find those well addressed in the extensive comments to keep the article posted above. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewha ohsoo (talk • contribs) 06:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too junior to have much chance of passing WP:PROF, not described in enough depth in published news articles (as opposed to being quoted or being the author of the articles) to pass WP:GNG, too larded with irrelevant detail to make any other notability evident, and the sockpuppet party in evidence here isn't helping either. (Isn't it time to take this to WP:SPI already?) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The link you gave on lard (wikipuffery) talks about the use of "peacock adjectives" and footnotes to non-reliable sources (MySpace, Facebook, etc.) or to sources that do not specifically mention the subject. I would like you to acknowledge that the present article does no such thing. Your accusation is unfounded. If you look at the citations, they reference independent reliable sources, from top universities and think tanks, to reputable journals, to well-known media sources. Also, could you please address the point how WP:PROF requires meeting ONE of the NINE criteria listed in the guidelines and how multiple independent users in this discussion have provided reasoning and evidence (with weblinks) above supporting notability? I am afraid that people voting delete here tend to misrepresent Wikipedia guidelines and to dismiss verifiable evidence being provided.In-young Esther Park (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park.[reply]
- Delete Far too junior. Recent PhD with minimal citations in a high-citation field, and the existing article is a great example of excessive promotion. Meat/sockpuppetry in the comments above are amusing but not helpful. RayTalk 14:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Would you care to address how this article compares to many other existing articles about professors? Please see the debate above about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and links to existing examples of articles about professors on Wikipedia. Also, if you compare the present article to others being considered for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Academics_and_educators) there is no question that this article is of greater merit, both in quality and documentation of notability. I appreciate that users voting 'delete' are interested in maintaining a high bar for Wikipedia articles. But I strongly believe you are misapplying Wikipedia standards - please look at the external evidence being provided and look at other Wikipedia articles in relative comparison. Finally, I would greatly appreciate it if everyone would maintain an air of respect in this discussion by addressing detailed comments rather than making unsubstantiated and insulting remarks.In-young Esther Park (talk) 02:35, 28 May 2013 (UTC)In-young Esther Park[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it. It is a special type of website designed to make collaboration easy, called a wiki. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes per hour. All of these changes are recorded in article histories and recent changes.
This is how Wikipedia introduces itself on the introduction page. The idea is to encourage everyone to freely make contributions, but many comments I see here are against the very purpose of Wikipedia. When I first created this article, the idea was to allow people across the world to easily access Professor's articles and publications. Of course, his articles can be easily found via google search but because Wikipedia is such a huge, world-wide encyclopedia, I thought it would be rather weird for Wikipedia not to have an article about a public figure in South Korea. There are many English-speaking users in South Korea who wish to access information about him in English (but there are not that many English profiles in Korean search engines), which is why I thought having this article about Professor in English would be helpful for such people. As he is an influential figure in the field of foreign policy, I cannot agree with some users here who argue that he is "not notable enough" as they do not know anything about him in the first place. I also cannot agree with 'sockpuppet party' because I know I've made some comments without logging in but it was NOT to pretend as if I'm a different user. As for the other comments made by others, I recognize some of my classmates and they are definetely NOT the same user. I strongly agree with the following comment: "If you read Wikipedia's guidelines, it is discussed how experienced editors should welcome and mentor junior editors, treat them with respect, and look to improve contributions rather than dismissing other's efforts. I hope we can raise the quality of discussion a bit here. A good place to start would be for opponents of the article to engage the proponents' arguments and evidence and give suggestions for improvement." As I'm a junior editor myself, I came here to make contributions to Wikipedia NOT to ruin it. It would be helpful for senior editors here to advise me how to improve my contributions, rather than leaving negative/unhelpful comments that discourage junior editors from making contributions to better Wikipedia. I've made some revisions based on the helpful suggestions here, thank you. Ewha ohsoo (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, a couple points. First, I don't think anyone here doubts that you are trying to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Second, if Easley is really as well-known as you claim, then it should be easy to find reliable, independent sources about him (not written by him). We shouldn't have to be familiar with Dr. Easley to judge his notability. There is nothing in the sources that shows that Easley meets the criteria in WP:PROF. Wikipedia may seem a bit harsh for new editors at first, but there are reasons behind the rules. Guidelines such as WP:PROF are in place to try to ensure that Wikipedia has only articles about notable subjects. Howicus (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Thank you Howicus. I would like to respond once more regarding notability, and I ask that you consult not only WP:PROF but also other Wikipedia articles about professors (including those linked in the debate above) to see how this article is of greater merit than many long maintained on Wikipedia without controversy. Regarding notability:
-- The professor has over 50 verifiable publications in reputable academic journals, books, policy-relevant journals and widely circulated newspapers (http://dis.ewha.ac.kr/users/ewhadis/faculty/Easley/publications.html). Most pages I've seen on Wikipedia about professors do not demonstrate they are so prolific.
-- The professor's publications are widely cited by scholars in different fields and appear on course syllabi at various institutions (see footnotes 49-57 for examples; there are many more, including in Korean, Japanese and Chinese).
-- His comments on foreign policy are quoted or printed in venues including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the Economist (links provided in article) regarding important foreign policy issues like U.S.-China relations, North Korea, and East Asia's regional security architecture.
-- He participates and has policy impact in high-level track II dialogues (as documented on the Asan Institute website and others including video you can watch).
-- He often gives public lectures, including a keynote speech at a top university in Japan (www.america-kenkyusho.jp/seminar/english.html) among many other high profile meetings.
-- The professor's awards, grants and record of affiliation with prestigious educational institutions (UCLA, Harvard, Stanford, Ewha) are documented in the article's citations.
-- He is recognized for excellent teaching and making positive contributions to the curriculum at multiple institutions (again, documented in the article).
-- In addition to being carefully written and sourced, the article includes many references (74 citations and many in-line links - much more than most articles about professors) including citations to the professor's own publications since his academic and policy positions are being referenced.
-- The professor may not be famous (yet), but he is clearly notable in both academic and policy communities, and has a demonstrated history of accomplishment. I don't think Wikipedia is only for older professors whose careers have already peaked. This professor is still on an upward trajectory (increasing in academic and policy impact) which is precisely why his bio is of interest to many younger people in the field.
-- I wish those who have expressed negative views on the entry would grant this article better consideration. I hope you don't stick with a negative vote just to try and win an argument. I ask that you recognize that those who support this article have provided reasoned explanations and extensive supporting evidence using external reliable sources, and that the article has been revised to incorporate constructive feedback. Thank you! Ewha ohsoo (talk • contribs) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about spa. A glance at the history of this page shows that the edit above was made by 210.124.19.107, an IP spa. After I put an spa template on the edit Ewha ohsoo removed it and substituted her own name Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Apologies. I forgot to log-in and sign my name. I'll be more aware of it next time.Ewha ohsoo (talk)
- Comment. The claims in the wall of text above are beside the point. The link at the top to Google scholar shows cites of 29, 6, 1. By the standards in these pages this is its totally inadequate to pass WP:Prof#1 and shows that hardly any notice has been taken yet by others of the subject's work however much he may have produced. Editors should note the statement at WP:Prof Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study. This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply.Thank you for your response. But I would disagree with you that my comments are beside the point. Google Scholar is not the only way to establish the importance of publications - Wikipedia guidelines actually say to use Google Scholar numbers "with caution" given that it misses many citations (see above) especially when an author is being cited in Korean, Japanese and Chinese sources. What is more, editors (above) and the article itself have provided evidence for notability in other criteria areas in addition to publications. I do not understand why some users appear to put a higher bar in front of some professor pages than others. There are hundreds of pages about professors on Wikipedia which are clearly lower in written quality, notability and documentation (see examples linked above). The article under debate here has been written according to Wikipedia guidelines and rigorously sourced, and it clearly contributes to the body of useful, verifiable, and interesting material on Wikipedia. Ewha ohsoo (talk)
- Again, read over WP:OSE. It's true that argue nets based on OSE are occasionally valid, but this is not one of those times. We are only considering this article. The existence or condition of other articles has no relevance in this discussion. Howicus (talk) 13:07, 29 May 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. LFaraone 02:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Antony Crockett[edit]
- Antony Crockett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a general practioner. Article was created on 11 September 2009 by Confidopoax, who is the major contributor and who also created articles on other members of the Crockett family at the same time, so this appears to be an example of personal genealogy. The article was nominated for Speedy Deletion. On 6 October 2009, User:DGG declined the speedy, commenting "As reviewing admin, I think this shows at least some minimal importance, so not appropriate for speedy deletion." DGG did, though, add notability and refimprove tags. No changes were made or references added before 23 December 2009 when User:78.105.49.90 removed the notability and refimprove tags with no reason given. Since then, no references have been added and there has been no substantial alteration to the article. The article seems to assert notability by relationships, e.g. to father, grandfather, uncle and a distant ancestor, but these themselves are articles created or heavily edited by the same editor. External links do not provide sufficient independent detail (one is to the GPs' surgery which confims he's a GP there and the other is to his company's webiste). Emeraude (talk) 12:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain. Without the books, I would have deleted as A7, but asserting authorship of a non-self published book is a claim of importance enough to pass speedy, though not necessarily notability, I just now added proper refs for the 2 books, one aimed at physicians, one at patients.. I am not sure whether or not he is a notable author--the worldcat holding for each are less than 100, but these are books specific to the UK medical system, and Worldcat covers primarily US & Canadian libraries, with only some major academic libraries elsewhere. I can not comprehensively find book reviews for books in this subject outside the US, but I did find a review for his professionally-oriented book from BMJ, the major British medical journal. Both books are published by two leading UK publishers, Blackwell, and Churchill-Livingston. Of course his ancestors do not show notability for him, and the article gives no indication the ed. is so foolish as to claim it does, but at least one of them, the martyr, is certainly notable; the theatre director probably is, the military officer probably not. DGG ( talk ) 15:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually one of the military officers, his grandfather Basil Crockett, was awarded the DSO 3 times, and reached the rank of Colonel, and served during the Great War. The other (his uncle Anthony John Sinclair Crockett), served during the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency, achieved a slightly lower rank of Major, and "only" an OBE, and wrote a memoir, but he doesn't have an article (yet) anyway. I'm very much less sure about the tv director, but at least he is dead, which means the notability stakes are lower. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not totally sure if you were trying to make this as a notability argument but the established understanding is that notability is not inherited.
Zad68
19:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- No, it was an aside to the aside (although as another aside WP:NOTINHERITED is WP:NOTPOLICY, is used to mean 2 different things (significance v coverage), is very crude (WP:IARs WP:IAR) and is pretty well misunderstood by everyone. If his close relatives were very well known (and very well studied), things might be different, but they're not. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not totally sure if you were trying to make this as a notability argument but the established understanding is that notability is not inherited.
- Actually one of the military officers, his grandfather Basil Crockett, was awarded the DSO 3 times, and reached the rank of Colonel, and served during the Great War. The other (his uncle Anthony John Sinclair Crockett), served during the Second World War and the Malayan Emergency, achieved a slightly lower rank of Major, and "only" an OBE, and wrote a memoir, but he doesn't have an article (yet) anyway. I'm very much less sure about the tv director, but at least he is dead, which means the notability stakes are lower. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning deleteIf the claim to notability is for him as an author, the fact that he has written books isn't enough by itself. All the specialized criteria in WP:NAUTHOR require independent, third-party notice of the author's works. That his books are held in libraries isn't sufficient, I would not think. The catch-all WP:42 isn't satisfied here.Zad68
20:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per WP:ACADEMIC #3, if this is to be believed, and no reason to think it should not, he is indeed a FRCGP and so would meet that guideline.
Zad68
19:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ACADEMIC #3, if this is to be believed, and no reason to think it should not, he is indeed a FRCGP and so would meet that guideline.
- Comment as has been pointed out, he seems to be FRCGP, which is not an insignificant honour. Does he meet WP:PROF due to his publications (over 200 on asthma)? [31] Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only weak keep -- The question depends on how significant his books are, which I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 27 May 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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 17:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University of Pennsylvania Model United Nations Conference[edit]
- University of Pennsylvania Model United Nations Conference (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 very similar to the Ivy League Model United Nations Conference, which was just deleted for similar reasons, in that it's reliant on self-published sources and fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. --BDD (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It also appears to be a promotional piece, created by WP:SPA Upmunc. --BDD (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:30, 21 May 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 Marina and the Diamonds#2012: Give Me the Money. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Give Me the Money[edit]
- Give Me the Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A leaked, unreleased EP/album. Fails notability. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Marina and the Diamonds#2012: Give Me The Money. It's not an official release, and very little is known or written about it. I found this item although I'm not sure if it is a reliable source. But that's the of the coverage I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect To artist bio. There's already a section there for the record, which fails WP:NALBUMS for standalone inclusion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 17:15, 21 May 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. WP:COPYVIO of http://www.mediasa.com.tr/Eng/AboutUs/Management.aspx Mkdwtalk 21:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demet Çetindoğan[edit]
- Demet Çetindoğan (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)
Speedy deletion was declined. Then tagged for notability. Nothing in this article suggests notability - her family is notable but not sure if she is. Doesn't seem to meet GNG - the bio's I found for her are company bio's Gbawden (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 22 May 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 The Silos. J04n(talk page) 00:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Rupe[edit]
- Bob Rupe (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 band member of barely notable bands. Apteva (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 10. Snotbot t • c » 01:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 02:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I can't agree with the stated basis for the nomination: Rupe clearly passes WP:MUSICBIO #6. The Silos and Cracker were not "barely notable" bands, and he was a significant member of both, as well as being connected with a number of other notable bands, all as documented in the article and in plenty of potential sources viewable (but mostly paywalled) at GNews and HighBeam. In my view, the only substantial reason to consider deleting this is that an IP editor has come to the page, identifying himself as Bob Rupe, has repeatedly removed content from the article, and has repeatedly marked it for deletion. He objected to inclusion of Rupe's real name [32]; a few hours later he posted the following at the Help Desk: "Please delete this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Rupe. I do not want to have a page of my personal life on your site. In fact, I insist it be removed." [33]
- I'm not unsympathetic to this: As several editors noted at the IP editor's talk page and on the Help Desk post, while the tone of his "insistence" is not calculated to win friends, under the section of our BLP policy entitled Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects, if a marginally notable "non-public figure" objects to being the subject of an article, that preference may be considered in closing an AfD where consensus is not otherwise clear.
- On balance, I come down as follows: Rupe's music career is a subject of legitimate public interest, with plenty of coverage, and he's been connected with enough different bands that it would be problematic not to have some kind of article about him so an interested reader can identify all the bands. But I also think we should follow carefully the instruction of WP:NPF to "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability." I would leave out his birth name, which is sourced mainly in primary documents and seemed to be the main source of concern--and I would delete the small amount of (apparently unsourced) "where is he now" info as well.
- Alternatively, I suppose we could consider a redirect and selective merge to The Silos, although that's not a great solution since he was in all those other bands as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Arxiloxos has indicated, subject does pass notability guidelines and does not own the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs)
Your opinions do not matter. I want this article deleted. I do not care to "win friends" here. I just want my privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.180.232 (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect I'm inclined to sympathize when the subject of a biography is not a full-scale public figure and is genuinely distressed about being covered here. Certainly his birth name should be removed (and I have done so as primary-sourced and OR). Note: I've blocked several IPs and briefly blocked the subject's apparent account for removing the AfD tag, but have unblocked the account and left a note asking that they participate constructively. Acroterion (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - when a subject is notable for one event, it should be redirected there. Rupe is notable for three. Rupe does not own the article and really his arguments are strawman arguments as far as I am concerned; saying 'your opinions do not matter' is totally unacceptable.--Launchballer 06:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Abstain. I am cannot judge whether he is notable. However, I believe that if the article is retained, the opening half-sentence giving his real name should be restored. It is standard for an article on a person to begin by stating their real name, and I see no reason to make an exception here. Maproom (talk) 09:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If his real name is included, it needs to comply with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP by using supporting references that explicitly make a link between the real and stage names, not by inference to copyright notices or lyrics, however obvious the inference might be. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A full member of notable bands. It looks like it was Rupe who created the page in the first place and who has been policing it for the last 5+ years under a registered name and two IP addresses. I'm not very sympathetic when someone creates a puff article about themselves and then gets agitated when others add content they don't like, but his legal name doesn't seem to have been found in any real secondary sources. Deleting it (until/unless there are secondary sources to cite) and keeping the article seems reasonable.--Walor (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bob Rupe did not create this article. I agree with Acroterion, at the very least his birth name should not be allowed for the reasons stated. I would prefer however that it be deleted or redirected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnelmastering (talk • contribs) 13:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Why am I incredibly dubious that an account which has made no edits on pages unrelated to Rupe is suddenly coming here? Either way, you have a conflict of interest. You shouldn't be writing about him.--Launchballer 14:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & Redirect to The Silos. There are not multiple sources significantly treating of the subject; in fact detail on Rupe is minimal in the extreme. Since his stint as bassist with mid-career Cracker starts after their most notable records, and they recorded four more albums after his departure, The Silos is a natural target. With failing the GNG, a natural redirect target, & the wishes of the subject, the case that under musicbio 6 the subject "may be notable" is too weak. 86.42.74.117 (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & Redirect to The Silos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.125.180.232 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 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. LFaraone 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wiscasset Carla Pierce Day[edit]
- Wiscasset Carla Pierce Day (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)
Don't think this meets GNG - is having a day named after you by the City Council a measure of notability? Gbawden (talk) 09:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable by Google/GNews/GBooks searches. Small town, non-notable person, very non-notable event. I'm sure she was a very nice lady, but that isn't enough to keep the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 21 May 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. LFaraone 02:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tagbilaran Accelerated Christian School[edit]
- Tagbilaran Accelerated Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The school is currently non-existent, page is poorly written (no attempts were made to improve article) and has no references whatsoever Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 08:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but improve. The article states that it is existent, and it has a high school department, which has generally been considered a claim to notability on Wikipedia. However, the article at the moment has no sources, so it's probably best to try and find some. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is outdated. It doesn't exist anymore, they closed up business after moving multiple times. There are no sources, because it isn't notable locally. This is because there were less than 30 students in the high school. Also, it isn't very logical to create an article for every high school (public or private) in the Philippines. Especially if the school doesn't even exist anymore. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if this is the case, notability is not temporary, and thus, once a subject is notable, it is always notable, even if it closes. However, there has been long-standing consensus on Wikipedia that secondary schools are inherently notable. if you disagree with the consensus, you are free to start a discussion on it. The problem with the article is that, very few schools below the college level in the Philippines have an internet presence, so sources are pretty much next to impossible to find. This, however, does not mean the subject is not notable. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is outdated. It doesn't exist anymore, they closed up business after moving multiple times. There are no sources, because it isn't notable locally. This is because there were less than 30 students in the high school. Also, it isn't very logical to create an article for every high school (public or private) in the Philippines. Especially if the school doesn't even exist anymore. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is sure not to be improved, ever. It's significance is irrelevant, because the school only existed for a few years afterwhich it closed. The information on the article is severely outdated and probably won't be updated. The last time anyone added anything significant to the page was in 2009, when the page was created. The article was soon cut shorter because it contained a lot of non-encyclopedic BS. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, there are no non-primary reliable sources that verify that the organisation exists. Therefore, failing WP:VER it does not come anywhere close to being notable as defined by WP:GNG and thus I am supporting deletion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When we have sources, there will probably be thousands of articles to write, but we cannot do it until then. This is the case not just with the Philippines, but many other countries. It's great reduced our ability to cover topics like this is Africa and some parts of the middle east also. At the previous afd, a ref was mentioned, but the site seems no longer available.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:23, 28 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exide (band)[edit]
- Exide (band) (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)
Wikipedia:NMG Wolfinruins (talk) 07:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because not notable - all pages for members or releases related to Exide_(band):
- related article 1
- related article 2
- related article 3
- related article 4
- related article 5
- related article 6
Wolfinruins (talk) 07:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the suggestion of erasing all Exide-related pages on Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. The band was small, didn't play that many shows, had constantly fluctuating line-ups and received very little third party press. Commercial availability of their music was minimal, too. There is nothing to indicate the band's notability or importance/significance and now the band has broken up. Articles on Exide have been nominated for deletion in the past, too, specifically Exide (Band). Time for all these pages to go.
- Additional - I noticed the article Andy Dyer had its deletion nomination notice removed from it by User:Stainedclasssinner without explanation, so I have put it back up on to the page. User had also removed the notice from the Exide page but a bot had picked up on that and put it back. User has edited a lot of Exide related pages and appears to be a member of the band using Wikipedia for promotional purposes, adding references to Exide into articles about various other bands as well as on pages such as North Bromsgrove High School.
- (Chill (talk) 01:10, 24 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
H. James Harrington[edit]
- H. James Harrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article on a management guru solely depends on Amazon book References and the harrington institute external link. The article is skillfully ref bombed by User:JHSylvester. No evidence of independent notability. Solomon7968 (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 22 May 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. LFaraone 03:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Duscher[edit]
- Ben Duscher (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)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_May_12. As DRV closer I am neutral. Spartaz Humbug! 05:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou. I was the creator of the article. Whilst the subject has not played AFL, he has acquired numerous personal honors and achievements in the VFL that make him particularly notable in that category. In my submission the subject satisfies point three of the AFL notabilty criteria ("known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league" ). To reprise, in this case the main arguments for the player meeting point three of these criteria are 1) his being captain of three VFL clubs, 2) won VFL best and fairest club medal (best first year player the preceding year and runner-up following year) 3) selected in VFL representative teams and 4) articles about him in papers that meet criteria which 5) include the opinion that he is amongst the best players in the VFL. As mentioned, an article from a reliable source newspaper on this player winning the Carter medal VFL club best player award can be found here: http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/719111/duscher-wins-bendigo-bombers-club-champion-award/
I will try to tidy up the article so its squarely fits the criteria.The reason for the deadlinks is that Essendon has changed its web address and so many of the links will need to be repaired.NimbusWeb (talk) 08:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep point 3 of the Aussie rules section of the oft-quoted WP:ATHLETE says "is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league." Being named club captain and winning his club's best and fairest award is about the minimum requirement for that. And whilst most of the sources are from Bendigo local papers, there are some from major papers, so GNG is met too. The-Pope (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Even for people who choose to treat the notability guidelines as strict rules, it may not be clear how this article should be handled. People who take the guidelines for guidance (and keep to them closely or hardly at all) may also be uncertain as to what should be done. So, in !voting "keep" I am merely saying I think the situation is unclear but I think WP is better with this article than without it. That is not "ignoring all rules". It is a substantial article and its content seems well referenced. Thincat (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've now rearranged the material to squarely address point 3 and I think it does satisfactorily in this case. He has actually been co-captain of three VFL sides, won best first year and club champion awards and been selected in two VFL representative teams. He has been appointed as a paid coach of his fellow players in 2013 which also provides evidence of his being known for major individual achievements in the VFL.NimbusWeb (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm still not convinced he meets criteria 3 - "Is known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league." For a VFL player, I think that's J. J. Liston Trophy winners and premiership captains. I'm not sure a club B&F and captaincy is enough. Jevansen (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Restricting point three to JJ Liston winners and Premiership captains seems arbitrary. There are surely many other ways in which VFL players can attain major individual achievements that satisfy the overarching criteria of notability for wikisportspeople: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published, non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Major individual achivements on the VFL football field can be signified in many ways apart from the JJ Liston Medal and Premiership Captaincy- there are numerous medals, awards and prizes, representative honors that can be acquired in multiples or at levels of achievement that make them notable. Then there is another class of 'major individual achievements" for people primarily classified as VFL footballers. If a VFL player was one of the first active players to 'come out' as being gay and received for that a prestigious award for fighting discrimination, established a charitable foundation and was awarded a Order of Australia or developed techniques that revolutionised the sport and received for those major individual achievements the type of publishing coverage required; surely he/she would fulfill the criteria of point 3. Here the subject has had not just one but three captaincies, dual representative team selection, appointment as a paid coach of his fellow players and other achievements that have led the non-trivial, reliable, independent sources to create a considerable volume of publications about him.NimbusWeb (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is one further issue that seems important to raise. Some of the comments in the debates about this article appear to have deprecated country newspapers in Australia (such as here the 'Bendigo Advertiser', 'Mildura Weekly' and 'Sunraysia Daily') as somehow inevitably failing to meet the requisite standard of "non-trivial, reliable, independent sources." I wonder how much of this reflects the city-bias of the users making these comments. And really, given the unfortunate examples set by the Murdoch Press in UK and Australia in recent times, it would seem a strong case can be made for these country papers more likely meeting the standard of "non-trivial, reliable and independent" than many so-called 'major' sources. If this kid is a country hero and has a bigger press following there than in the city why should that be a central argument against his notability in a due process situation?NimbusWeb (talk) 02:43, 24 May 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 Celtics–Knicks rivalry. LFaraone 02:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Knicks Celtics FIght[edit]
- Knicks Celtics FIght (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)
Signs point to this being a copy-and-paste recreation (mostly: full of wikimarkup on first edit [by new user!] and mentioning January 10th in the future), but I can't seem to find solid evidence of that. Anyway, I don't think we need six hundred words on one altercation at a sports game. Ignatzmice•talk 04:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the user's sandbox might prove me wrong about the re-creation, but I still don't think the fight is notable. Ignatzmice•talk 04:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge/Redirect - unlike the other "brawl" articles linked to, I see no shred of notability here. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NNEWS (surprisingly, different articles!) for more details. Ansh666 07:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Celtics–Knicks rivalry. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE not sufficient for a standalone article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Celtics–Knicks rivalry. And that was trash-talking, not a brawl. So definitely not notable enough to have an article.—Chris!c/t 23:59, 21 May 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. LFaraone 02:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology[edit]
- Comparison of Egyptian and Greek Mythology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is not wikified, and it is unsourced. I don't know if we have articles with topics like this. Mediran (t • c) 03:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We do indeed have articles like this (see Comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, and various others listed at Comparative religion), and this particular topic may well be notable (see eg. [34], [35]), but this article as it stands is basically just a list of gods, and would have to be completely rewritten before it could claim to be anything like an encyclopedic review of the subject. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Sources have now been added, not that having none was a reason to delete. Not being wikified is also not a reason to delete. As User:DoctorKubla stated above there are other articles with similar topics and it seems notable. The article may not be encyclopaedic at the moment but it was only just created and could be improved and expanded on. I can't see any policy based reasons to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to make sure you saw my note below: the topic is already covered under the article interpretatio graeca, which needs source-based development. As pointed out on the talk page, however, it's reductive to create tables of equivalents; that isn't really how the process of syncretism worked in the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial periods. It might be possible to write an article that differed from interpretatio graeca strictly from the perspective of comparative mythology, but it would be tricky to do without falling into synth unless the sources were impeccably on target. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - In light of User:Cynwolfe's comment about interpretatio graeca, I now think it should be deleted as the topic can be adequately covered there instead.Sarahj2107 (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But I do think that interpretatio graeca could use a lot more about Egypt (like, a whole section covering Herodotus's efforts to explain Eygptian religion, to the development of Egyptian cults such as those of Isis and Serapis in the Roman Imperial world), so I would encourage editors who contributed to the article considered here for deletion to find sources and work on the topic there. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sources that have been added are on the Egyptian gods, and I am sure sources could be found on the Greek Gods, this however is not the problem. What is needed are sources that link the Egyptian gods to the Greek gods. As the article stands it is Original research and should be deleted. The links are not established via references. I remember studding at uni the assotiations of dogs and death in various cultures (Egyptian, Greek, Viking...) and recall saying to my tutor the the link between cerberus and Garmr was obvious; however, he waned me that such links are tenuous at best and caution is needed before jumping to conclusions. Indeed, academic resources were careful not to draw hasty conclusions from similarities between different cultures. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First of all, the article has the wrong title. Mythology means (very roughly) stories about gods. The article is focused on deities and their basic characteristics, not the stories about them. Second, the actual comparison is very superficial. Third, the sources are hopeless; one citation is a self-reference to a Wikipedia article, while the others refer to a belly dancing website.
- No, those issues don't necessarily preclude having an article comparing Greek and Egyptian deities (if the title were changed) or mythologies (if the content were rewritten). But most fundamentally, I doubt that current sources are available to support an article on either subject. As Czar Brodie says, the sources for a comparison must actually perform the comparison. Using sources that say "Horus fights" and "Ares fights" and then putting them together yourself to say "Horus is like Ares" is original research. Modern scholarship on ancient religions seems to shy away from comparison between unrelated religions, possibly because of the danger of overgeneralization, which was a serious problem with scholarship on comparative religion in the past. When writing Egyptian mythology, I desperately tried to find sources that relate Egyptian mythology to the mythology of other cultures, but what little I found was cursory, never treating the comparisons in depth. Scholars writing about Egyptian religion will sometimes contrast Egyptian deities and mythology with those of Greece to illustrate how different Egyptian religion is from our Western preconceptions of ancient religion, but again, it's rather cursory.
- Finally, Egyptian and Greek gods/myths/religion were not totally unrelated (unlike, the subjects for the article on comparison of Buddhism and Christianity, which had little contact with each other until the past few centuries, or comparative studies of the Roman and Han empires). In the Hellenistic period and under the Roman Empire, they interacted and integrated with each other a great deal. There could be an article about those interactions, titled "ancient Egyptian and ancient Greek religion", though it would probably have to cover Roman religion as well (they all mixed together in the empire). But it wouldn't simply be a comparison of the two. I just don't think this subject, itself, is viable. A. Parrot (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Topic is probably notable, but would need sources which discuss this comparison. At present I see no useful content pertaining to such a comparison. I also have Copyvio concerns, notice this edit, and compare with [36]. Paul August ☎ 22:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The topic is incorrectly framed: this kind of material belongs at interpretatio graeca—an article needing some development, but indicating how to frame the topic in scholarly terms. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above, topic is notable, but covered elsewhere. I wouldn't say this is a fork, though, since this is more or less a list of Greek and Egyptian deities with little to no valid scholarly comparison (aka basically not what the title says), so delete without prejudice to redirect. Ansh666 00:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - see WP:Education noticeboard#Another class?. Ansh666 00:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 22 May 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucid dreaming mask[edit]
- Lucid dreaming mask (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)
Pseudoscientific device. No reliable references. Classic case of pseudoscience and used to promote commercially available products. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I got no convincing book hits, not even in pseudoscience works. Web hits were all promotional or incidental (e.g. a number of articles on kickstarter being used to fund development). Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pseudoscientific promotional rubbish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional junk. Out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Poorly written stub needs some time to develop. If you remove over-hyped Remee from the search you still get 73,500 results [[37]] Bhny (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there independent reliable sources which critically analyse the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CBS[[38]], cnet[[39]] Bhny (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The CBS title is "Ways people claim they can control their dreams" and the cnet description is: "Kickstarter backers are big dreamers. The Remee Lucid Dreaming Mask is racking up the pledge dollars by offering a way to help you control your nighttime mental ramblings." Both are sensationalist ramblings by non-experts and the cnet link is just promotional junk for the company which promotes this WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific product. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep I largely agree. The CBS piece appears to mostly be not about the device, and the Crave blog is uncritical. This looks like standard news coverage, but not something with enduring notability (per WP:NOTNEWS), particularly considering an apparent lack of critical assessment. Consider that the CNET piece does not really say anymore than a press release would (fine churnalism). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully agree. Just look at the conclusion of the cnet piece: "I'm guessing Remee might not work for everyone, but it may be the extra nudge some sleepers need to start dabbling in lucid dreaming. You will have to wait until it ships in July to try it for yourself. After you get your Remee, please remember to give me a helping hand if you're flying over and see me being attacked by zombies. I'd appreciate it." If this is the level the RS have come to we might as well close shop from now. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep I largely agree. The CBS piece appears to mostly be not about the device, and the Crave blog is uncritical. This looks like standard news coverage, but not something with enduring notability (per WP:NOTNEWS), particularly considering an apparent lack of critical assessment. Consider that the CNET piece does not really say anymore than a press release would (fine churnalism). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The CBS title is "Ways people claim they can control their dreams" and the cnet description is: "Kickstarter backers are big dreamers. The Remee Lucid Dreaming Mask is racking up the pledge dollars by offering a way to help you control your nighttime mental ramblings." Both are sensationalist ramblings by non-experts and the cnet link is just promotional junk for the company which promotes this WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific product. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- CBS[[38]], cnet[[39]] Bhny (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Greetings everyone! I see that people are claiming that it's pseudoscience. Now my English isn't my native language, but if I have understood correctly, pseudoscience is like a science which is just speculation? If so, then you are wrong. Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. has scientifically proved and tested the lucid dreaming mask. You can also read about his lucid dreaming mask on his Wikipedia page. Also I'm not trying to advertise any products. I'm just interested in lucid dreams and thats why I wanted to make article about lucid dreaming mask. The reason why I added few brands to the article is because some of the lucid dreaming masks are just "timers", such as Remee, so that people don't mix the timers with the real deal, such as NovaDreamer, REM-Dreamer, etc. Also about the references. I know, Wikipedia needs sources, but at this subject it's very hard to find any reliable sources about lucid dreaming or especially about lucid dreaming masks, but I personally think that even if the device such as lucid dreaming mask is quite rare, it should be acceptable to Wikipedia, since it's not just 1 product made by 1 person, but there are several products of the same genre. They are also called sometimes "lucid dreaming induction device", which include more then only masks. And I do have at the moment x2 sources in my article, not sure how reliable they are but to me they seem fine. Shouldn't two be enough? Best regards. PS: I will try to find more sources. --Pek (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. has scientifically proved and tested the lucid dreaming mask No. He has not. Science does not work like that. LaBerge, no matter how many PhDs he has, must publish his mask results in reliable peer-reviewed scientific journals and if after the review they get accepted for publication then you can use this research as a source. Otherwise it is mere fringe speculation. Please see also WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per lack of notability, reliable sources, or any real content. Could probably have been PRODded. — Richard BB 21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful content into Lucid dream. -- Ϫ 05:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Total lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Purely promotional. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless there is a reliable source on information on this it is not worth having. Pug6666 18:44, 25 May 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. LFaraone 02:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cage Rage 11[edit]
- Cage Rage 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article(s) fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it largely contains only statistics (in the form of event results) and lacks well-sourced prose. The only sources I could find were WP:ROUTINE fight announcements and match/event results. TreyGeek (talk) 02:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:[reply]
- Cage Rage 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cage Rage 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cage Rage 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am intentionally restricting this AfD to these four articles (rather than including the nine other Cage Rage event articles) in hopes of ensuring anyone who wishes to argue in favor of keeping any of these article has time to find references and sufficient coverage of the events. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all These articles consist almost solely of fight results for a second tier MMA organization's events. Each article has only a line or two of text and no significant coverage, merely routine sports reporting. These events also fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. Papaursa (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all The previous comments have said it all--there's merely routine sports coverage of events that fail WP:SPORTSEVENT.Mdtemp (talk) 16:30, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - No significative coverage, fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. LlamaAl (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and all the coverage is WP:ROUTINE with nothing to indicate why these events have any sort of enduring notability. CaSJer (talk) 20:27, 25 May 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 by INeverCry, non admin closure hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 03:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brent Thompson (actor)[edit]
- Brent Thompson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. He's been in two short films, neither of which are notable themselves. Proposed deletion tag contested. ... discospinster talk 02:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You've nominated a deleted article. Praemonitus (talk) 02:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It wasn't deleted when I nominated it. ... discospinster talk 02:20, 21 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Truth: Gujarat 2002 – Tehelka report[edit]
- The Truth: Gujarat 2002 – Tehelka report (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 some kind of sensational report, Wikipedia is not a collection of such reports. This report had no far reaching consequence unlike the watergate reports and this report has been discredited as it had multiple inaccuracies. There is no reason why this article should be present on Wikipedia sarvajna (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: The report was notable enough to be covered by a wide range of domestic and international media, including AP, Reuters, AFP, BBC, Hindustan Times, Independent, NDTV, CNN-IBN, PTI, etc. See a roundup of media coverage about this report. I've made substantial improvements to the article, including describing the content, adding more references, and adding many more cites for notability. --Anirvan (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything that is covered by the media need not be included on wikipedia, I don't think that sajaforum is even a RS. What happened after the sting operation? Nothing. -sarvajna (talk) 08:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:46, 28 April 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 · · 10:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The report was criticized and proved to be inaccurate. Apart from factual inaccuracies the report also mixed it with a Bollywood film. (& that was hilarious one.) Plus, we already have the sensationalization of the report and its fakeness covered in various articles like 2002 Gujarat violence, Naroda Patiya massacre, Gulbarg Society massacre and a bit at Narendra Modi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are already many articles dealing with the subject . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyamsunder (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Please sign your comments and also bold your opinion. The AfD Vote counter counts only bolded votes.) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:LFaraone you deleted the page but relisted it? Ansh666 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided the AfD could use some more participation, but had not yet undeleted the article. LFaraone 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. Ansh666 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You had deleted the article at 15:11, 20 May 2013 and also closed the debate at 15:11, 20 May 2013 but undid that all. Could you please give your rationale for doing that? Are you counting votes? You feel the discussion is still inadequate? Or was it maybe because one of the Keep voters wrote a personal note to you at 00:37, 21 May 2013 after which you reopened the AFD at 01:00, 21 May 2013? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators are allowed to modify their determination as to the result of the debate; this is allowed per the steps one takes pre-deletion review. There wasn't enough policy-based discussion to justify closure; saying the report was "inaccurate" does not have any real bearing on its notability. We have articles on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, despite them mostly being entirely bollocks. Similarly, "many articles dealing with the subject" would imply maybe a merge, but there's a not a good reason to only have one of September 11 attacks and 9/11 Commission Report. I'm not commenting on the notability of this specific article, as I have not investigated it personally beyond reviewing the discussions here. LFaraone 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are the king. You can do anything. But you still haven't answered my question. Did you reopen the AFD and undeleted the article after receiving the personal note from one of the keep voters? And am sure you went through the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in your induction period. Or should i debate that NACA Report No. 761 were NACA Report No. 133 were deleted when you point us to other theories that exists on Wikipedia? And if many article are already dealing with it, what will you merge? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a trivially answered question; I'm curious why you seem to be WP:POINTy here, as the answer isn't relevant. As stated previously, if you look at the discussion prior to the relist, none of the readers made justifications for deletion other than "it's wrong" (not relevant) and "it's talked about elsewhere" (does not disqualify a discussion of this particular topic). LFaraone 14:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course you are the king. You can do anything. But you still haven't answered my question. Did you reopen the AFD and undeleted the article after receiving the personal note from one of the keep voters? And am sure you went through the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in your induction period. Or should i debate that NACA Report No. 761 were NACA Report No. 133 were deleted when you point us to other theories that exists on Wikipedia? And if many article are already dealing with it, what will you merge? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Administrators are allowed to modify their determination as to the result of the debate; this is allowed per the steps one takes pre-deletion review. There wasn't enough policy-based discussion to justify closure; saying the report was "inaccurate" does not have any real bearing on its notability. We have articles on Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, despite them mostly being entirely bollocks. Similarly, "many articles dealing with the subject" would imply maybe a merge, but there's a not a good reason to only have one of September 11 attacks and 9/11 Commission Report. I'm not commenting on the notability of this specific article, as I have not investigated it personally beyond reviewing the discussions here. LFaraone 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You had deleted the article at 15:11, 20 May 2013 and also closed the debate at 15:11, 20 May 2013 but undid that all. Could you please give your rationale for doing that? Are you counting votes? You feel the discussion is still inadequate? Or was it maybe because one of the Keep voters wrote a personal note to you at 00:37, 21 May 2013 after which you reopened the AFD at 01:00, 21 May 2013? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, okay. Ansh666 01:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided the AfD could use some more participation, but had not yet undeleted the article. LFaraone 01:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to the editor who posted a personal message to the admin after deletion : 1) Please read WP:GNG again because it also says significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion If everything that would be covered by reliable sources would become Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia would become a mess 2) You should know what a genocide is before starting to use that word loosely 3) The courts said that this was not even suitable to be considered as evidence. Can you please tell me now why this report is notable ? -sarvajna (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This was a significant media event that has been noted in fora in India and beyond. SAJA discusses it here. Amy Goodman discusses it here. New York Times covered it here. The creation, legal standing, ethics and politics of the Tehelka tapes are all notable (and are hotly debated still), and deserve place in the article. Chaipau (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Legal standing? The investigation teams did not consider the tapes as an evidence, these tapes have no legal standing, are all notable (and are hotly debated still) Can you please provide me with any source which shows that these tapes are still talked about? -sarvajna (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About SAJAforum: "SAJAforum is a blog from SAJA, the South Asian Journalists Association.We cover new desi (South Asian) stuff daily. Since the blog launched during the 2006 SAJA Convention & Job Fair, we have had 1,000+ postings on dozens of topics - from the serious to the silly, and 3,300+ comments from our readers." I dont know if they categories this under their serious or silly post. And people discuss Aishwarya Rai's Karva Chauth also. We don't make articles on any and everything. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Legal standing? The investigation teams did not consider the tapes as an evidence, these tapes have no legal standing, are all notable (and are hotly debated still) Can you please provide me with any source which shows that these tapes are still talked about? -sarvajna (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In addition to substantial coverage in domestic and international news media, the report has been referenced both in the Indian Parliament and US Congress, and also mentioned in at least 20 books (Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India, The Making of India: A Political History, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia, India Since Independence, Attacks on the Press in 2007, Tehelka As Metaphor, Breaking the big story: great moments in Indian journalism, South Asian Media Cultures: Audiences, Representations, Contexts, Narratives of Gendered Dissent in South Asian Cinemas, South Asian Cinema, First Draft, Religion, Caste, and Politics in India, Defend the Defenders, Resisting Attacks on Human Rights Activists in India, My Hindu Faith and Periscope, Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India, The Rough Guide to India, Field notes on democracy: listening to grasshoppers, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia, Violent gods: Hindu nationalism in India's present, Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media). One can agree or disagree with the contents or journalistic ethics of the report, but I fail to understand how someone could reasonably claim that it's not notable. -Anirvan (talk) 08:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of these publications have mentioned the report after it was found unreliable? And what is the nature of mention? We are also already mentioning it in related articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "found unreliable," but the following books referencing the subject of the article were published in 2012 or 2013, suggesting that it remains a topic of continuing interest half a decade after release: Indian Cinema by Alka Kurian, Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India by Parvis Ghassem-fachandi, Defend the Defenders, Resisting Attacks on Human Rights Activists in India edited by Harsh Dobhal, Apocalyptic Realm: Jihadists in South Asia by Dilip Hiro, My Hindu Faith and Periscope, Volume 1 by Satish C. Bhatnagar. - Anirvan (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of these publications have mentioned the report after it was found unreliable? And what is the nature of mention? We are also already mentioning it in related articles. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Anirvan. Aurorion (talk) 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The new additions have brought the article to the point that satisfies WP:Heymann in notability and in quality! Crtew (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did hesitate about the title. Perhaps that is why some would see this as a "sensational report" (to be fair). I don't know if this would help, but often articles have (newspaper) or (magazine) in the title. Perhaps the (report) or (article) could follow this naming convention. Or it may be that I'm just skeptical about anything called "The Truth" and there is really no problem at all!Crtew (talk) 13:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, essentially per WP:HEY. Good deal of secondary source coverage is demonstrated sufficiently. — Cirt (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per the praise they got for this story, see Encyclopedia of Social Movement Media p521 onwards for more details. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - and merge to 2002 Gujarat Violence, per Dharmadhyaksha. It is the prime example of scandal-mongering which wikipedia tends to avoid. Wikipedia is not a soap box. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The whole thing and it's validity is pivoted upon the claims of one man Ashish Khetan (who performed the sting operation). Sensationalist claim does get shared between news sources, and is often printed in hundreds of papers but that doesn't make them true, does it? Tehelka is a downright partisan source, if this gets its separate articles then I have dozens of articles in store. Some critics even argued that the inaccuracies of the claims detract from its validity as evidence([40],[41], [42]). The Supreme Court Special Investigation Team eventually did not admit the Tehelka recordings as evidence because of dubious and inaccurate claims.(source:
Jaffrelot, Christophe (25 February 2012). "Gujarat 2002: What Justice for the Victims? The Supreme Court, the SIT, the Police and the State Judiciary". Economic & Political Weekly. xlvii (8): 77–89.
) Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The editor's comment above addresses criticism that journalists/journalism receives from people who don't like the facts or the focus on the content, which is standard for controversial investigative reports like this. However, the editor also shows per WP:GNG that the work of journalism received WP:SIGCOV. The citation above is, in fact, already included in the article.Crtew (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Now as to the content of the article you cite and the point you're trying to make with this article. Your characterization of the article is false. The author, in fact, criticizes the SIT for being "dysfunctional" and one of the reasons is that it dismissed evidence like that offered by the journalists. Why are you trying to use this source to discredit this work of journalism when the SOURCE is not saying this. That's an inappropriate use of a citation.Crtew (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crtew, I hope our discord here won't reflect on the amicable relation we share.
A minor observation: this report didn't get SIGCOV per se, the allegation got the coverage. Kindly see WP:109PAPERS and WP:NOTNEWS. Not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This article is essentially about a first-hand report with dubious validity. Come on, Crtew. There are literally thousands of well-noted reports presenting theories that are drastically different from accepted reality of a situation, but that doesn't mean we should start developing stand-alone articles on those reports themselves?
We ought to be using these reports as "reliable sources" for supporting the claims about the subject (in this case 2002 Gujarat Violence) in the article where the subject is discussed. That really is all I can say. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- While for you the topic of this report is 2002 Gujarat Violence, for me and others it is also notable in the topic Investigative journalism in India. The coverage of investigative journalism is stronger for the US and UK but India is underserved in Wikipedia on this area. Our different focus is probably also why we also disagree about the issue of WP:SIGCOV. Yes, reports can be used as a reliable source (about this we all agree) and the same report can be examined as journalism, like a novel or a movie. Still I see no reason why our difference in focus would lead you to mischaracterize what the source above said about the report. Crtew (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Crtew, I hope our discord here won't reflect on the amicable relation we share.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who's Who in Federal Politics in Alberta[edit]
- Who's Who in Federal Politics in Alberta (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 book. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it does not meet WP:NBOOK. The only mentions I can find are vendors or catalogues. It has not won any major literary awards, nor received multiple (or indeed, any) 3rd party reviews, etc. --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 11:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BKCRIT. Sources only show that the book exists, not that it is in anyway notable and notability is not inherited from the subject. Funny Pika! 17:30, 21 May 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 · · 01:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IL Lusciato[edit]
- IL Lusciato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musician Koala15 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 03:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 04:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:18, 21 May 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 soft delete. J04n(talk page) 17:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Cross[edit]
- Fred Cross (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)
Yet another obscure performer who fails our tests of notability; note that the coverage is about the show, not about Cross. Orange Mike | Talk 00:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. Doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, and he doesn't have multiple significant roles in notable shows/films (The Joe Schmo Show might qualify but the rest are minor roles). Could userfy/incubate if you think he'll become more famous. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 21 May 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
E.G. Young[edit]
- E.G. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 04:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources are passing or primary; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete What media coverage there is, is very minor, just "Here's a video". Most Google hits are social networks, music sales, or brief mentions ("Featuring EG Young"). He may be notable in the future, but I don't think he is yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable yet; still at the self-publishing and YouTube stage of his career. Maybe he will be notable enough for an article later, but WP:NOTYET. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was snow close and speedy delete as obvious promotional material (WP:CSD#G11). — Scott • talk 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Death of the Death of the Novel[edit]
- The Death of the Death of the Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Contested prod) This is a non-notable essay. This gscholar search shows that (a) this essay has zero citations and (b) there's a much more well-known, although in my opinion still not notable, essay of the same name by Jerome Klinkowitz from 1975. This essay does have some citations. A search in gbooks turns up no results. The two sources are not indicative of notability. Newpages.com seems to be some kind of promotional site for small literary magazines and the other source is from the editors' notes in the issue of the Summerset Review that the essay was published in. I am asking for a deletion without a redirect to the author, Robert Clark Young, because it appears that this would be a more likely search term for Klinkowitz's essay. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, without prejudice to redirect per Cola below. I'd actually say this is promotional stuff from User:Qworty (aka Robert Clark Young per here). Ansh666 02:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Death of the novel which mentions Young's ideas (and presumably Klinkowitz's paper of the same name is about the same subject). As a published paper in a reputable journal, it's reasonable to reference it in the article on the death of the novel, its subject. But the paper is not itself notable - academic papers very rarely are. A (selective?) merge to the author is also possible but since his article doesn't currently mention the essay, a straight redirect wouldn't be very useful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to badger, but I would like to note that this is not an academic paper, it's an essay in a literary journal. It is not mentioned in any secondary sources that I can find so there's nothing to merge to the author. I am not especially opposed to redirecting it to Death of the novel but (a) I don't think this is a likely search term for that and (b) I took all the material on this essay out of that article since the essay is not notable. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have made my researches and I agree with the nominator that the borderline notability of "Death of the Death of the Novel" wholly relies to the Jerome Klinkowitz's 1975 essay. This one fails our notability guidelines. Cavarrone (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is obviously not notable on its own, though I would differ with alf on one point as the work by Klinkowitz is actually used as the prologue to a seemingly notable book Klinkowitz did called Literary Disruptions. There doesn't appear to be an article on the book, but should someone create one it would suitable as a redirect to it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Point conceded, gracefully, I hope.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that it lacks notability and is just a COI'd self-promo. Capscap (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has all the markings of a COI and non-notable. Two reviews do not qualify as significant coverage, and the author isn't significant enough in the field to have his writings deserve a separate article. I would just delete without redirect. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find secondary-source references to it to justify notability. Excalibre (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a disgrace. Abductive (reasoning) 20:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All of the concerns above about notability are clearly dead on. Note that one of those so-called "reviews" is simply a sentence in a blog: http://newpagesblog.blogspot.mx Ironically, Robert Clark Young himself - as "Qworty" - would have killed this entry in a second. And he would have snorted with great derision while doing so. NaymanNoland (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment perhaps we could get a Snow close.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went ahead and tagged it for speedy deletion. The two rave quotes and a description of the essay are basically all we have so G11 fits.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:11, 24 May 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 Radical Something. (non-admin closure) czar · · 01:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Lagemann[edit]
- Alex Lagemann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 05:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to his band, Radical Something, which does appear to be notable. He himself is on the cusp but not yet there. --MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to band Radical Something until he meets WP:NOTE Flat Out let's discuss it 09:25, 27 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Metis (American musician)[edit]
- Metis (American musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable musician. Koala15 (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 16:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 17:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC. Depending on which paragraph you go by, he's either working on a debut album coming out summer 2013, or working on a debut album coming out in 2010. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in The Guardian & Financial News (already in article), interview in RWD.[43] 86.42.93.209 (talk) 20:36, 27 May 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. LFaraone 03:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Skipp Whitman[edit]
- Skipp Whitman (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 rapper. Koala15 (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 05:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 05:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as WP:PROMOTION --Hirolovesswords (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now. The Boston Phoenix article cited in the article, plus a short article from the Boston Globe ([44] here), and another from the Boston Herald (mostly not visible online) suggest that there may be sufficient coverage, but it's all from local sources and unless more can be found these are a bit thin to support an article. --Michig (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These are (or were, the first is now defunct) quite large & well-regarded papers Michig mentions, & there's also the non-local Rap Reviews [45], so happy to keep. 86.42.93.209 (talk) 21:27, 27 May 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. LFaraone 02:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Woe Betides[edit]
- The Woe Betides (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 page asserts notability, e.g. the band have had "critical acclaim". They have at least had a record put out, albeit through a label they own, so effectively they are self-published. They do not seem to have charted. Yet they did get brief, albeit glowing, coverage from two magazines (Artrocker and NME) which clearly meet the "reliable sources" aspect of WP:BAND. I think it is unlikely the band is notable - for a sense of their scale/importance, based on their youtube presence, their most watched music video has around 1000 views while the majority have less than 100 views. A related article is their record label, Songs in the Dark, which may also not be notable. TheGrappler (talk) 22:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. czar · · 23:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The coverage from NME, Artrocker, CLASH, and Allmusic is sufficient to demonstrate notability. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there sufficient depth of coverage? This NME mention is very small as is this coverage in Artrocker. I was not sure whether this verged on trivial coverage. The scale of the EP release (100 copies) also seems quite limited. On the other hand Allmusic has more depth. TheGrappler (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to NME review. Marginal, perhaps, but more notable than the average band articles we see at AfD. Pburka (talk) 03:22, 21 May 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aarti Gupta[edit]
- Aarti Gupta (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 actress that fails WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Would be prodded as there are no references, but the article has been here for a few years. Not sure how without any references. Cannot locate anything that could be used for notability. FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article mentions "Aarti Surendranath" as alternative name and if this is the person, I think she has some notability! --Tito Dutta (contact) 03:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then move/redirect to Aarti Surendranath, since nothing of worth can be found for this name. Also, maybe you could sic Wikipedia:WikiProject_India on it to improve? Ansh666 03:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The link you provided for Aarti Surendranath is broken. At least it will not open in my web browser. A search for that name did not turn up anything of note for me anyways. Also, I do see the name in the article as well, but is the article about Surendranath or Gupta? Going by the title of the article, there is no notability and THIS article should be deleted unless notability is established. I see no reason why an article could not be recreated under the real name (whatever it is - if this is the same person) if notability can be established. However, keeping an article because we "think" something is why the article has survived this long, and speculation still does not establish notability. Formatting and style is NEVER a reason to delete an article; however, in this case, the formatting and style make it difficult to determine who it is we are talking about and the notability of either. It would need to be completely re-written in order to determine if we are talking about the same person (Gupta v. Surendranath). Unfortunately, I still say the article is short on WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Might be Internet Explorer! --Tito Dutta (contact) 15:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I did a Google search and was unable to find anything amounting to WP:SIGCOV.--FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG as there doesn't seem to be any significant coverage of this person. Seriously, how did this fail at AfD the first time? It's a horribly written article with no sources at all! MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nom's result was "delete". Please search with Aarti Surendranath too! My hands are full at this moment or I could try to prepare a detailed post to show how does she meet notability. I'll see if I can find half an hour or so in next 2—3 days! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I did search with that name. I found an interview and some tabloid photos, but no actual news stories. I'm not convinced that this person is notable. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first nom's result was "delete". Please search with Aarti Surendranath too! My hands are full at this moment or I could try to prepare a detailed post to show how does she meet notability. I'll see if I can find half an hour or so in next 2—3 days! --Tito Dutta (contact) 04:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree that this is a very poorly written article, but have a look at this:http://haathimeresaathi.org/advisor-artee-surendranath.html and google under Artee Surendranath. Also look at the wiki article on her husband Kailash Surendranath and any links or sources provided there. There may even be a case for merging whatever information we have about them under one article entitled Kailash & Artee Surendranath by changing the title of the Kailash Surendranath page.--Zananiri (talk) 21:25, 27 May 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.