Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silvio Góes[edit]
- Silvio Góes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A painter of wall like so many others in Brazil. Do not have notability Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article does not make clear exactly why he is notable. I had assumed that being a painter meant an artistic painter. This machine translation of his bio on a blog calls him a house painter. I can find no sourcing whatsoever about this individual, and reading through the machine translated bioagraphy doesn't really show any indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Silvio Gois is a common house-painter. Someone in Brazil has created the article and spread to several wikipedias. The article is being voted for deletion in the Wiki-pt [1]. The writer said the painter's grandson, age 12, would create a "school Silvio Gois", a "Law School Silvio Gois", etc. ..But these are just dreams of a teenager. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Whpq and because of the absolute lack of reliable sources
in a living person biography. Lechatjaune (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
Some phrases taken from the blog Silvio Gois translated into English by me:
“ | Another fact impressive is that part of his life he lived with his wife Mary in a house in rural Itajubá in the interior of Minas Gerais | ” |
“ | He was a very influential person in the improvement of his son-in-law´s home, collaborating in various ways to finish the hayloft | ” |
Read more about the vote in the Wiki-pt. Ricardo Ferreira de Oliveira (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil national football team competitive record[edit]
- Brazil national football team competitive record (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article (and possibly any similar other articles) appears to be a fancruft of limited encyclopedic value. Having a list of every single game the team played not only at the world cup, but also continental competition is over-the-top. Plus, considering is essentially a copy-paste of information available on FIFA websites, it might break some copyright rules. Summarizing this article into a few tables and putting them into the main article appears to be appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Nergaal (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is the talk page nominated for deletion? Shouldn't the article itself be nominated? JeremyMcClean (talk) 00:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I accidentally used twinkle on the talkpage. I tried to switch it to the article. Did I miss anything? Nergaal (talk) 00:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This page has some value, but maybe it can merged with the page of the national Brazil team? King Ruby (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this, which in my opinion render NOT#STATS moot. This article adds the same overview which users will find helpful. Being the one who moved it out of the main article I must object to any notion of merging it back. I simply don't see how that would be feasible with the detail IPs would instantly add in. Also, consensus is that footy statistics are okay, they have several pages called "List of Club Stats". Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- by merge I mean summarize everything in 3 tables (i.e. one table for world cup performance, or better said how far it went in each cup, and same for the other). Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with King Ruby that the page has merit, but I think it's too big to merge with the main article. It looks a bit messy and could do with a tidy up i.e. too many tables and colours and icons - keep it simple guys! Other than that it's fine and notable in my eyes. GiantSnowman 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable is for sure, but I think there is absolutely no necessity for having this much level of detail on wikipedia. As it looks now, isn't there some copyright violation? Nergaal (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Where is the copyright infringement? WilliamF1two (talk) 21:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sheep–goat hybrid. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toast_of_Botswana[edit]
- Toast_of_Botswana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All information on this can be found on the Sheep-goat hybrid page. Sir Robert "Brightgalrs" Schultz de Plainsboro (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This page can simply be dumped on Sheep-goat hybrid, and the duplicate info be nixed. Simple enough. JeremyMcClean (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge When the redundant information is removed, this will be an effective redirect. As this is a single instance, the principles behind people notable only for one event apply.
- Delete. All the information is already in Sheep-goat hybrid, and a redirect is not needed (the article title reflects a misunderstanding of the phrase "toast of ...": in particular that is not the name of this case). -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to sheep-goat hybrid but retain page as redirect - a Google search shows that the name "Toast of Botswana" seems to have been widely adopted for this creature. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IFC Forum[edit]
- IFC Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organization is not notable. There is very little secondary source material to support the article and most web hits are either self-published press releases or very trivial coverage. the aricle itself is written like an essay, with most references being primary sources to support an argument, suggesting original research. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Blatantly promotional as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 03:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Walls of a Prison[edit]
- The Walls of a Prison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. Allmusic entry is blank. This appears to have been a budget line compilation without any individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a non-notable album. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All previously available tracks, the album failed to chart, and there is no evidence of independent coverage. Hekerui (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 03:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understand Your Man[edit]
- Understand Your Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. Allmusic entry is blank. This appears to have been a budget line compilation without any individual notability. Also, this will free up the title for the notable song of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a non-notable album. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a compliation of previously available tracks that failed to chart and has no evidence of additional independent coverage. Hekerui (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Is Johnny Cash[edit]
- This Is Johnny Cash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. Allmusic entry is very terse. This appears to have been a budget line compilation without any individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a non-notable album. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give My Love to Rose[edit]
- Give My Love to Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. Allmusic entry is blank. This appears to have been a budget line compilation without any individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is a non-notable album. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Argentina women's national basketball team[edit]
- Argentina women's national basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references and team does not seem notable (i.e. winning games, notable players, coaches, etc.) Whenaxis (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact it's the national team, represents some level of notabily. Not particularly successful, but still worth keeping for reference. scope_creep (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a national team, most of their games are international and thus notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's a remarkably uninformative article that has "I couldn't care less about the subject" written all over it, but a national team is notable, regardless of whether it's got a winning record or not. Let's hope that it can be more than this-- 6th, 9th, 13th, 11nd (11nd?), 15th, 10th-- YAWN, go Argentina, rah. Rah. Rah. Mandsford 12:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons given above. Needs to be there, even though they're not particularly successful.Tris2000 (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As the creator of this article, when I create it I didn't concern about the success of the team. But if you really concern about that, Argentina women's national basketball team is currently in the top ten worldwide, and the men's national team is currently the number one. So I guess the article is significant and it has to exist. If you look most of other articles about women's national basketball teams, they all look similar about the content and dimension of the information.Oupals (talk) 16:12 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep--Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Public services in Canada[edit]
- Public services in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphaned, partial duplicate of several existing articles such as Health care in Canada, Education in Canada, etc. Serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per non...proper (recognized) titles/names are already used in existing articles.Moxy (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, probably we should should have a similar article for all modern states' - this is clearly a valid topic. The public service provision of a modern state is (1) clearly something that actually exists and is important (e.g. making up a substantial proportion of the economy, and in democratic societies, often a major election issue) and (2) the subject of substantial academic investigation (e.g. as a theme in public choice theory). The evolution of public service provision particularly over the last 150 years is an important aspect of the historically changing role of the state. It is a telling point that the nomination states that it is a partial duplicate of a range of articles - this is exactly as it should be, and actually indicates why this article itself is not redundant. Particular aspects of public service provision need specialized articles (healthcare and education are very different, for instance) but this article can still provide an overview of them, with links to sub-articles. This overview article could, in particular, make clear what aspects of education, health care, fire protection etc are provided by the state as a public service (and indeed, whether it is provided at national, provincial or local level) and to what extent it's done by private or charitable organizations; how this balance has changed over time is also something worth covering. There's clear scope for an article here, and not just for Canada. TheGrappler (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (Note: I created the article.) This was intended to be an overview article of public services available in Canada, the jurisdictions responsible for delivering them, sources of funding, and other aspects of such services. Unfortunately, I haven't had much time to attend to the article, but I think it is a valid topic that merits inclusion on Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 18:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep think its a valid topic, as noted above needs work done it --Utinomen (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ishak Effendi[edit]
- Ishak Effendi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. A Google News Archive search gets a few hits in Indonesian but after running them through a translator I can't get anything out of them to source the article. Of note, all of the hits were published years after the article was written. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. J04n(talk page) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability established. Should be straight-forward. King Ruby (talk) 12:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is, notability can't be proven. Markiewp (talk) 09:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eagle LA[edit]
- Eagle LA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - lack of independent secondary sources that indicate notability. Fails WP:GNG. Listed "sources" are not independent of the bar or are about various DJs who play there and so do not establish notability. Personally I find this to be WP:SPAM but speedy was declined based on the two-sentence "history" of the bar. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I put it to weak per the LA Times link. Otherwise, I agree with Cow. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The LA Times link is simply an entry on a bar guide, like any other bar or restaurant in the city might get. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's still something from a reliable source. Most articles at AFD don't have even that. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was hoping more references would turn up, but even after spending some time, I couldn't find much mention, even in borderline sources like guidebooks. tedder (talk) 04:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
125 London Wall[edit]
- 125 London Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD - Non notable building. Codf1977 (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a very impressive building, and very unusually built, above another and to save the old London Wall. I don't know how well you know the City of London (I actually work on London Wall) but even though it's not terribly tall, it stands out on the London skyline, and is easy to spot because of its proximity to the Barbican buildings. Here's a link [2] from Google Streetmaps, and another from the other side [3]. It's the big huge thing that the road goes through. It's pretty notable because of its unusual design and shape. --Tris2000 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The building is notable, being featured in numerous works such as Britain & Ireland: contemporary art + architecture handbook; London: A Guide to Recent Architecture; Building services journal &c. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden. Independent works indicate its architectural notability. Besides not following WP:BEFORE, the nom simply states "Non notable building" without any reasoning.--Oakshade (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've improved the article a bit with a photograph and some information from online sources which I hope help to establish its notability. Further additions from printed sources would be good.Cavrdg (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The artivle makes clear that this is an architecurally notable building. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeffree Star. Tone 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popsicle Records[edit]
- Popsicle Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable vanity record label. No evidence that the label exists for any other reason other than to promote the artist's own music. There is no significant information here that warrants a stand alone page. redirect to Jeffree Star would be more appropriate where a small section under a new heading could be created. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 20:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - to Jeffree Star as i could not find any significant coverage on this record company. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Seems to be minor coverage and clearly not notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 August 24. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeshiyah Amariel[edit]
- Yeshiyah Amariel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable person, written by possible sock of Yamariel (talk · contribs) as advertising. Couldn't find reliable sources for this. Diego Grez what's up? 19:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find significant coverage. —fetch·comms 19:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is how I know your acting with bias toward me... Look how easy it is to find something: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3330446/Palestinians-toil-for-Barack-Obama-win.htmlYamariel (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other comments moved to talk page. Diego Grez what's up? 23:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A one-sentence mention does not establish notability. Cunard (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep During the US elections I actually copied the original info of this page from the Obama wiki page a while ago... but reading the person's edits on the page, I see that he has added information that I didn't bother research at the time. Some notable links on the Obama issue are http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/23/politics/main4284922.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3330446/Palestinians-toil-for-Barack-Obama-win.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jan-mcgirk/obama-in-ramallah_b_114639.html http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081027.wgazaobama27/BNStory/R.M.+VAUGHAN/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25810989/ http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/hqblog on page 310 might not mention name but does show the Obama campaign view of the things stated in these other articles. and although I did see the original news report that email from the report kinda confirms that the bad youtube copy of the video wasn't edited. But I still wouldn't link that on the main page.Prestonpayne (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prestonpayne (talk • contribs) [reply]
- But things I see in the news when searching "Israel for Obama" in Google show these notable news links http://www.nysun.com/foreign/obama-jerusalem-to-remain-israels-capital/82479/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/world/americas/23iht-obama.4.14733236.html http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95236433 http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/objects/pages/PrintArticle.jhtml?itemNo=1014346 http://jews4obama.com/update/issue7/ http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/NEWS0302/80723004 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3729720,00.html (which is very weird, but notable). The funny thing about these articles is that each calls one or another of the three main people in this organization the Head of the group, but then he states there is no leader of the group and then politically distances himself from Amariel after he was accused of being Messianic.. funny. http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=1621&cpage=1#comments and the other on Amariel's org. this one is a third party. http://www.meirpanim.org/page2_e.php?name=Partners Prestonpayne (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amariel's Voluntary Project website is hosted at Tripod... do you think he is still notable? I wouldn't think so. Diego Grez what's up? 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amariel's organization doesn't have anything to do with my original article. But org numbers check out on the official government website link http://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/ search "Amariel Voluntary Israel Projects" or the number on his site.Prestonpayne (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reviewed the sources provided above by Prestonpayne and do not find nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. The sources are all passing mentions and/or reliable. Some of the sources don't even mention the subject. Cunard (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as nom. Diego Grez what's up? 18:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep- Diego you can't just keep posting Delete on this page and make that count as more than one say... I just looked over all of these articles Payne put up and they just add 13 secondary sources to the others I referenced on the talk page... all of them are third-party and secondary sources... either news groups or otherwise which don't all speak of the same event such as the Obama rally in Israel mentioned in some of them; rather they all speak of the same group "Israelis for Obama" and the same campaign, the "Israel for Obama Campaign" which I managed as confirmed by both the Israelis for Obama group, the Israel for Obama blog and a third party newspaper and a television interview. 2 years ago one could search these topics and easily find our group in the news. These facts could not be disputed... but time has made some of the sources like those in Time Magazine and others hard to find online. Your bias has made you forget Wikipedia policy that "All articles should be judged solely by applicable content and inclusion guidelines and policies" You question notability but I am even mentioned in a book on "Jewish American Political Organizations" at http://books.google.com/books?id=yCqMSQAACAAJ&dq=%22Yeshiyah+Amariel%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=VEdoTLWvCpWyNrS4pcsE&cd=1
The fact is that you're not trying to find sources or make this article a better one... you're only trying to justify deleting this page based on your own bias.Yeshiyah (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've indented both your !votes because you can't do it more than once. The sources shouldn't all be about Israel for Obama, they should be about Amariel himself. They should talk about him as the main topic. —fetch·comms 00:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Bill Gates runs Microsoft then his page is more than likely to focus on his work with Microsoft, Me I ran the Israel for Obama Campaign... it can't be changed. But I also do believe that this page could be written better, yet if I start adding to it I'll be accused of self-promotion again. So its up to one of you (especially Payne). Yeshiyah (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's why we have a separate page on Microsoft. If the person has received significant coverage, then we want the article on the person. If it is the organization, then we want the organization. You can't have references for Israel for Obama and say that is significant coverage for the person when they don't discuss him. —fetch·comms 00:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources provided above by Prestonpayne and Yamariel are either trivial or unreliable. Because this individual fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people), and because the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons due to the poor caliber of the sources, this article should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- That's funny Cunard because I did the same search with the obvious english change in my Hebrew name and came up with at least one reliable sources... and several on the other related parts to this article part 1 part 2... My point is that there are many sources out there but since Obama's won the election most things published on the subject are no longer at the top of the search food chain... underground unless one knows were to look for them... I don't expect for them to resurface until the next election cycle and the issue of Israel comes up again. Yet I am find slowly more and more, but most others in this discussion seem too lazy to do any real research. I also just ran into another from Chicago... http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1070448,obiran072308.article and there are more on the search links part 1 and 2 above. Back in 2008 I know how much was published on me and the Israel for Obama campaign (in one way or another)... so I know there is much more to be found.Yeshiyah (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link (part 1) is to a Google News Archive search for "Israel for Obama". This article is about "Yeshiyah Amariel", not "Israel for Obama", so the sources must be about the person, not the group. My same rationale applies for the "part 2" search which is for "Israelis for Obama" and http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1070448,obiran072308.article.
These sources demonstrate that Israel for Obama is notable, not Yeshiyah Amariel, so I encourage you to create an article about the group instead if you have more information than that already present in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#"Israel for Obama" Campaign. Cunard (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The first link (part 1) is to a Google News Archive search for "Israel for Obama". This article is about "Yeshiyah Amariel", not "Israel for Obama", so the sources must be about the person, not the group. My same rationale applies for the "part 2" search which is for "Israelis for Obama" and http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1070448,obiran072308.article.
- That's funny Cunard because I did the same search with the obvious english change in my Hebrew name and came up with at least one reliable sources... and several on the other related parts to this article part 1 part 2... My point is that there are many sources out there but since Obama's won the election most things published on the subject are no longer at the top of the search food chain... underground unless one knows were to look for them... I don't expect for them to resurface until the next election cycle and the issue of Israel comes up again. Yet I am find slowly more and more, but most others in this discussion seem too lazy to do any real research. I also just ran into another from Chicago... http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1070448,obiran072308.article and there are more on the search links part 1 and 2 above. Back in 2008 I know how much was published on me and the Israel for Obama campaign (in one way or another)... so I know there is much more to be found.Yeshiyah (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also there is a completely different article from Nov 2008 in Dutch with significant coverage on the subject and myself... http://www.nujij.nl/obama-kreeg-77-van-de-joodse-stemmen.3988972.lynkx .. if you translate it you see it goes very into depth on my part.Yeshiyah (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeshiyah Amariel is mentioned twice in http://www.nujij.nl/obama-kreeg-77-van-de-joodse-stemmen.3988972.lynkx. The article is primarily about the Israel for Obama group instead of the person. Cunard (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cunard I agree with you on both points... from the information found here I think a page should be made on Israel for Obama... but on the question of notability for Amariel, he still is very valid... I question if he needs a full feature article on him to qualify as notable... or just significant coverage. Remember "it need not be the main topic of the source material." Both he and I have provided effect very separate sources to prove notability, but not detail... but there are many unquestioned pages on Wikipedia with much less reliable sources. Either way he will be in some way mentioned on either page. In my opinion I think these sources shown establish a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as a page...Prestonpayne (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that full featured articles are unnecessary for a person to have significant coverage to establish notability. The problem here is that Yeshiyah Amariel has not received such coverage. The sources I have reviewed are either unreliable or, if reliable, are one or two sentence mentions. This does not establish notability, and I encourage proponents of keeping this article to channel their efforts into creating an article about Israel for Obama—an article that employs no less than three reliable sources that cover the subject in detail; this will ensure that Israel for Obama will not be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I keep saying that I've given many interviews I know that there is allot more out there on me and Israel for Obama... yet I can say where it all has gone over the last 2 years. However I did find another source on this subject and myself... the question becomes is this significant coverage enough for you? http://world-news.info/2010/07/06/black-jew-paves-the-way-in-israel-for-obama/ --Yeshiyah (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I continue to hear statements from some of you about the reliability of the sources given... All of them here are third party... yet if they still seem questionable to you I refer you to Wikipedia policy on Questionable sources... they are allowed. Plus, for a page on me sites connected to me can also be used... just not as primary sources that make up the article. Yeshiyah (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just gave one above... the second is a Dead link of a news interview on Swiss Tv Grossi, Gianluca (23.07.2008). "campagna per Obama Israele", Telegiornale News, TSI1 Swetizerland. links: "rtsp://62.2.180.146:554/tsi/tg/2008/tg_07232008-450k.rm?start=00:15:23.981&end=00:17:41.998&cloakport=80,554", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeeFfVJWhgE" and the third is an Offline source from a book on "Jewish American Political Organizations" at http://books.google.com/books?id=yCqMSQAACAAJ&dq=%22Yeshiyah+Amariel%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&ei=VEdoTLWvCpWyNrS4pcsE&cd=1 and none of this is to mention the book I wrote or any other bio information on me located elsewhere... Yeshiyah (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cunard I agree with you on both points... from the information found here I think a page should be made on Israel for Obama... but on the question of notability for Amariel, he still is very valid... I question if he needs a full feature article on him to qualify as notable... or just significant coverage. Remember "it need not be the main topic of the source material." Both he and I have provided effect very separate sources to prove notability, but not detail... but there are many unquestioned pages on Wikipedia with much less reliable sources. Either way he will be in some way mentioned on either page. In my opinion I think these sources shown establish a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia as a page...Prestonpayne (talk) 08:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeshiyah Amariel is mentioned twice in http://www.nujij.nl/obama-kreeg-77-van-de-joodse-stemmen.3988972.lynkx. The article is primarily about the Israel for Obama group instead of the person. Cunard (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Cunard. I can't find significant coverage of this individual in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 03:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of many online sources on this subject right now is due to Dead Links and Recentism via a news spike.... Regardless, Offline sources and Dead Links can still be used as reliable third party sources even if they are no longer found on the internet. In reality we all know that Israel for Obama is very notable for Wikipedia... a fact made more obvious with this audio interview I found http://www.pri.org/theworld/?q=node/19620 . The fact that I headed a notable group means that I'm notable... So my page should be no different than Debra DeLee's, Henry Jones, Israel Policy Forum, Progressive Jewish Alliance, or many many others. Because this page isn't over complicated or long it is fine as a small bio because it doesn't provide too many details about subject outside of my work... This page shouldn't be deleted it should have been questioned for sources and marked for citations of sources or categorized as a stub (such as Gordon Nixon, Jack Gilpin, Shmil Ben Ari, Anat Elimelech and so on and so on for almost endless other people who are notable, but without loads of information currently supplied for them), but this page should not have been singled out and nominated for deletion passed all other solutions to the problem. Yeshiyah (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find any reliable sources to demonstrate the requirements of WP:BIO have been met. Smartse (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: First Ref in article links to a website called "foxcbs.com". Website is unaffiliated with either CBS or with Fox, article cited ("Black Jew Paves the Way in 'Israel for Obama'") is listed in page history as originally being at "www.obowma.com". I am also concerned that this "foxcbs" website has a tracking feature/column (further down on the right-hand side) that clearly lists at least American visitors by location/town and how long ago they were there after they visit the site (the feature apparently does not capture information from all visitors). Shearonink (talk) 06:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gayewaiter[edit]
- Gayewaiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local television programming shown on a local network that not only is a red link, but doesn't even have its own website (it's on webs.com). Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Included in this AfD is List of Gayewaiter episodes. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable television program. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above, it's not notable. Techman224Talk 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tail#Types. Has already been merged. Yes, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but redirects do not need to be notable in themselves, and this one may be useful Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scut[edit]
- Scut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A contested WP:PROD. There's nothing to be said about this topic beyond the definitions of the word (the article names two of the three meanings), and perhaps some examples of the word being used in popular culture. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and it is not a collection of trivia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is a valid term, but should be in wikidictionary. Should be speedied. scope_creep (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Repeat after me: "Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary." Carrite (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into tail which currently has little about such types of tail. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the tiny bit of information here to Tail#Types. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Now please withdraw this nomination so that it may be speedily closed. Deletion is no longer an option as you have copied from this article and we require the edit history for licensing purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I didn't copy anything: I wrote the two short sentences based on information at Wiktionary (the entry and its talk page). I didn't provide an inline citation because I'm not convinced that it's an acceptable source (even though my favorite web search engine indicates that it is accurate). Consequently, I don't believe that it's necessary to preserve the Wikipedia edit history for licensing purposes -- in fact, it would technically be inaccurate to say that the information came from this page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Effectively already has been merged ... so I'm not sure why the article shouldn't just be replaced with an appropriate redirect (Tail#Types presumably). There is no gain whatsoever from deleting the article history. TheGrappler (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP is not a Dictionary, do not think it should be a redirect without a reiliable source] to support the section in Tail, happy to see one later if one is found. Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted (CSD A1) by Anthony Bradbury. NAC. Cliff smith talk 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judinasd[edit]
- Judinasd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this language ever existed. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom as well as little or no context, tagged as such.
Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 20:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted by JamesBWatson (talk) as G11. Non-admin closure; closed by nominator of article. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chandran supermaniam[edit]
- Chandran supermaniam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possibly not notable. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a vanity piece full of unencyclopedic nonsense. Sources are not reliable, and I can't find anymore via a Google search. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it has been speedied. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 18:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kristin Barlowe[edit]
- Kristin Barlowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No non-trivial sources found anywhere. Only sources used were individual video listings on CMT, which aren't enough to confer notability. The only hits on Gnews were bylines for articles in which she took pictures. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, and logic from my !vote in the Sherman Halsey AfD. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 22:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being in the media, her work will be published and her name credited, the same is true for a second grip, wardrobe manager, make-up artist etc. Any of these people could be notable but not just for working on these projects. Checking through Google I only find trivial mentions, nothing at all in GNews and only listings in GBooks. PS, Category:Music videos directed by Kristin Barlowe was created at the same time as this BLP and should go for the same reasons. Fæ (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom and Fæ. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (t) (c) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Players Championship[edit]
- 2010 Players Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual editions of regular season golf tournaments are not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article per WP:NOTNEWS. Anything out of the ordinary that occurred during this tournament (I'm not aware of anything though) should be mentioned in the parent article. Quickly renominating due to lack of participation in original discussion. wjematherbigissue 08:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —wjematherbigissue 08:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Players isn't a major, it shouldn't have an individual article.-William 09:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Players does have I believe the highest purse of any golf tournament (though some others are close), and counts more towards the world golf rankings more than any other non-major (80 points instead of 100; there is only one other tournament over 40). It is the signature PGA Tour (i.e. non-major) event, and sometimes (unofficially of course) called the "fifth major". It tends to have a more international field than other PGA Tour events, and winners are exempted from one to three years at all four majors. Performances there are fairly scrutinized. It is set up as a marquee event on the PGA tour along with the four majors and season-ending stuff. I could see individual coverage of this tournament; it is a far cry from a regular tour event. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the world ranking points available attest to the strength of the field, and moreover the fact it is the PGA Tour's designated premier event, and yes it has in the past being labelled as the 5th major, although since the advent of the WGC events that moniker is increasingly rare, but individual editions of The Players are simply not notable enough by WP standards to stand on their own. We do not need, and nor should we have, articles for individual editions of tournaments outside of the majors (and possibly the WGCs). wjematherbigissue 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per what Clindberg said.
Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 07:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Clindberg's comments relate to the notability of The Players as a tournament, not to the notability of a particular year's tournament. What is there to suggest that the 2010 tournament will have any long lasting coverage beyond the routine coverage normally given to a PGA tournament? For example, the majors are daily headline main news, The Players is rarely even routine sports news outside the US. wjematherbigissue 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The TPC (I still prefer the old moniker) is the top PGA tour event, as evidenced by its purse and world rankings points. Each year's event gets significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. I can't speak for outside the US, but coverage within the US is plenty to establish notability. I see no reason why individual editions of the tournament "are simply not notable enough by WP standards to stand on their own." Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course "the TPC" is a misnomer based on the venue (TPC being an acronym of Tournament Players Club not Championship – TPC Sawgrass being the venue). But anyhow, every single PGA Tour event gets a large amount of coverage – while it is being held. This is no different. The standard for inclusion is lasting coverage or impact. This instance of the Players (like most if not all others) has none. wjematherbigissue 00:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but keep in mind that there are a ton of similar articles in other relative minor sports. Just to pick a really random example in snooker: 2010 Irish Classic. Nergaal (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Wikipedia's sports coverage is............. encyclopedic. This is an important tournament in a near-major sport and the article should be of interest to a significant number of WP users. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is stretching WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't a "news event". It is a scheduled top level sporting tournament that attracts significant coverage. We have to bear in mind the purpose behind NOTNEWS is to prevent wikipedia becoming a newspaper. I don't see how that purpose is furthered by deleting this article.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS does apply, but moreover WP:EVENT, particularly WP:ROUTINE, even more specifically covers this type of article. In any case, there is nothing in this article that is not already in, or could not be easily added to, the winners table in the Players Championship article other than round by round leaderboards, which are nothing more than fluff. wjematherbigissue 10:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Don't see how this is anything other than reporting on a sports event, there is no commentary just reproduction of the results so should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. None of the keep !votes have addressed this issue. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This passes Notablity and Verifiablity, so it must be kept because it is encyclopedic sporting event like WGC Events and The Majors. I would advise writting some commentary and putting in additional sources, but this is no reason to delete.BLUEDOGTN 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adama Cisse[edit]
- Adama Cisse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player. Wrwr1 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found no evidence that this Adama Cisse would pass the GNG and he appears to fail NPSORTS as well. There was a footballer by the same name who was a Senegal international in the past, but this article is not about him. Jogurney (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly not notable. Not won any cap or even played at all. scope_creep (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mo_Hayder#Bibliography. ... until a suitable article can be written Black Kite (t) (c) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gone (Mo Hayder novel)[edit]
- Gone (Mo Hayder novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Book is not notable per WP:NBOOK. Article was previously deleted as an expired PROD on 8 Aug. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability, no sources, not even categories. Lazy article creator is lazy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete it's clearly a non-existent book by a non-existent person whose not famous in her field posted by a person who doesn't know the first thing about wikipedia. just get rid of it for fuck's sake! Barbara Osgood (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mo Hayder#Bibliography for now. With the name of the title being "Gone", it's difficult to winnow through the search results. But as the 5th novel in a series by a notable author, at the very least, it should be a redirect to the bibliography section for the author. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Expand and Wikify. Crime writer who satisfies GNG and each of the other books has associated article. The WP editor has not been removed, as plenty of scope for expanding and cleaning up the article. scope_creep (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but . . . The author is quite well-known and the book has received enough coverage (her website and the Amazon page have lists of reviews from significant media: here are some examples of coverage (in English and French) I found via Google[4][5][6][7]) So I don't think deleting is the best course of action here. Having said that, I don't disagree that the current state of the article is not very useful, and I wouldn't necessarily oppose a redirect to Mo Hayder until such time as someone puts some more substantive sourced content into the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Sounds of Country Music[edit]
- Golden Sounds of Country Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album. WP:1S. No hits at all on Gnews, and only directory listings on Google Books. No non-trivial mentions anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust Talk Contribs 22:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of the significance of this album. Codf1977 (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 TransLink (South East Queensland). Shimeru 16:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bribie Island Coaches[edit]
- Bribie Island Coaches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notability d'oh! talk 13:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brisbane Bus Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Caboolture Bus Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Hornibrook Bus Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kangaroo Bus Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Logan City Bus Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Mt Gravatt Bus Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Park Ridge Transit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sunbus Sunshine Coast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Surfside Buslines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Thompsons Bus Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Veolia Transport Queensland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Westside Bus Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Including the above articles for the same reason. d'oh! talk 13:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
- Comment. These are all bus companies in Australia. Some of these (e.g. Surfside Buslines) would appear to be much more informative than others. I have no real opinion on whether these are individually notable, but if commuter train stations are usually notable, I'm not sure that bus lines and routes would not be. My preference would be to smerge and redirect these into larger aggregations like TransLink (South East Queensland) or Transit Australia Group, but it isn't a particularly strong one. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with TransLink (South East Queensland) or Transit Australia Group. Non-notable. Bleakcomb (talk) 06:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge - no indication that they are notable. Codf1977 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Unsourced stub articles with no indication of notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WordsmithCommunicate 04:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zenith Provecta[edit]
- Zenith Provecta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom. Article was PRODded citing "No indication of notability". Article creator objected but did not know to remove the template. Ϫ 11:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. Looks like a clear intention to advertise to me. Could be salvaged if someone can track down some secondary sources to establish notability. -- Ϫ 11:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but needs to be heavily despammed. See the following examples of coverage: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - to promotional, and while I accept the ref's above from Whpq, they are not really significant enough to get over WP:CORP, they are from either local papers or from the trade publication Fleet News. Codf1977 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of The Boondocks episodes. There was consensus that the episodes should not have separate articles. The two keep votes were variations of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I rather redirect the articles instead of deleting them so that material can still be merged by interested parties. Do not restore these article without presenting evidence of significant coverage (i.e. other than a two-line AV Club reception). – sgeureka t•c 10:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Black President, Huey Freeman[edit]
- It's a Black President, Huey Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating the following articles for deletion. I have researched a number of them and could not find any significant coverage of them. There seems to be one guy at the AV Club who likes The Boondocks, but other than that they seem insignificant. Thus, the articles fail to meet the WP:GNG. (Of interest to users viewing this AfD is another nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Medicinal)
- It's a Black President, Huey Freeman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bitches to Rags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Red Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Story of Jimmy Rebel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Stinkmeaner 3: The Hateocracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Smokin' With Cigarettes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Fundraiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- A Date With the Booty Warrior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Lovely Ebony Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Odie5533 (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment was there any attempt to merge or redirect these episodes per WP:ATD? All appear to have a specific and viable merge target. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont know about these particular episodes, but if you take a look at the edit history of another episode of this series [13] you will see that attempts to redirect are met with considerable reversions from a redirect to full unsourced articles. Active Banana (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, there is never going to be consensus for a redirect between editors and fans. I haven't checked all of these articles but if all of them are sourced to nothing other than an AV Club article then Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Story of Lando Freeman shows that this is considered insufficient to sustain an article. No !vote at this time. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete allWP:GNG " Multiple sources are generally expected." Until more than one brief review is provided, these should not be stand alone articles. Active Banana (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I did find coverage in LA times for the ep "It's a Black President, Huey Freeman " [14] which if combined with a review would satisfy me as meeting WP:N. However, there was no review for this episode. Active Banana (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: Stinkmeaner 3: The Hateocracy has coverage/review in a mainstream source. I am not convinced that the coverage cannot be adequately covered in a parent article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- switch to Merge to List of Boondocks episodes (Season Three) or something similar. At this point there appears to be some basic coverage that can support a Season article, with the future potential of individual episodes spun off if adequate sourcing is found in the future. Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I assume there is coverage but the sources need to be added. Has the nominator attempted to Google News the episodes or pick up a TV Guide, EW, or other sources to see if there is coverage there?Cptnono (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or delete. If you've checked lexis nexis, then you (are 1 out of 100 and) have actually done what should be required to see if deletion is necessary. Keep it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Smack of listcruft, fancruft but no different from many many other tv series who have their episodes listed in detail on Wikipedia. Why not this one. The series itself clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any reasoning other than WP:OTHERCRAP? Active Banana ( bananaphone 18:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know what your saying. Fundamentally I see the guides being used to kill the worst excesses of cruft. There could 2k+ animations, I don't know, series in Wikipedia, and people use the episode guides for references. Do we delete all of them. The episode guide articles are well written and the series is notable. The episode guides are good for reference, and being an inclusionist, believe that anything that brings editors and reader to Wikipedia is a good thing. scope_creep (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, we are an encyclopedia, not a marketing page that is seeking to bring in viewers at any cost. If they want encyclopedic information, please come here. If you want fancruft, look elsewhere. Active Banana ( bananaphone 19:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be sorry, we are just are having a discussion. Certainly not at any cost. Their is pages and pages of stuff that is clearly fancruft, but this isn't. It is well written and sourced, and series itself is notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all As individual episodes they fail notability criteria. If necessary, a couple of sentences of plot summary from each can be merged into List of The Boondocks episodes. Peacock (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. These episodes don't seem to have any stand-alone notability. No reviews or coverage example. Fancruft really. Support appropriate merge into another article if appropriate. Christopher Connor (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are separate articles for the 15 episodes of season 1 AND season 2. Starting deleting some episode 3 articles and it would be highly annoying to readers familiar with referencing the articles for other episodes.Bdell555 (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aheliotech[edit]
- Aheliotech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Few sources; stub; may be advertising Cssiitcic (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails wp:Corp, no significant independent coverage around. Being a stub is never a good reason to delete. --Claritas § 09:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:ORG, very minor computer repair shop. scope_creep (talk) 19:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No mentions in WP:RS from what I can tell. Looking through Google News showed nothing. ffm is now LFaraone 20:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the length of argument present, the article is still spammy, and consensus is that the subject is not notable. Courcelles 03:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Lisa Christiansen[edit]
- Dr. Lisa Christiansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note to closing admin: The article has been moved to Lisa Christiansen (motivational coach). if this discussion closes as "delete" please make sure this is deleted, and not just the redirect now left at Dr. Lisa Christiansen. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spam. Article serves no purpose but to promote the career of the subject. Interestingly, the article's author seems to have some expertise at using "social media" to promote things. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PLEASE HELP I went in and removed external links to anything to Dr. Lisa's site. I was including them as reference and not SPAM. Also, please explain where/how you feel article not written from a neutral point of view? I used the article wizard and modeled the format of the Tony Robbins and Jack Canfield listings. Dr. Lisa is very well-known in her industry and has worked with Tony to learn many of his strategies and now has a well-know career of her own assisting celebrities such as Kelly Clarkson, Dara Torres, and the band Journey. She deserves this legitimacy...was NOT written for marketing reasons. Again, I took the external links to her site. I don't see where it violates any of the conditions as it currently exists.Sara-rockworth (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just reading the first two paragraphs was enough to convince me that this article is pure spam. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How? How can that be decisioned by reading the first two paragraphs which are 100% fact? I don't understand why you are saying that? To me, I am just presenting factual information. Again, I modeled the pages of Tony Robbins and Jack Canfield which have no issues. I am genuinely trying to understand so I can make it better. What makes it SPAM to you? Sara-rockworth (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Language such as "... has helped millions of people create extraordinary lives globally" and "phenomenal success in network marketing" is purely promotional. The entire article reads like a testimonal to Christiansen, rather than an unbiased biography. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Thank you for your input and advice. That was in the section about her autobiography and that is a fact (she has had "phenomenal" success based on what she accomplished that was outlined in that book) not opinion. However, I see where it could be misconstrued and I changed my writing style in a lot of places. This was not intended to be a testimonial but I do have a lot of respect for this woman so maybe that bled through. I have tried to make it more neutral now. Still working on it so any additional suggestions are welcome. Thank you again for taking the time to help me make it better. Sara-rockworth (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: From my experience, people who come to Wikipedia with a marketing background are unable to tell the difference between a neutral and factual article and a promotional one. Their attempts to tone down the marketing rhetoric often fall a mile short of Wikipedia's neutrality policy and usually barely manage to avoid the criteria for deletion without discussion in favor of the deletion discussion process that you are looking at here. So I would say that anyone involved in marketing who comes to Wikipedia should either show the ability to shed their marketing background entirely or leave the editing to other people.
Also, you'll need independent sources. By independent, I mean the kind where Christiansen cannot get any change made without involving her attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ReplyThank you both for your input. I have added two independent sources. I am assuming that a public newspaper article would be considered independent? And I also did include the two web sites for the companies that have published her and are advertising her as an author in their series'. Those would be classified as independent as well, right? Again, I am not being a smartalec. I am really trying to get this correct. Sara-rockworth (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Lawton Constitution article is independent, but does not constitute significant coverage as required in WP:N. (Basically it is a "hometown girl makes good" type of piece.) The coverage provided at her publishers' websites are not reliable as their purpose is to promote Christiansen, not to report in an unbiased manner on her. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a little confused. I have been reviewing many other biographies on here and they all read the same and have the same type of sources. Why is the one I have written any different than those? Have you looked at it since I made all the edits? Is it better? Sara-rockworth (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: From my experience, people who come to Wikipedia with a marketing background are unable to tell the difference between a neutral and factual article and a promotional one. Their attempts to tone down the marketing rhetoric often fall a mile short of Wikipedia's neutrality policy and usually barely manage to avoid the criteria for deletion without discussion in favor of the deletion discussion process that you are looking at here. So I would say that anyone involved in marketing who comes to Wikipedia should either show the ability to shed their marketing background entirely or leave the editing to other people.
- Delete - The language itself would be problematic, it reads exactly like a resume or a bio page from a personal website. I am also unconvinced that it meets notability requirements. I might comment to the article's author, it is not problematic to link to a person's personal page if they meet general notability (and I assume you meant biography, not autobiography?). - OldManNeptune (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:Yes, I did. Thank you. I am a little flustered in trying to get this right. I do have a question...is it not neutral now? I can't find anywhere were I am speaking from a non-neutral perspective. Additionally, she has worked with an Olympic athlete and major Grammy-winning pop stars who come to her for coaching. Doesn't that meet the notability requirement? Sara-rockworth (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply No, it is still not neutral, although it is getting better. Specifically, statements such as "Her strategies for achieving lasting results and fulfillment are regarded as the platinum standard in the coaching industry." can still be found peppered throughout the article. That can be fixed, but the problem of notability still remains. No independent sources can be found that cover Dr. Christiansen in any significant depth. Without such sources, the only material available are the promotional sites run by Christiansen herself or by her publishers, none of which can be assumed to be reliable sources. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I am not sure exactly how to put this, but it almost reads like it is..."intentionally neutral." I mean, it reads like a PR report attempting to look like it is free of spin. I hope you are not taking this as any kind of insult to your writing, it is well written but it is not encyclopedic. As for the article's subject, it is possible for someone to be impressively accomplished but not notable by Wikipedia standards, and that may be the case here. If sufficient notability is established I'd gladly change my vote to keep and assume good faith intention to clean up the article, i.e. language changes to make it encyclopedic. - OldManNeptune (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I have done a major re-write taking out any and all "commentary" language. Everything that is in the article now is complete fact. I have looked at the listings of at least 20 other individuals and the article as it stands now has LESS editorialism than ANY reviewed. As far as notability, Dr. Christiansen has been the success coach to Grammy-winning Kelly Clarkson, Olympian Dara Torres, and world-renowned pop band Journey as mentioned in the article. If these people are considered "notable" enough to be included, then their "Coach" should be considered notable. It has also been suggested that the first two paragraphs are what makes the article appear "SPAM". Yet, taking those things out would take away the notability. There are no links to Dr. Christiansen's site except for the one reference to support the personal quotes. I can understand that notability is somewhat subjective but after the changes, I believe it cannot be considered "SPAM" at this point at all. Sara-rockworth (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as self promotion. Per the wikipedia deletion policy:
"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter."
This article and it's VERY thin self-focused citations are obviously self-prepetuated. Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply] Deletedue to unreliable sources. Per the wikipedia deletion policy:
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"
For Example:
"Dr. Christiansen has consulted with Olympic athletes, world-renowned musicians, Fortune 500 CEOs, world class entertainers and other psychologists. Specifically, she has advised pop star Kelly Clarkson, Olympian Dara Torres, and the members of the rock band Journey." Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]Deletedue to hoaxes. Per the wikipedia deletion policy:
"Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)"
For Example:
1. "Lisa is the only living direct descendent of Seqouyah - the inventor of the Cherokee alphabet..."
2. "Christiansen's commitments also extend to finding non-traditional and holistic treatments for cancer..." Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]Delete. Due to blatant promotional tone and lack of reliable references of BLP.Cindamuse (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Reply "Blatant Promotional Tone". Where, please, are you referring to? This is getting so that the comments of late seem to be a little heavier than constructive criticism - unlike the individuals from earlier today who seemed to be trying to assist. As evidenced by my questions, I have been diligently attempting to fix the problems addressed by the earlier reviewers, yet, it appears those of late are more interested in being snide than conscientious about content. I am not Dr. Lisa Christiansen nor am I doing this as "PR". I am simply trying to give acknowledgment to a woman who I feel has earned it. She was recently on "South Bay Women Magazine's" HealthyLife radio show and was impressive. This has definitely not been a very pleasant experience. As a first-timer, I don't mind constructive criticism at all but this seems to be a little "more" than that. Way to make someone feel welcome. By the way, I have made another revision deleting more information that could possibly come across as having a "promotional tone" even though I am not intending to promote. Sara-rockworth (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With all sincere respect, the AfD process is established to make recommendations to a closing editor for actions regarding the deletion status of an article. While some editors may have the time to mentor or offer suggestions (and oftentimes I do), others may not have that same time. Before I discuss an article or make a recommendation, I read the article and talk page, review the history, and perform a comprehensive search for reliable sources.
In my opinion, the article is not appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia and should have been speedy deleted under the G11 criteria entitled, "Blatant Advertising." I concur with the nominator, that the article qualifies as WP:ARTSPAM. It's nothing personal; just policy.Cindamuse (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- REPLY Your response was very polite. I disagree but it was polite at least, as were the initial responders. Although, I still don't get how this is considered "Blatant Advertising" as I am not trying to sell or promote anything. I am simply reporting on an individual who, in my opinion - and in the opinion of others - would be considered notable. Have I achieved what this woman has? Absolutely not. Would Kelly Clarkson or Journey hire me - or anyone who has replied here - for advice? To me, an independent third-party, that is "notable". However, it is hard to find documentation online regarding the clients of personal coaches other than on the coach's own pages. But you will notice an endorsement from Dara Torres herself and Donald Trump on Dr. Christiansen's site. I can't imagine either one - but especially Donald Trump - takes the time to write endorsements for just anyone. Furthermore, I guess I am just perplexed as to what qualifies this as promotional versus MANY other listings I reviewed in preparation to write this and as I was modifying today (including some by people that are a part of this discussion). Several tens of these I looked at had considerably more "editorializing" than my article and the same level of citations and references I had. Therefore, as I stated above, I do understand that "notability" is subjective but the accusations of "blatant SPAM" and "qualifies for speedy deletion" totally throw me. My article was not a "hoax" or "scam" and was not intended to be SPAM. It was intended to be a legitimate listing of an individual designed to recognize them as a notable figure. However, it is obvious it will be deleted based on the perception of the five people who have commented here. So, fine... I give. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With all sincere respect, the AfD process is established to make recommendations to a closing editor for actions regarding the deletion status of an article. While some editors may have the time to mentor or offer suggestions (and oftentimes I do), others may not have that same time. Before I discuss an article or make a recommendation, I read the article and talk page, review the history, and perform a comprehensive search for reliable sources.
- Reply "Blatant Promotional Tone". Where, please, are you referring to? This is getting so that the comments of late seem to be a little heavier than constructive criticism - unlike the individuals from earlier today who seemed to be trying to assist. As evidenced by my questions, I have been diligently attempting to fix the problems addressed by the earlier reviewers, yet, it appears those of late are more interested in being snide than conscientious about content. I am not Dr. Lisa Christiansen nor am I doing this as "PR". I am simply trying to give acknowledgment to a woman who I feel has earned it. She was recently on "South Bay Women Magazine's" HealthyLife radio show and was impressive. This has definitely not been a very pleasant experience. As a first-timer, I don't mind constructive criticism at all but this seems to be a little "more" than that. Way to make someone feel welcome. By the way, I have made another revision deleting more information that could possibly come across as having a "promotional tone" even though I am not intending to promote. Sara-rockworth (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletedue to lack of notability. Being overly compassionate or charitable does not separate this person from any other garden-variety christian mother. And having a successful career is certainly not encyclopedic. Adide from her autobiography, this individual's only claimed literary works are 2 short stories contributed to books written by her friends [and not yet released]. This is not an established author. Wiki-cites (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]- Comment. You have made a recommendation four times now. Once is permissible. Three have been stricken. If you have additional information to add to your recommendation, please make a comment. Also, when you leave messages in talk pages, the process requires that you sign your message with four tildes ~~~~ this will automatically post your signature to the end of your post. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite the concerted efforts by the SPA that created this article and has argued above at amazing length against all comers, the article still contains no indication that there exists significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Nor have I found any evidence elsewhere of such coverage. Yes, there's Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, www.drlisacoaching.com, www.pr.com/press-release, etc etc, but nothing reliable and independent. (Incidentally, I agree with a post above that says this should have been speedy-deleted. The speedy deletion tag was removed by an IP editor with no other edits. And one final comment: I don't remember ever before seeing an AfD discussion anywhere near this long in which only one person is arguing for "keep".) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the speedy deletion tag should not have been removed. The timeline of this person's life and career is certainly not encyclopedic. Wiki-cites (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - Terrible piece of promotion, not a single reliable source (this does not establish notability). Possibly also wrong/hoaxy (baked mud pies for profit as a 2-year-old? For two years?! Hello?!). --Pgallert (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Where did you read something about mud pies? Cindamuse (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In this version.--Pgallert (talk) 08:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have been requested to reconsider my !vote. Although I agree that the article has improved substantially, I stand by my opinion. It is still promotional, I can still not see what exactly establishes notability in this article, and I can still not see any reliable source that backs up a substantial claim. --Pgallert (talk) 09:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Some of you are definitely not in this to be helpful (see "Don't Bite the Newbies") As far as noting me as a SPA, yes, this is my first post but I did NOT intend it to be my only. However, seriously rethinking that because this is not a friendly place to be. For the most part, several who are supposed to be helpful are cynical, suspicious, and rude. Furthermore, I have not been "arguing". I have been following the criteria suggested by Wikipedia in the deletion section to try and get explanation of how to make my article "right or better". Specifically, I was following the suggestions on the deletion page which say that if an article is recommended for deletion because it does not explain the notability of its subject try to improve it by: Rewriting it yourself, Asking the article's editor(s) for advice. If an article fails to cite sufficient sources: Look for sources yourself, Ask the article's editor(s) for advice on where to look for sources. I WAS SIMPLY FOLLOWING THIS ADVICE AND ASKING THE APPROPRIATE QUESTIONS SINCE THIS WAS MY FIRST TIME. Again, I heard this lady speak on a radio show and went to look her up here. She wasn't here so I decided to write it. She seemed notable to me especially since she was endorsed by Dara Torres, Kelly Clarkson, Journey, and Donald Trump. I read the criteria for notability for biographies which seemed to apply. Wikipedia's own criteria for biographies for a person who is an expert in an academic area is: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Further covered HERE. As stated above, I have already accepted the fact that it will be deleted but I don't have to accept assaults on my intention or character without responding. For those of you who have sincerely tried to be helpful, thank you. Sara-rockworth (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment By the way, doesn't my willingness to hang-around, discuss, try to learn the process and rules, and attempt to make my first article comply - despite being blasted and accused of many things - show that I did not intend to be a SPA? But rather, I am trying to learn the ropes and to do it correctly because this seemed like an interesting and useful thing to do. If I was simply here for the reasons a couple of you indicated, wouldn't I have just "disappeared" at the first sign of trouble with my article? Sara-rockworth (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On advice from a senior editor, I am not going to completely give up yet. I have totally broken down the article to its bare basics and will do diligent search for educational information and additional independent sources tomorrow. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This person does not pass the notability requirement. I do not see a legitimate body of literary work or list of scholarly publications. The story of her life and career alone are not encyclopedic. Wiki-cites (talk) 12:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cindamuse (talk · contribs) has done a great job at cleaning up this article and removing any of the "gee wow what a great person" tone of the article. But she still hasn't provided an article that validly asserts the notability of Christiansen. The only independent source provided is a local hometown newspaper profile ("local girl makes good" type of thing). The rest of the references are from Christiansen's own website or from websites promoting her books or her appearances. There's nothing here that makes Christiansen anything other than another motivational speaker. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciate the kudos regarding the cleanup.
My hope was to copy edit the article and add appropriate references. Unfortunately, at this point, I have not been able to locate reliable sources that support the information asserted in the article. As a professional researcher, I have encountered several red flags regarding this individual, as well as legal discrepancies in her claims. I've really had to step away from the article. While I had my hopes that this article could be edited and referenced, I have serious concerns.Cindamuse (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I appreciate the kudos regarding the cleanup.
- Comment Agreed. She certainly does not meet the notability requisite. The overwhelming majority of her references are tied to commercial endorsement, with negligible legitimate independent recognition. The story of her life and career alone are not encyclopedic. Wiki-cites (talk) 11:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)— Wiki-cites (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply I am working on gathering the information necessary to make this comply with the Wiki requirements for biographies of academic persons. Cindamuse (talk · contribs) helped out tremendously cleaning up the article; thank you. She was also able to find information on the dissertation that was published and I have inquiries out to the persons Dr. Christiansen provided coaching to in order to see if that is documented online somewhere. The recommendation on her business acumen from Donald Trump has been added as well. Wiki-cites (talk · contribs), you seem to be very interested in this conversation and knowledgeable about Wiki policies so I have been trying to find your edits and contributions to compare but I can't seem to find others. Is this a personal interest of yours? Sara-rockworth (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No personal interest in the subject, only in the Wikipedia editing process. Regardless, no amount of article re-writes are going to make this person any more notable. I see that your new angle is academic submissions. If writing a thesis were criteria for being listed on Wikipedia, every graduate student on earth would qualify. 68.1.53.26 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)— 68.1.53.26 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I initially opposed the inclusion of this article on Wikipedia due to blatant promotional tone. The article was copy edited, but still lacked content establishing her notability. After extensive work on the article, review of her books, and research of books and magazines that mention her, I realized that notability is established, based on the fact that a book has been written entirely about her. WP:BASIC states: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The book, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, was written in 1974, independent of any involvement by Christiansen, published by the Cherokee Nation, with copies in the Library of Congress, which includes this book and noted in their catalog and listings. Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee is Christiansen's native Cherokee name given at birth. I am now recommending that this article be kept, due to established notability as the subject of a published book, reliable and independent of the subject. Christiansen was eight years old when this book was written. Her notability was established according to the Nation upon the death of her mother, since Christiansen was then the last surviving descendant of Sequoyah. The article is no longer written in a promotional tone and cannot be considered spam. Cindamuse (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are a plethora of books written about descendants. Can the subject provide support that she is indeed Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee? Surely it is on her birth certificate? Just curious why she did not mention the book you cite in the previous postings? Wiki-cites (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The reason "she" has not mentioned it is because I am not Lisa Christiansen. Cindamuse (talk · contribs) is simply a much better researcher than I am. She has obviously also been doing this much longer and is also much better at it than I am. Sara-rockworth (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a single reliable source to show any sort of notability, much less prove any of the grandiose claims asserted in this article, no matter how many times it's been edited to remove "promotional" content. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, so, for example, the claim "She is known for her status as one of the last surviving descendants of Sequoyah of the Cherokee Nation." will continue to be heinous until it can be adequately supported by a significant, independent news article published in a recognizable, reputable publication meeting WP:RS. And, for example, claims made about Donald Trump, Tony Robbins, Kelly Clarkson and the others do not meet the requirements of WP:BLP -- their association, comments and endorsements require significantly better sourcing than the subject's non-notable website or an uploaded photo. Flowanda | Talk 11:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The single source that Cindamuse (talk · contribs) has found, Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan, might be evidence of "significant coverage" if Christiansen were today known as an expert in the Cherokee language. She is not. Her claim to fame surrounds her work as a motivational speaker, for which she is not notable. Her knowledge of Cherokee does not seem to be a significant factor in her public life at the moment, and therefore is not a source of notability. If the article were kept, it would be an interesting footnote and nothing more. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Even after the heroic clean-up by Cindamuse, this is a promotion peace and there are not sufficient sources to assert notability. Incidentally, this is not the first time an article about this person has been created. Previous attempts, titled Dr. Lisa Christine Christiansen and Dr. lisa christine christiansen, were repeatedly speedied as G11, G12 and A7. There was also as sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BCISEATTLE/Archive. Favonian (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I was not aware of this. I read the links you provided and assume, from this information, that Wikipedia can tell I am not a sockpuppet since I have never used Wikipedia under any other name on this IP or any other. For what it's worth, I had no knowledge of any other time Dr. Christiansen was submitted to Wikipedia prior to my own submission. Sara-rockworth (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to say I am very impressed with - and appreciative of - the research Cindamuse (talk · contribs) did for the rework of this article. At the very least, I have learned immense amounts about the proper research & writing of a Wikipedia article. I truly don't see how the article can still be considered promotional and honestly believe notability is demonstrated to a greater degree than I have viewed in several other Wikipedia listings on persons. I am not sure what the posts in the past (that were deleted) looked like, but I am pretty sure they didn't reflect the same degree or level of competence this one now does due to the senior editor's efforts. I have thoroughly been 'schooled' and most certainly acknowledge and appreciate that. Sara-rockworth (talk) 06:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I expressed my view above, and expected that would be the end of my involvement. I have come back as a result of a request from Cindamuse on my talk page to return and support keeping the article. I have read the current version of the article. It is certainly very different from earlier versions, and the promotional character is no longer so blatant. Nevertheless, it is still unambiguously promotional. Notability? Several of the references are to pages on www.drlisacoaching.com, which are clearly not independent of the subject, and are essentially advertising material. There are other references to advertising materials (such as http://upcoming.yahoo.com/event/4758882/AZ/Phoenix/Claim-Your-Passion/JW-Marriott-Desert-Ridge-Resort-amp-Spa/, an advertisement for an "event" run by Christiansen). Other references are to mere listings. None of these goes anywhere towards establishing notability. Then we have "Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan". How significant is this? Clearly not any book can be taken as indicating notability, or anyone could establish notability by having someone self-publish something about them, so it is worth considering the status of the book. A Google search produced a sum total of two hits. One of these is a Whois Record for the domain LisaChristineChristiansen.com, which currently does not appear to mention "Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan". Presumably it did when Google last checked it, but a Whois Record for a domain confirms nothing but existence. The one other Google hit is a listing of Library of Congrees catalog entries. Once again, this confirms nothing but existence. This is, in fact, precisely the result I would have expected if the "book" were of no significance at all: much the same as what would result if I wrote a book and had it printed and issued. "Gi–Dee–Thlo–Ah–Ee, of the Blue People Clan" may be more significant than that, but I can find no evidence that it is. I also have to consider the point made above about that at best the book is a source for something other than what she is known for. For the things which constitute the bulk of the article no independent sources are cited at all. If this is the best evidence of notability that can be achieved after a very concerted effort to provide sources, then this increases my impression of non-notability, and, contrary to what Cindamuse asked for, confirms rather than contradicts my view that Christiansen is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional. I always read the article before reading the AfD page, and having now read this page find that the article must have been almost pure advertising if this is the rewritten version. Looking up the autobiography, I find it hard to find anything at all other than promotional stuff or mirroring. The same wording comes up in the gblurbs that I can almost recite it now. It seems hard, too, to separate the Blue People Clan from the subject of this article. I wanted to know more about them. It may be that they are very little known, or that the publicity machine that appears to be in operation has swamped them. Peridon (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. General lack of reliable sourcing for claims which might legitimately establish notability. For example, while the article claims she organized the distribution of $100,000 worth of bicycles, the supporting source reports only that eleven bikes were given to children.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This picture, used in the article, looks to me like a photoshopped montage. As was stated above, Donald Trump's endorsement of Christiansen's work should be sourced to a website maintained by Trump himself or else left out of the article altogether. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Countrys Tid-Bits & Candies Cottage[edit]
- Countrys Tid-Bits & Candies Cottage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local candy store lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:COMPANY as per original CSD tag. --Kudpung (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree that this fails WP:Company and that it lacks veriable sources. Also, it's written like an advert. Geoff Who, me? 20:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arsenal F.C.#Current squad. Tone 21:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of current Arsenal FC players[edit]
- List of current Arsenal FC players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork of Arsenal FC#Current squad. Also a complete lack of references. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 16:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, or alternatively redirect to Arsenal F.C.#Current squad. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comment Miles Blues (talk · contribs) 15:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Arsenal F.C.#Current squad Nfitz (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 17:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Per Oldelpaso. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seriously though, if you're voting Keep on the basis of sources you've uncovered, it would really help the article if you actually put them in... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chemung County Historical Society[edit]
- Chemung County Historical Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable corp or organization. No independent wikipedia reliable citations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the annoying thing is that a little time with Google Books shows that this organization has been operating very successfully under the radar of society for many decades. It has published quite a bit about the region, has served as a resource for a number of scholars and authors, etc.; but has never (to my knowledge) become itself notable. Can no-one find adequate information in the local press to salvage this one? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chemung Canal Bank Building, an NRHP-listed building of which this organization is the main occupant. Otherwise, just delete. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand - I've added several suggested sources at the article talkpage, but I suspect a phone call or email to the CCHS asking "What has been published about the society" would be the most direct approach. There are also several local newspaper articles listed here that may serve. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NO RS establishing notability (a few passing mentions do not count).Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong converse 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless multiple reliable sources can be found to meet WP:GNG. SnottyWong converse 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and give the editor time to find reliable sources. This is exactly the type of article WP needs for reference. scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the understanding that sources may be more easily found made of dead trees than electrons. I'd close this as no consensus and give it three months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, I think they use magnetic domain's rather than electrons. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly notable from the amount it has published. Publishers, and similar organization get very little press, unless they happen to do something scandalous. When I first saw the title of this article, I expected to say delete, because I am quite deletionist about local societies of all sorts, but considerably to my surprise, this one seems important. (We do generally accept county libraries as notable, though I have often been skeptical -- as threatened institutions, they usually make sure they have enough local press attention to them.) I think the importance may to some extent be ultimately based on the fact that Mark Twain's wife came from here, and he lived here here some of his life--resulting in a good deal of important Twaine material in the collection. The ultimate principle of inclusion in Wikipedia is not WP:N, but WP:IAR. Including this will make the encyclopedia better & more informative, and that's enough reason to include an article. It is quite explicit that IAR trumps any more specific regulation here: it has very simple wording, given in a single sentence without any exceptions: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That's probably the solution to the perennial question of when WP:GNG applies--it applies when it helps, and does not apply when it does not help. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I see your point, I don't think you have to invoke IAR to make it. WP:N still applies even where the more specific WP:GNG does not, in the sense that a topic still has to get "noticed" to get a Wikipedia entry. Notability is not limited to GNG, and there are situations where the existence of reliable sources is not the way to evaluate a subject's notability. This is in fact why we have topic-specific notability guidelines such as WP:BIO, WP:PROF, WP:BK, etc. The problem you have mentioned here about the notability of publishers is covered in WP:NMEDIA#Why a separate guideline, and even though NMEDIA is still an essay, it is applied in practice as if it had a guideline status. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and work to add in line sourcing. Google News has enough hits to show notability. here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news and Google books both get hits. Didn't bother looking through any of them, since common sense would indicate this is what belongs in an online encyclopedia. Dream Focus 04:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - There are still no independent wikipedia reliable citations in the article at all, the rescue template was added to improve the article and the only edits from the rescue editors since then has been to vote keep in the AFD, the article as it sits is still not asserting any wikipedia notability and is uncited and in its present state should be deleted or userfied for anyone that wants to improve it.Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It might take a little longer than that to go and get some refs from the library, which is what I suspect it needs. Some things are covered poorly online. I see less utility in userfying it currently than in closing as no consensus and revisiting in 3 months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of good sources about this organization exist, and this is exactly the sort of article that is needed more at WP. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exsistance is not enough, there has to be ntoability.Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete opinions don't give a basis for determining that this WP:ORG as not "notable", which per policy does not mean "important". WP:ORG is a long way behind WP:MUSIC in clarity over cases like this (with "Depth of coverage" being little more than the GNG), but articles like this one (which passes everything in WP:ORG/WP:GNG with flying colours) are not a good place to try to refine policy. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teaneck Kebab House[edit]
- Teaneck Kebab House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just a kebab house like a hundred thousands others Complainer (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Close It's sourced, it's notable per this: "The restaurant has received favorable reviews, in publications including The New York Times, The Record, and New Jersey Monthly." and it's even a WP:DYK on the Main Page. Minimac (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Usually I don't advocate keeping an article on the grounds that the topic earned just one lucky break with the media, but this restaurant has had two such breaks so far (not counting the survey results, which count as trivial), one with the New York Times, and one with The Record. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources.Starzynka (talk) 16:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's just a resataurant. Just because it received good reviews does not make it encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.226.38 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - since restaurants have been popping up and instead of arguing about the fact that it is "well referenced for its cuisine", we can simply have a sub-rule regarding this case, which I will suggest:
- "A restaurant may be notable if it is independently sourced for something other than the fact that it's a restaurant that got good reviews." - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - by Theornamentalist's sub-rule, the restaurant is independently sourced for the flight of the owner from Afghanistan during the war against the Soviets in 1985. I have no independent source to cite, but I know of a pizzeria owned by a Pashtun who fled Kabul on the last plane out in 1979 as the Soviets invaded, and his parents, who stayed behind, were executed. I'm not sure that makes his restaurant notable, but I'll give the nod to Teaneck Kebab House because its Wednesday (where I am today). Geoff Who, me? 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blasphemy! My own rule used against me! Ha I meant something like if an owner is notable, notable regulars, historical significance, if something notable happened there (maybe even one time event as the host article), extraordinarily remarkable (like serving extremely exotic or unique food which no other, at least regionally, restaurants serve which is well sourced and noted just for that). Besides, I bet there are a ton of restaurants with interesting history, but that does not denote notability. I agree with Complainer's assessment btw - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And for the record, I worked at a restaurant as a cook for 8 years that was featured every year by the local news (nj12) and the owner has gotten a ton of good reviews for it simply because he has connections and wanted the exposure. It is utterly unremarkable and does not belong in an encyclopedia, but if this is a trend, maybe I will someday write a fluffy article about the hardships he faced climbing up the ladder, sacrificing whatever it was he did. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well sourced, meets WP:NOTE. ffm is now LFaraone 20:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NYT has to write restaurant reviews, and might include some background on the owner for local colour, but this doesn't make every restaurant it chooses notable. As a side note, here in Europe, where that kind of restaurant is rife, I'd say 60% of them are run by political refugees.Complainer (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks to me like a violation of Wikipedia:Spam.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has reliable sources. A valid article. Techman224Talk 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the strong precedent of Mzoli's. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the two can be compared: Mzoli is almost a controversial (though local) social phenomenon, this is just a damn kebab house Complainer (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a bunch of local restaurant reviews does not make a restaurant notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've opened a discussion here regarding restaurant notability in general, and I suggest any arguments for notability not specifically about this restaurant go over there. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:MILL. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- That's an essay and so doesn't even constitute a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very reasonable essay, however. And, should one go nitpicking on AfD policies, this is a WP:ONLYESSAY among a good half dozen WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Complainer (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Schmucky failed to provided a "suitable explanation of why it applies". As for lots of sources, the sources supplied are not trivial or unreliable.
- Explaining why WP:MILL applies to a kebab house would be insulting the intelligence of the editors. As for explaining why restaurant reviews are a trivial source for restaurants...uh, ditto. Complainer (talk) 08:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establsih notability. Davewild (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notability is established through its sources. Jeni (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete just because the New York Times (for instance) reviews something doesn't make it notable. They can't review only famous restaurants because they'd quickly run out, so they need something to fill their pages. Doesn't go beyond getting one-time good restaurant reviews. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our topics are not required to be famous. Our notability guideline spells this out by saying, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity...". What we look for is that topics "have been "noticed" to a significant degree by independent sources." That's what we have in this case. Your view that fame is required is personal one, not supported by any policy or guideline. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not even remotely what I said; don't misrepresent my argument. What I actually said was that getting one isolated review from a source like the New York Times doesn't make something inherently notable. When you put the "famous restaurants" comment in context, it means that the Times will not only review famous and notable (note; two separate terms- notable ≠ famous) establishments, they will also review minor, less significant ones because they have to put something in their dining section. With one review from the Times, and a couple other newspapers in the area, that's a few sources; not enough to establish "significant coverage". Almost every place in New York has been reviewed by multiple sources; reviews don't say much beyond the food itself and a little bit about the atmosphere, and are not enough to give a comprehensive description. They don't establish notability because they're just ordinary, run-of-the-mill statements about (frequently, as in this example) run-of-the-mill establishments. This is not the same as a whole article, which is a different matter that doesn't seem to apply here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources here are high-quality and offer fairly significant coverage, which is just enough under WP:CORP. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, and has received coverage in multiple independent and reliable WP:RS secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Kebab house. "Qurbanzada... decorated the establishment with rugs... from [Afghanistan]." "...Qurbanzada decorated the restaurant with carpets from Afghanistan." "The Kebab House is a comfortable room whose walls are decorated with... rugs..." Here's my question: are there rugs on the walls? My point is: there isn't much to say about this former pizza joint so we're pretty much reduced to 1) it serves food, and 2) there are rugs on the walls. We are fortunately spared a description of the color of the restroom signs, although if the article is expanded I suppose we'll have to go into that. Restaurantcruft. Herostratus (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Trivial as the restaurant is, it has enough sources to pass the general notability guideline. Yes, we can delete pages about notable subjects, but I don't see any significant reasons so to do. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article passes general notability, so it qualifies as notable. I do acknowledge that somewhere down the line this might be a problem to look at but I don't think an AfD is the right place to change policy. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And now, at the dawn of having wikipedia discredited and ridiculed by showing in its main page, on the DYK, a kebab house in Albany with such fundamental informations as the fact that it offers complementary salads and that it has rugs on the walls, I just have one question: what about wikipedia:Use_common_sense and wikipedia:ignore_all_rules? If there was a case in which one ought to look at an article and say "Damn it, never ever would I look for my local kebab house in an encyclopedia, papery or not", instead of invoking the "general notability guidelines", this was it. I'm sure Encarta is grateful. Complainer (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Encarta is dead while Wikipedia is doing just fine, adding a thousand articles a day. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing just fine as a minor restaurant guide, apparently. And to think that, adding only 999 would have spared the sight of something as pathetically useless as the Teanek article. Oh well, I hope fundamental expansions to this voice are incoming. Isn't there some Afghan crockery we've forgotten to mention? And do we have enough detail about the owner's cousins? What about a complete menu? Any Thursday lunch specials? Complainer (talk) 22:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a lot depends on the nature of the "...unusual food-serving implements". If this means that, instead of a fork, spoon, and knife, you get a rusty Delco sparkplug for a '57 Impala, the severed head of a rabid weasel, and a miniature statuette of Patti Lupone with which to eat your meal, that would make it notable, would it not? But the article doesn't say, so my !vote stands. Perhaps we should have some templates like this:
This article about an obscure restaurant in New Jersey does not describe the color of the restaurant's floors. Please add this information if you are ever unfortunate enough to find yourself there. |
- Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of something along the lines of WP:GARAGE- maybe WP:No one cares about your local restaurant. Signs of it being a local restaurant would include things like "the walls were recently repainted to a darker purple" (as if anyone would truly care) or "Has been featured on News Channel 12" (without mentioning that it was actually covered on the New Haven County channel at 1:30 in the morning). I am totally posting that box somewhere. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Herostratus (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Certainly does need referencing better. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McGhee Family[edit]
- McGhee Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
questionable notability. Only reference is to electric Scotland, a site where information is often published from emails. Some sections are contradictory and confusing e.g. "the McGhees were never a "Clan" as such, and therefore the title of "Chief" was never used." yet goes on to list a bunch of these none existent "Chiefs". Your ever Czar Brodie (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Seems to be quite a large number of primary and secondary sources available to confirm the article. Quite an interesting aspect of Scottish history I didn't know about. Certainly the article needs a fair amount of work and sources added. Yip, it's all good. scope_creep (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. As a professional historian with expertise in DNA studies, I can unequivocally say that information presented in an article on the McGhee Family cannot be attributed to reliable sources. There is no way to determine if one McGhee Family is related to another McGhee Family, short of a DNA study. Simply because an individual shares the same or a similar surname with another does not establish a mutual genetic or patrilineal descent (or ancestry). Inclusion of this article could feasibly get out of hand with every McGhee on the internet now finding a way into an article on Wikipedia. After all, McGhees are now notable! In reality, this just becomes indiscriminate information with no foreseeable end in sight. Besides, notability is not inherited. And the reference(s) are wholly unreliable. Cindamuse (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Who cares if they're all related to one another or not. The sloppy writing can be fixed... This is ultimately Scottish clan history and is fully worthy of encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk), member of Clan Macpherson, 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, thanks for the input. I do most of my editing on Scottish clans and noted that clan branches, septs and family names are also gaining momentum in the same style as the official clan articles. My question is: should we draw the line, or allow articles of any Scottish family as notable, regardless of their affiliation to clans? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beach bliss day[edit]
- Beach bliss day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was removed without comment or ES within minutes by an IP user. Concern: Possible non notable event. Unreferenced, and no sources appear assert notability. Kudpung (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Just something some people at an office building in Tel Aviv came up with. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for things made up one day. There is no reliable source which indicates notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Violates WP:OR. scope_creep (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - G3 - blatant hoax, non-admin closure RJaguar3 | u | t 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Sweet[edit]
- Daniel Sweet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed by creator. It does say he won an award for 'Best newcomer', which I suppose asserts notability.... Chris (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for actots. 'Best newcomer' award doesn't indicate notability, as it is not known wheter the award is significant or not. I assume it is not. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The award cannot be verified (the source is the Wikipedia disambig page Newcomer, which makes no mention of him), and he's not even listed on IMDB. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He may become more notable later but not yet. Besides, it is effectively an unreferenced BLP as nothing listed under "References" is remotely relevant as a reference. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If he had been in any of the TV shows mentioned he would have a listing on IMDb. The whole article is fishy as none of the links provided mention this person - three of them link to wikiarticles which cant be used as a source and the link to the Bristol School of Performing Arts takes us to a sight that is under construction. Another problem is that the 6th season of Dr Who is still in the planning stages and no guest actors have been cast. The article might be a hoax or it might be a self promotion. In either case it needs to go until proof that this 13 year old even exists. MarnetteD | Talk 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham Hyatt[edit]
- Abraham Hyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
skirts notability without ever really getting there, tagged for two years, nothing sets subject aside from other newspapermen doing what newspapermen do Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, just found three sockpuppets, add to that vanispamicruftisement and COI.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as borderline notable BLP. Award-winning journalists for multiple large publications tend to be notable, but the article is basically only referenced with links to the subject's own work, which is clearly insufficient to meet the guidelines of WP:BIO. As to the sockpuppets and "vanispamicruftisement" (how is this a word?) I know Abraham personally, and he has neither the time nor the inclination to make sockpuppets or like. His COI edits were made out of ignorance of the policy, not malice. Steven Walling 14:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask and ye shall receive-Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Manicure#Common_manicure_tools_and_supplies. Rather than userfying it, I have gone with Colonel Warden's suggestion; however since the problem is OR and other issues, I have redirected rather than merging. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Types of nail care tools[edit]
- Types of nail care tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant WP:ESSAY and/or WP:OR. No sources cited. — Timneu22 · talk 10:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. I could see this sort of information being encyclopedic, but not in its current form. It should be pointed out the article creator is a new editor; I'm of the opinion that we should assume good faith and let the user add sources and make other changes to make it eligible for inclusion at a later point. elektrikSHOOS 10:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. I was going to say delete as WP:NOTHOWTO, it's written rather as an instructional guide (frequent use of "you" and so on). Category:Nail care seems to cover navigation to the specific articles for Nail clippers etc (which are not linked in this article anyway) and really it's not much more than a WP:LIST. No incoming our outgoing Wikilinks, which in itself is not a reason for deletion, but suggests this topic is not really needed as such. Unlikely search term. I can see, however, the merit in userfying this as described above. Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is nothing more than a list, and there's already a related category, what are we userfying? — Timneu22 · talk 10:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. The topic is definitely notable, but the current tone of the article is utterly unencyclopedic. Should be moved to nail care. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wikify. Interesting article. scope_creep (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If each of the tools here already has an article, and the entire contents of this article are inappropriate for Wikipedia in terms of WP:HOWTO, WP:ESSAY and WP:OR, there is not point in keeping this. What use (to either the user or to Wikipedia) is userifying it? Peacock (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Manicure#Common manicure tools and supplies which covers the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) per G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hydrosynth[edit]
- Hydrosynth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism, absent on Google E Wing (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I couldn't find anything this topic. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Where shall we begin... The article is complete WP:OR that can't be verified and as such fails notability guidelines Pmedema (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom, Narutolovehinata5, and Pmedema. Furthermore it appears to be a blatant case of COI.--Kudpung (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and feed to the ansestorial gods; article was already deleted once after a deletion discussion; so tagged. This version does nothing to address the issues that led to its deletion before, and contains much of the same text: Sometimes this music is call bling bling because it sounds shiny sparkly like a diamond BLIG BLING lucky charm champagne. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While some coverage has been presented, the consensus is that the coverage is not sufficient for the purposes of the relevant notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fresher Foods Ltd.[edit]
- Fresher Foods Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Fresher Potato Chips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
WP:CORP. Organisation does not seem to be notable, and is unsourced. Only wikilinks are from Fresher Potato Chips, a brand of potato chips they manufacture (this article has no incoming links at all) and a hatnote at "Freshman" ("Fresher" redirects there).
The company should not have "Ltd." in the title (WP:NCCORP) but it seems makework to move it if it is to be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable company.--Karljoos (talk) 09:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notabne company. There is nothing in the very short text that suggests why this company should be important enough to have its own Wiki article. It could have probably been speedy deleted under CSD A7 as an article about an organization (band, club, company, etc.), that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance. --Kudpung (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider CSD or PROD but thought on balance it would probably end up at AfD anyway, so might as well come here anyway. There is currently an unrelated merge proposal at Talk:Freshman#Merge proposal, to which Fresher redirects,and it's listed in the hatnote at that article. There's also a merge proposal at Talk:Freshman (disambiguation)#Merge proposal. It's all getting a bit messy so it seemed best to bring it to AfD rather than seem to serve summary justice. Si Trew (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both the company and the product. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP scope_creep (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not even a significant company by New Zealand's standards. dramatic (talk) 00:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are actually many different articles that discuss the company, so actually it does pass WP:CORP and it is notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. I suppose this doesn't matter to the people who blindly post "delete". --Teggles (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for their significance in New Zealand, they're practically in every supermarket and convenience store, but this is of course irrelevant. --Teggles (talk) 06:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They've been mentioned passingly in a government speech on free trade and have had a round of press out of it. I can find no other secondary sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is enough to establish notability, as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:CORP. --Teggles (talk) 12:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of significant coverage so fails WP:CORP, disagree with Teggles, the bar for WP:Corp is a lot higher than coverage based on press releases and a government speech.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (t) (c) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anne Tourney[edit]
- Anne Tourney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. No reliable secondary references and a cursory search of Google News Archive turns up zero hits for an author named Anne Tourney. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete absolutely nothing I could find on Google. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Many books listed on Google includiing Taming Jeremy by Anne Tourney, published by Virgin Digital, an imprint of Random House - the biggest selling book publisher in the UK.
http://www.randomhouse.co.uk/catalog/book.htm?command=Search&db quite a prolific author apparently. Is mentioned in How to write a dirty story: reading, writing, and publishing erotica By Susie Bright, Product Details Fireside, January 2002 Trade Paperback, 304 pages ISBN-10: 0743226232 ISBN-13: 9780743226233
http://books.google.com/books?id=pfpQg2U2VD8C&dq=%22Anne+Tourney%22+-inpublisher:icon&lr=&as_brr=0&cd=6 has stories in The Mammoth Book of Best New Erotica, Volume 2 by Maxim Jakubowski (30,000 copies).
Stories in The Best American Erotica 2002 by Susie bright Story Greek Fever in Best women's erotica, Volume 2002 by http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:a&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Marcy+Sheiner%22 Marcie Scheiner
One of the three stories in Possession by http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1,bkv:a&tbo=p&q=+inauthor:%22Anne+Tourney%22 Mathilde Madden, Madelynne Ellis, and Anne Tourney Pub. Date: April 2008 Publisher: Random House UK Format: Paperback, 272pp Series: Black Lace Series, # ISBN-13: 9780352341648 ISBN: 0352341645
and that's just for starters. Found in 3 minutes on Google.--Kudpung (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while the fact that she has written books is verifiable, I could not find any reliable sources to establish that this author passes the notability guidelines, particularly the ones for authors.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Although she has written books, the books themselves cannot be used to establish notability as primary sources. She has to have herself been the subject of independent, third-party coverage in reliable sources. Has she been interviewed or had any bios written about her in news articles, or journals? Has she been the direct subject of independent coverage? If she has I will be happy to withdraw my AfD, but I was not able to find any such coverage myself. Kindzmarauli (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the books can establish notability for the author per WP:CREATIVE #4. For example, if the book was a New York Times bestseller, I believe that would make the author notable. However, these books do not appear to meet criteria #4. Akerans (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, yes that does make sense. Thank you for explaining to me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of secondary coverage. Inclusion in one or two (not so notable) anthologies is really not enough. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
$30 Film School[edit]
- $30 Film School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Book does not appear to be notable. Four of the five provided references are primary sources and the 5th is just a review of the book. Kindzmarauli (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish that this book is notable per WP:NB.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above--a clear case of not being notable. Drmies (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources, a cursory look did not find any either. ffm is now LFaraone 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Armbrust. Whose Your Guy (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Armbrust. scope_creep (talk) 21:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:CSD G3. ffm is now LFaraone 20:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiita[edit]
- Wiita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Made up on one day ttonyb (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not notable, so maybe speedy delete.
Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 05:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete as this was obviously made up by some person, somewhere in one day. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 08:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - complete fodder that's WP:MADEUP. Can't help but think that the Wii part of this is a reference to the Wii console?Pmedema (talk) 08:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hey, we can end war, not by doing difficult things like establishing international structures of law, or enlisting in armies to man peacekeeping forces, but simply by smoking weed and playing the bongos? Who'd a thunk? So, being "Wiita" preserves that in humanity by someone being active, or contributing to society by being anti war, and going out to do the many things that they enjoy. Might be speediable as a non-notable "organization", but that strikes me as borderline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR violation. scope_creep (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List_of_It's_Always_Sunny_in_Philadelphia_episodes. I discounted the Keep vote that provided no policy-based rationale. With one Keep, one Delete and one Redirect the obvious thing is to meet halfway, and therefore I have followed the standard procedure where an episode article provided little but a plot summary. This does not of course preclude spinning it out again if an article which demonstrates sufficient notability can be written. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Gang Goes Jihad[edit]
- The Gang Goes Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable episode. Not every article of a television series needs to have an article that cannot meet the threshold for notability at WP:NOTE. With no sources discussing this particular episode in detail, it should be deleted or redirected to the series article. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - [15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of those hits covers the episode in detail. We need more than a bunch of references that mention it in passing. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look more carefully, or maybe you don't want it to be notable.[16][17] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, let's not make baseless accusations about my motives. I merely have an opinion on the issue, and if there turns out to be a consensus against me here, well, that's what AfD is for isn't it? かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you're right. Sorry. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, let's not make baseless accusations about my motives. I merely have an opinion on the issue, and if there turns out to be a consensus against me here, well, that's what AfD is for isn't it? かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look more carefully, or maybe you don't want it to be notable.[16][17] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of those hits covers the episode in detail. We need more than a bunch of references that mention it in passing. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - So we remove one, and keep the rest. No, we need to keep it for reference. scope_creep (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia episodes unless someone steps up to write an actual article about this episode that it not just plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). Plot descriptions fit perfectly in LoE lists. – sgeureka t•c 07:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008[edit]
- Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subpages for separate specific years of JW statistics are not notable Jeffro77 (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "August 31, 2008" article and the "August 31, 2009" article are in fact identical, both showing the summary of the 2008 service year from the 2009 Yearbook. The one for 2009, if it stands, should reflect the data in the 2010 Yearbook (which also appears in Excel format in several Yahoo! groups as well as in a Document on my personal Gmail page). − Glenn L (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we have Jehovah's Witnesses by country, and we can do annual updates there. But what looks like an attempt to start a directory of JW membership statistics for each year certainly parts with WP:NOTDIR. - Biruitorul Talk 04:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - page author has requested speedy deletion of the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:CSD#G7 at author's request. JohnCD (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009[edit]
- Jehovah's Witnesses by country/Year ending August 31, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subpages for separate specific years of JW statistics are not notable Jeffro77 (talk) 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "August 31, 2009" article and the "August 31, 2008" article are in fact identical, both showing the summary of the 2008 service year from the 2009 Yearbook. The one for 2009, if it stands, should reflect the data in the 2010 Yearbook (which also appears in Excel format in several Yahoo! groups as well as in a Document on my personal Gmail page). − Glenn L (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - page author has requested speedy deletion of the page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fingask Castle. ....preferably without the flowery prose that looks suspiciously like it's been copied from promotional material, as stated "Part tutorial, part vacation, it is a synthesis of theatrical rigour, a plethora of the fecund and the frivolous, of song, poetry, satire, action and prose" for example.... Black Kite (t) (c) 23:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fingask Follies[edit]
- Fingask Follies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deleted via prod and restored at creator's request (WP:REFUND). My prod rationale was as follows: Appears to fail WP:N, as I'm unable to find substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. Almost all of the listed references predate the inception of this event and therefore clearly cannot deal with it, and it's unclear (1) whether the few remaining ones include significant material on the topic and (2) what portions of the article, if any, they're cited to support. In addition, the article's tone suggests that it was copied directly from some sort of promotional material. Deor (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The long list of sources at the end included one solid paragraph in a Country Life article and apparently includes one or two other print references. The fact that only the Country Life one seems to be available online - reproduced on the castle site, but Google search for a hefty quote demonstrates the original article contains those words - doesn't render those sources invalid, but the creator or someone else who chooses to help should quote the offline references in inline refs. (And I cannot find that 2007 book, which does not mean it doesn't exist, but that the article needs full citations from it, and full bibliographic info.) Also the historical material needs to be cut out, and the historical sources too; some of them may be useful additions to the article on the castle. And the style needs to be un-peacocked. But neither the irrelevant historical material nor the style means the topic is unnotable, and it appears to have been covered enough in the press to make it notable. Yngvadottir (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Yngvadottir (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Fingask Castle. Not enough evidence of third-party coverage to signify notability, but probably worth a mention in the article on the castle. --Deskford (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wrote the article and think itis a good one but have merged it with Fingask Castle as a precaution as that is better than nothing. I find the whole 'notable/not notable' thing on Wikipedia leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC) Preceding partly-signed comment added by Rodolph (talk · contribs)[reply]
Keepthe whole thing is now a complete mess. I'd merged them then Yngvadittir de-merged them now back to square one with the whole lot at risk again. Why does one f-ing bother?!Rodolph (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rodolph (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Fingask Castle. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fingask Castle Subscription Mural[edit]
- Fingask Castle Subscription Mural (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deleted via prod and restored at creator's request (WP:REFUND). My prod rationale was as follows: Appears to fail WP:N, as I'm unable to locate substantive treatment in reliable, independent sources. The first three references listed in the article cannot deal with this mural, since they predate its creation. Deor (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Fingask Castle. No evidence of notability in its own right, but no harm in mentioning it in the article on the castle. --Deskford (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wrote the article and think it fine, but have merged it into Fingask Castle as this is better than nothing.Rodolph (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Fingask Castle. scope_creep (talk) 21:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 JohnCD (talk · contribs) at 11:43, 17 August 2010 per A1. Non-admin closure Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blanketly[edit]
- Blanketly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonsense. Fails WP:NFT Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete WP:OR and WP:NFT. scope_creep (talk) 01:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Scope_creep. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: nonsense!.--Karljoos (talk) 05:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.
Bigtopみんな空の下 (トーク) 05:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as A1 and per WP:NFT and tagged as such. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. and move the dab page to this title. Courcelles 03:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raison d'être[edit]
- Raison d'être (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is basically a dictionary definition, which early in its history was transwikied to Wiktionary, but was recreated. I considered replacing it with {{wi}}
, but there is a disambiguation page which better deserves the title. Bringing it to AfD because with its extensive history it does not quite qualify as a non-controversial {{db-move}}
. Intelligentsium 01:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:DICDEF. Tarc (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per above, belongs on Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. Techman224Talk 21:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft redirect to wikt:raison d'être. It is easy to envision people looking it up here, so let's give them that much guidance, at least. bd2412 T 21:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment I am no against a soft redirect, if the page is deleted before.Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am requesting this page be deleted so the disambiguation page Raison d'être (disambiguation) can take its title. That page includes in its opening sentence the definition of the French phrase, and a link to its definition on Wiktionary. Intelligentsium 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - normally, such phrases can be made into something encyclopedic, but this might be too hard for even me to fix. Bearian'sBooties 03:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 21:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jean-Paul Késsé Mangoua[edit]
- Jean-Paul Késsé Mangoua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to have played in AFC Champions League in 2010 [18]. And he does get news coverage over an extended period, which is unusual. Nfitz (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Nfitz. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Koffi Jacques Ngessan[edit]
- Koffi Jacques Ngessan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any media coverage, nor is their any indication the top division of Malian football is professional. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per GiantSnowman and Nfitz. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Olalekan Adeoye[edit]
- Olalekan Adeoye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any media coverage, nor is their any indication the top division of Ivory Coast football is professional, let alone their second division. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per GiantSnowman and Nfitz. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Kouassi[edit]
- Joseph Kouassi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Minor league player with no international caps to assert notability. scope_creep (talk) 23:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bashir Onuya[edit]
- Bashir Onuya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any media coverage, and although I've maintained that players in the top division of Irish football are notable, this person plays in their second tier. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per GiantSnowman. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yao Luckson Manzan[edit]
- Yao Luckson Manzan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find ANY media coverage, nor is their any indication the top division of Ivory Coast football is professional, let alone their second division! Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per GiantSnowman and Nfitz. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goore Landry Romeo[edit]
- Goore Landry Romeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - played in the Thai Premier League, meeting WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appearances in the Thai Premier League are well sourced and good enough for WP:NSPORTS. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GiantSnowman and Alzarian16 Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per GiantSnowman and Alzarian16. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (t) (c) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Kenya-Somalia border clash[edit]
- 2010 Kenya-Somalia border clash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Non notable article. WP:NOTNEWS. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete to newsy, though it is regretful that we have to delete an Africa topic, we already have a horrible bias against Africa (along with all of our primary sources), Sadads (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - maybe upmerge into July 2010 Kampala attacks? Anotherclown (talk) 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge, per Anotherclown. I find WP:NOTNEWS odd, as the main page has a section headed "In the News". Lugnuts (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, there are dozens of articles on border skirmishes.XavierGreen (talk) 18:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to al-Shabaab. The article will not grow.--DAI (Δ) 19:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge into War in Somalia (2009–). Inniverse (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 01:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems like a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Not opposed to a merge to larger conflict article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – sgeureka t•c 10:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brickster[edit]
- Brickster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
When creating pages on individual characters, they need to establish notability to have seperate articles. And I don't see any of that in this Lego Island character's article. The info is all original research (including the history section), unencyclopedic and unsourced (it has been tagged for citations for FOUR YEARS from November 2006 and there have been none given at all). It is also written a bit like a game guide which Wikipedia is certainly not. Additionally, the character has never been known as "Brick Maldonado". Therefore this article is useless for Wikipedia, especially since the characters article already has a bit of info about this character. Perhaps merge it there. trainfan01 18:47, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:RS. No claim or evidence that the topic has been subject of significant coverage independent of the works in which it appears. --EEMIV (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:SIGCOV, subject only appears in a few video games and has no evidence of additional cultural impact (i.e. Mario, Fox McCloud, etc. Also, as nom pointed out, the subject already has a listing on the game's character list page. AP1787 (talk) 02:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chris (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge No point in it having it's own page as it clearly fails policy, but maybe there is a little knowlege that could be better placed if it was put in the Character article. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lego Island is a rapid solution. Certainly not notable enough for an article. Marasmusine (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It has some notability just not enough for an article. JDDJS (talk) 04:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails policy such as WP:V and WP:N due to a lack of third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 01:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing whatsoever to cover WP:GNG and WP:RS. Maybe if this was referring to a generic minifig (character) then I would be more apt to leave it open, but this is a non-notable character with no coverage. --Teancum (talk) 15:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gunay Demir[edit]
- Gunay Demir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find sufficient reliable sources independent of the subject to verify notability. A Google News Archive search got a few hit but after runng them through a translator was not able to find anything significant. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The current form of the article qualifies as an unsourced BLP. My web searching did not come up with any online material that could serve as a basis for the article. Some Turkish publications mention him, but usually as just one name in a list. There seems to be an unrelated sportsman named Gunay Demir. If his resume stated he had won any prizes, we could try to figure out if they were significant. His own website does not mention if he has ever exhibited outside Turkey, so we can't judge whether he is known internationally. There is just too little to work with here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 years and still no refs or proof of notability. Also a bit suspicious that creating this was the creator's only ever edit to Wikipedia - possible coi. Markiewp (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 03:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A number of sources were unearthed which showed some demonstration that WP:BAND was met through the GNG, although I believe this is still a borderline case. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Seal Cub Clubbing Club[edit]
- The Seal Cub Clubbing Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band, fails WP:BAND and tagged for notability for over two years. Coverage is almost all self-published, and even their own website is dead. Some gigs and some releases, but not on major labels. Minor radio play alleged, but not enough to make them notable. No notable members. Rodhullandemu 21:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. Christina Silverman (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable via sufficient coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Gigwise.com: [19], [20], City Life: [21], London Tourdates: [22], Liverpool Daily Post: [23], [24], Click Liverpool: [25], Drowned in Sound: [26], [27], Glasswerk: [28], strangeglue: [29], BBC: [30], musicOMH: [31], dailymusicguide: [32].--Michig (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Q: What do a walrus and Tupperware have in common? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. They've had some minor coverage, but seem to be a band that verged on success some time ago, and never realised it. The fact that the introduction qualifies their notability by "frequent comparisons" to two far more notable bands suggests to me that there's little in the way of correct assertion of notability. Furthermore, 3,000 listeners on Last.fm does not come across as a lot for a band around for such a significant period of time. Esteffect (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Michig demonstrates above that the band meets WP:BAND criterion #1, with non-trivial coverage in a variety of sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ QwerpQwertus Talk ツ 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some more coverage adding to Michig's, mostly on the trivial side but added up becomes something. Brown, Chris (13 January 2006), "The Seal Cub Clubbing Club ep review", Daily Post (Liverpool); Key, Philip (27 March 2008), "Tongue twisting band's city gigs", Daily Post (Liverpool); Fulton, Rick (11 April 2008), "May review", Scottish Daily Record; and "Made Of Magic review", Huddersfield Examiner, 29 March 2010 which includes the quote "give me a club and I'd happily do to them what they would do to a seal cub". duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Going with consensus, but I'm pretty sure, as many have pointed out, that if this had happened in the USA we wouldn't be having this AfD. Perhaps someone ought to write an article on the hospital. I might even try it myself, though someone with local knowledge would probably be better. Note: I have userfied to User:Black Kite/Bucharest. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bucharest maternity hospital explosion[edit]
- Bucharest maternity hospital explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD on the (frankly bizarre) grounds that the event would be considered notable if it happened in an English-speaking country. Sorry, but, while tragic, there is no lasting significance to this event and Wikipedia is not a news service, but an encyclopaedia whose purpose is to document only those events that will be remembered in years to come, not those which make the headlines today (as this would, because dead babies sell newspapers) but fizzle out within hours. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS and all that. Simply not notable in the long run. —fetch·comms 02:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports, there is no evidence, that it will a lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- support deletion per above, not notable.(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- Strong Keep - notability exists. Death toll rises to 4, and others 7 babies are critically injured. An explosion do not happened every day in a hospital. (Press Association via Irish Independent) (Voice of Russia) (Sky News) (CNN) - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few short newspaper articles that have all been taken from the UKPA or the PA (or perhaps AFP or Reuters) do not indicate notability. Not everything in the headlines is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. Notability requires ongoing coverage, not just a short flurry. Have a look at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The existence of a language barrier (can ANYBODY on this page actually search for relevant ROMANIAN sources? 2010 Algeria earthquake had several sources in French establishing its notability.) does not make this non-notable. If anything, it should make us more wary of deleting it! Circéus (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few short newspaper articles that have all been taken from the UKPA or the PA (or perhaps AFP or Reuters) do not indicate notability. Not everything in the headlines is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. Notability requires ongoing coverage, not just a short flurry. Have a look at WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no way anyone is going to be looking this up in a year or two's time. Sad, but no long-term notability. Modest Genius talk 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.tragic but not significant enough to be included in an encyclopedia.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EVENT, etc. Unfortunate, but not encyclopedic. C628 (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I tend to agree with the not-so-bizarre observation that this would be getting much more news coverage if it had happened in the U.S. or the U.K.; as Eugen Simion notes, explosions aren't something that one would (or should) expect in a hospital. On the other hand, I'd also tend to agree with Modest's observation that there's "no way anyone is going to be looking this up in a year or two's time"; In general, people do not want to be reminded about tragedies that involve children, no matter where they happen. A perfect example of that is the Bath School disaster, which most people have probably never heard of, although it happened in Michigan; a more recent example is the Dunsblane killing, which makes me sick to even think about. I believe, however, that this will prove to be more than yesterday's news, because there's already an international response to the severely injured victims [33] [34]. People may disagree on whether this is notable enough for Wikipedia; I think we're all in agreement that it's horrific. Mandsford 13:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (leaning towards keep as it is much too early for a certain delete). No evidence that it would have lasting significance but then this is hardly surprising considering the AfD was opened 58 minutes after creation during which time it was prodded and the prod endorsed as well - What was the rush? A fatal explosion anywhere hardly merits immediate deletion, never mind one in maternity hospital, a location that to the best of my knowledge does not regularly feature fatal explosions. There was no time to allow the article to be developed beyond one sentence and who knows, perhaps editors were put off by thinking it was heading for deletion so didn't attempt to expand it after the 58 minutes. "No way anyone is going to be looking this up in a year or two's time" - but can this be known with such certainty at this stage? I wouldn't think of looking up "Bath School disaster" or "Dunsblane killing" but I respect that there are people who would, especially if it happened in their country, I doubt likewise that this will be quickly forgotten in Romania whatever about anywhere else - at the very least I cannot be certain it will and am less certain due to the unusual nature of the event. "Dead babies sell newspapers" - true but now several days later it is easier to see that there are follow-up reports that have expanded on the original event when the sensational initial attention-grabbing headlines of "babies blown up in hospital" designed to grab the reader's attention are no longer as easily applicable. Sky News and CNN both report on the death of a fourth baby, an investigation has been launched, the Romanian press has criticised the response, prosecutors want to question 15 staff, etc. Today's update from CNN says the managers have been suspended, the country's health minister has considered resigning, government compensation details, and changes to prevent similar happening again. Then doctors are being brought in from Israel to treat the injured and there is a "public outrage" according to an Australian source. Hardly a "short flurry"... did anyone Google this? Considering this happened in Romania the coverage after several days in the English-language media of the U.S., UK and Australia is quite detailed. Euronews reports on the inquiry. As does Sofia Echo. "One of the darkest tragedies in the history of the Romanian healthcare system", reports Press TV, according to the Romanian health minister. --candle•wicke 03:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - number of victims rises to 5.- Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 06:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:PERSISTENCE, which provides that "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable", and that "further analysis or discussion" are needed to establish notability. Of course, it's too early for those; should they happen, we can recreate at a later date. In response to Circeus' request: sure, every one of the leading Romanian newspapers has covered this since it happened; here's one article from each of them: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]. That's to be expected: the press reports the news. That doesn't automatically make the news encyclopedically notable, and I believe that has not yet been shown to be the case here. - Biruitorul Talk 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and refocus as Giulesti Maternity Hospital - the hospital is notable enough, surely? In a sense this already is our article on the hospital, albeit with disproportionate attention to the explosion admittedly. Stating that the explosion is non-notable is missing the point - in an actual "hospital article", of course we'd include substantial content about such an incident. So what's the benefit of deleting this content? This just a name-change away from being a poor article on a notable hospital that needs editorial work (which we'd certainly keep). TheGrappler (talk) 03:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as sad as this is, sorry but WP:NOTNEWS, happy to see a Giulesti Maternity Hospital article where this would get a mention, but don't see this as a good starting point for such an article. Would hope that closing admin (if it is deleted) would allow useification if asked, so as to help with such a article. Codf1977 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Crawford[edit]
- Joseph Crawford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently assess notability. Performed Google News Archive and Google Book searches combing his name with 'Crawford Pictures', 'Cloud 9' and 'The Tribe', none of which found any relevant hits. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. J04n(talk page) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Very minor actor who fails WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST.scope_creep (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Lionel (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interactive Weather Exhibit[edit]
- Interactive Weather Exhibit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable, just one exhibit of many in a museum. Also, apparently still under construction. Tinz (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It sounds like a cool exhibit, but notability is not asserted in the article. It could be briefly mentioned in the article on the museum itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete for WP:CRYSTAL and its advertising. scope_creep (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Completely fails WP:N. There are some ghits for the term, but they apply to exhibits in other museums. There also appears to be a WP:COI. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pushtunistan#Variations_of_the_Pashtunistan_claim. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greater Afghanistan[edit]
- Greater Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Themastertree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm not sure there's a region or concept called "Greater Afghanistan". I think this is original research in the same vein as Greater pakistan (see this). Christopher Connor (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As alluded to on the Administrator's Noticeboard, I can vaguely source this one, albeit that I have no clue as to what the article's creator had in mind, since this article lacks context:
“ | At various times, Zahir Shah's monarchy, Mohammad Daoud's republic, and post-1978 Communist governments in Kabul have all challenged Pakistan's right to rule over its Pushtun areas, alternately aspousing the goal of an autonomous Pushtun state to be created within Pakistan, an independent "Pushtunistan" to be carved out of Pakistan, or a "Greater Afghanistan" directly incorporating the lost territories. | ” |
— Anthony Lake and Selig S. Harrison (1990). After the wars: reconstruction in Afghanistan, Indochina, Central America, Southern Africa, and the Horn of Africa. US 3rd World Plcy Prspctvs. Vol. 16. Transaction Publishers. p. 47. ISBN 9780887388804. |
- This isn't just an invention on the part of a Wikipedia editor. Assuming that the editor actually had this in mind, that is. Uncle G (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Pushtunistan#Variations of the Pashtunistan claim which is much the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (t) (c) 23:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel Basso[edit]
- Gabriel Basso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed without explanation. Minor actor (and that may be overstating the case) with bit parts, many uncredited. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 03:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The actors resume doesn't meet WP:ENT. I think Alabama Moon is the only notable gig he starred in. --NortyNort (Holla) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article does not meet any of the speedy criteria, and the article shows a few notable projects besides Alabama Moon. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While this article is far from presentable, the subject of the article is actually quite notable for his starring role in the Internet web series Ghost Town. See http://www.ghosttownseries.com/ He has had guest appearances on the ABC television series, The Middle and Eastwick. He also has a key role in the upcoming Showtime series, The Big C. He plays the role of a boy trying to come to terms with his mother's cancer. The role of the mother is played by Laura Linney. Cindamuse (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting nomination. The article shows 18 televsion appearnces, and only 3 are "uncredited". I swat a minnow at the nominator's choice of "many" to descibe 3 out of 18. And searches do seem to confirm User:Cindamuse's thought toward significant roles in multiple projects... and her making special note of he now enjoying a lead role in the new and on-going television series The Big C. Hmph... from uncredited to named minor roles... from minor roles to lead roles... from unknown to known... seems his career is doing exactly what every actor's career is supposed to do. Yes... the article will benefit from some work, but addressable concerns are not cause to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. The nominator has withdrawn but there is still an outstanding delete !vote --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor character actor who fails WP:ENT. No notabily whatsover. scope_creep (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, passes WP:ENT per current definition. And even more, and as User:Cindamuse points out, his pilot has become a popular web series with coverage giveing even more to this individual's notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Notable actor with reputable credits to four films and numerous appearances on eight different television series. Again, while this article is far from presentable, the subject of the article is known for his starring role in the Internet web series Ghost Town. See http://www.ghosttownseries.com/ He has had guest appearances on the films Meet Bill; Alabama Moon; The Alyson Stoner Project; Alice Upside Down; and the television series, The Middle; Eastwick; iCarly; Time Away, Teen Talk, XMA: Extreme Martial Arts, Ent C3, and Bedside Manor. He also has a key role in the critically acclaimed Showtime series, The Big C, receiving excellent reviews for his portrayal of a boy trying to come to terms with his mother's cancer. The role of the mother is played by Laura Linney. He is a 3rd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, as well as an accomplished concerto violinist. It's absolutely whack to propose deleting this article at this point in the subjects career. Highly notable. Cindamuse (talk) 05:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K. Kavitha[edit]
- K. Kavitha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure on this one; I did Prod it but an editor contested it and added extra detail. I am still not sure the current work establishes notability. Her main claim to notability is a famous father K. Chandrasekhar Rao. Beyond that there are a couple of references regarding one incident in 2009 and "village adoption" work from 2006. The main reference to support her notability [41] strikes me as a tabloid rumor piece. As I said at the start - am divided on this one, so I'm throwing it to AFD for consensus. Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93khttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/K._Kavitha&action=edit§ion=T-1 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has caused enough ruckus to meet WP:GNG. I am sure there is much more coverage in Telugu media. Sibling rivalry in a political dynasty gets a lot of local coverage. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Seems POV-laden and needing a fix if the article is kept. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easily Embarrassed[edit]
- Easily Embarrassed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can see, they're a pretty unnotable band. Was deleted by prod previously and restored so bringing here for discussion. Perfectly willing to withdraw nom if some good Dutch sources can be provided, bu I'm finding none. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if this gets deleted, their album, Idyllic Life should be too. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Improve the article - reliable sources must be added. But keep the article - if the band exists people may wish to research it. IainUK talk 00:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an equal stakeholder in this project, if my views have "no merit", then nor do yours fellow wikipedian. You may wish to strike that remark. The article wouldn't be at AfD if there was no question. IainUK talk 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, the difference is that mine is based in widely accepted editing guidelines, while yours is based on...god knows what. "if the band exists people may wish to research it" completely ignores the general notability guidelines. If you can offer a good reason why that guideline should be set aside for this band, I'm all ears, bro. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've said enough - if I make further comments, I suspect this will continue, and I don't want to go down the route of battling policy interpretation. I have made no suggestion that WP:GNG be set aside, nor have I ignored it. And just some friendly advice, when you reply to a comment with Er,.., it can come across a little patronising - and I'm sure you don't want that. Cheers IainUK talk 23:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, the difference is that mine is based in widely accepted editing guidelines, while yours is based on...god knows what. "if the band exists people may wish to research it" completely ignores the general notability guidelines. If you can offer a good reason why that guideline should be set aside for this band, I'm all ears, bro. Tarc (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As an equal stakeholder in this project, if my views have "no merit", then nor do yours fellow wikipedian. You may wish to strike that remark. The article wouldn't be at AfD if there was no question. IainUK talk 23:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails general notability, fails WP:BAND. There's really no wiggle room here for a band with no coverage by reliable sources and EP/album releases on minor indie labels. Tarc (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no notability here. Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (t) (c) 23:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legend Valley[edit]
- Legend Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable place. Sure, some bands have played here, apparently (no references are provided), but that in its own right does not create notability. A Google News search sufficient indicates non-notability. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment (no opinion on notability). Try google books instead and search for both names. There's not a lot of substantial coverage, but enough info to back up notable performers. The Buckeye Lake search is confusing, though: there were other venues on Buckeye Lane, and the many jazz sources mentioning "Buckeye Lake shows" apparently refer to a different place. East of Borschov 08:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's this in news, and this in books, but those are the most significant things I could find, and they hardly discuss the actual festival, certainly not in-depth. I don't believe that notable performers having played there makes for notability, but I'm sure plenty will disagree with me there. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep There are many related links and photos about. they just need to find the best set as reference. but the information is notable. mamali (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lars Albinsson[edit]
- Lars Albinsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:PROD that I have chosen to reject due to the substantial list of publications, including three books. I personally have no opinion on the topic, but I feel that it's worthy of AFD nonetheless. The individual whom nominated this for PROD suggested that it could be a vanity autobiography. Esteffect (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Those publications show a certain notability. Mdd (talk) 10:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Not everyone who writes a couple of generally ignored books is notable enough to have a bio in wikipedia. If you google him, there is no indication of notability, just his own webpage, facebook, and a few things like that. This is less impact than the typical college professor, who has a few dozen published articles and a few specialist books written and published. It looks like a vanity bio, because the level of detail in the article is out of proportion to the significance of the subject. Dark Formal (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Fails WP:BIO, nothing notable in this article. scope_creep (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Virgin Group. Article can be re-created if and when it actually comes to fruition. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Virgin Fuel[edit]
- Virgin Fuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Right now, there is no such thing as Virgin Fuel, just rumours and speculations. Even when invented and used it probably wells under some existing type of alternative fuels and it needs to establish its notability. Fact that Virgin Group is notable does not make Virgin Fuel notable. Beagel (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that, realistically, notability is inherited to some degree. If Virgin Fuel exists and has traded to any degree, it is probably notable. Can someone research as to whether it really exists? There are some reports here, here and here - but they all speak in future tense, and Richard Branson is the type who might announce a big idea that turns into vaporware. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - absent any reliable sources, then this should be deleted as per both WP:CRYSTAL and the first line Virgin Fuel is a rumored "clean" fuel. Codf1977 (talk) 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious Merge to Virgin Group. There are sources discussing this subject, so if it's not notable as a standalone it should be merged to the parent subject. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eraser (software)[edit]
- Eraser (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this software is notable. Plenty of other wiping software out there. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am new to discussing the merits of keeping the article or deleting it. What is the threshold for notable WRT software? classactdynamo (talk) 03:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe there is a specific one. The WP:GNG of course apply. There have been failed attempts at a guideline both here and here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I did not look in detail, but on a cursory evaluation of the general ideas laid out in the notability guidelines and a subsequent internet search, I understand your point. It is odd, though, that Wikipedia has not been able to firm up software notability guidelines. The extremes are easy to classify. Windows is notable, as is the "Hello World" program. I will look further into this when I get off work. classactdynamo (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Possible G4 speedy since it got deleted 3 years ago in AFD, would have to look at deleted edits for that. It did get good reviews though from softpedia and such.... and that's about it. There's nothing really worth writing about it other then it wipes files, and there are a TON of these products, in fact a ton of even unrelated programs wipe disk space nowadays - DOD-style or otherwise. While it does pass verification policy and maybe WP:GNG thanks to review spam, it definately falls into the not an indiscriminate collection thing a bit. Speaking of which, the proposed guideline they talked about 3 years failed and is located at Wikipedia:Notability_(software), not WP:SOFTWARE. If you are trying to look up sources for this, you'll probably have better luck with its main website "eraser.heidi.ie" not "eraser". If there are no other comments after this, just delete it, there's no sources in the article, it's barely even an article right now, AND its been deleted before. Ryan Norton 12:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete should be speedied after being deleted once before, but now it's here (still) no indication of notability, just one of many trivial utilities.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. My personal feeling is that it ought to redirect to the Allan article because there's actually some information about the single there, but that's an editorial decision. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's So California[edit]
- She's So California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Null disambiguation page. The Gary Allan song used to have an article but it was redirected for failing WP:NSONGS and the info merged to the album. The Adam Gregory song is so non-notable that there are no hits for it on Google News or Books — and whatever can be said about it is already mentioned in his article and the album's. Therefore, this dab serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Tavix | Talk 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two valid MOS:DABMENTION entries. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - dismabiguation pages are not necessary when there are only two entries, as a hatnote would direct anyone looking for the other entry to it. In this case there are no notable entries so there is no need to disambiguate between two articles that do not exist. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct. Disambiguation pages with only two entries are necessary unless one of the entries is the primary topic. Since this disambiguation page is at the base name, there is (currently) no primary topic. If you feel one of the mentions should be primary, and alternate solution would still not involve deleting the page, but rather turning it into a redirect to the primary topic and then adding a hatnote to that article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except of course that there are no articles. Even assuming that editors encountering one thing named "Foo" are too stupid to figure out that they want the other "Foo" specified in the hatnote, disambiguation is not required to differentiate one topic with no notability from another topic with no notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles: Adam Gregory (album), Living Hard. Where are you proposing this hatnote be added? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not proposing that a hatnote be added anywhere as there is no need to direct anyone to articles that don't exist. Should anyone be searching for either of these non-existent articles they will find them as early results through the search box. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must be too stupid to have interpreted "they want the other "Foo" specified in the hatnote" as meaning that a hatnote would have to exist to specify "Foo". Still, I am smart enough to see that Adam Gregory (album) and Living Hard are articles that do exist, and that anyone who is searching for a song by its title, shared by songs on these two albums, will reach the intended article through the disambiguation page.. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not proposing that a hatnote be added anywhere as there is no need to direct anyone to articles that don't exist. Should anyone be searching for either of these non-existent articles they will find them as early results through the search box. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles: Adam Gregory (album), Living Hard. Where are you proposing this hatnote be added? -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except of course that there are no articles. Even assuming that editors encountering one thing named "Foo" are too stupid to figure out that they want the other "Foo" specified in the hatnote, disambiguation is not required to differentiate one topic with no notability from another topic with no notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not correct. Disambiguation pages with only two entries are necessary unless one of the entries is the primary topic. Since this disambiguation page is at the base name, there is (currently) no primary topic. If you feel one of the mentions should be primary, and alternate solution would still not involve deleting the page, but rather turning it into a redirect to the primary topic and then adding a hatnote to that article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If there was just one song it would be appropriate to redirect to the album with a {{R from song}} tag. But as there are two separate songs, neither being the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, a disambiguation page is the correct solution. Tassedethe (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Two valid ambiguous entries, and neither seems to qualify as a primary topic, so the dab page serves the purpose of directing users to the most relevant article for the use they are interested in.--ShelfSkewed Talk 13:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of them qualifies as a primary topic because neither of them has a shred of notability thus neither of them has an article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Each of them "qualifies" as a target of a redirect from the title "She's So California" as an {{R from song}}. Neither of them qualifies as the primary topic for that redirect. So a disambiguation page disambiguating the two MOS:DABMENTION entries is needed. QED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of them qualifies as a primary topic because neither of them has a shred of notability thus neither of them has an article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both songs are not notable, so there's no reason to keep the disambiguation. Hekerui (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which album should the title redirect to then, as an {{R from song}}? Restore the Living Hard target or use the Adam Gregory (album)? Both are valid targets, and that's the reason for the disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no need for this - there should be no bar on re-creation if someone wished to write either article. Codf1977 (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which album should the title redirect to then, as an {{R from song}}? Restore the Living Hard target or use the Adam Gregory (album)? Both are valid targets, and that's the need for the disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as DAB it is a common belief in the public that EVERYTHING is in Wikipedia and so it is well within the realms of probability that a user may search for the song "She's So California". Even though neither song is notable on its own, we serve the reader by providing a landing point for this search and an option for the reader to select the next available level of content for whichever of the non-notable songs s/he was looking for. Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irradiated Metro[edit]
- Irradiated Metro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication that this article meets WP:WEB. It's only claim to fame is being the "26th best Left 4 Dead 2 resource" according to Metaphile, a non-notable site. I could find no mention of this blog, significant or otherwise, in a Google search. The editing "team" seems to be a few high-school-aged teens. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This website meets WP:WEB and Wikipedia's Guidelines. Irradiated Metro is listed in google search results repeatedly. Also I would like to say the article is far from completion rhoscrazy (talk) 23:46, 10 August 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.43.158 (talk)
- Question. I find no reliable sources regarding the subject. Please explain how you think this article meets the WP:WEB guidelines. Cindamuse (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see no evidence of notability. A lot of google hits does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Brand new site using WP for advertisement purposes. Should be speedied. Fails WP:WEB. scope_creep (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Just an advertisement. Any advertisements on wikipedia should be speedy deleted immediaetly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyMcClean (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Jenkins (baseball)[edit]
- Dan Jenkins (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hear me out on this one. According to WP:BASE/N, "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject… Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." The only source provided for Jenkins is Baseball Reference Minors, which covers every minor league baseball player, including those who are not deserving of an article. As a minor league baseball player, he wasn’t very notable—he collected 950 hits over nine years in the minors, hitting .288. He did not reach any milestones (200 home runs, 2,000 hits, et cetera).
Though he led a team to a championship as a manager, it was a low minor league team in one of the many semi-notable leagues that existed at the time, so just how much bearing said championship has on his notability is up for debate. In addition, some of his managerial accomplishments cannot be fully attributed to him—in the article, it is stated that there is confusion as to who managed some teams—it is unknown whether it was Dan Jenkins or Joe Jenkins.
Upon further review of the established notability guidelines set forth by Wikipedia and its members, I do not believe this article to meet the guidelines in place. Though I am the original author of this article, I am nominating this article because I not no longer like it (I am quite proud of all my articles)—I am nominating it because it is my belief that Dan Jenkins is not now, nor was he ever, Wikipedia worthy. I wrote this article at a time when I was not well-versed in the notability guidelines for minor league managers.
As an aside, due to the recent “keeps” that have taken place, one might suggest bringing back the article for James Adlam—whom I nominated perhaps a year ago—if possible. He seems more notable than some of the managers who have been kept, as he also led a team to a championship and multiple teams to the postseason, managing for over a decade. As a batter, he collected over 1,000 minor league hits. Alex (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, average minor leaguers simply can't be notable if they don't do something to get themselves notable in some other way. I don't see any evidence to say that this guy was an exceptional minor leaguer or that he passes the general guideline in some other way. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless the player did astronomically well, I don't see why any minor leaguer would have a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyMcClean (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blaise Dago Adou[edit]
- Blaise Dago Adou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to confirm national team appearances in the African Nations Championship, that should be enough for notability. Did you follow WP:BEFORE for all of these nominations? Camw (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the African Nations Championship isn't for full national teams like the African Cup of Nations. BigDom 10:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NSPORT says "Players, managers and referees who have represented their country in any officially sanctioned senior international competition ... are notable". The tournament is sanctioned by the continental confederation, is a senior tournament and has international representation - so would seem to meet the guideline. Camw (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Camw, played in the ANC, meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GiantSnowman Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Camw and GiantSnowman. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.