Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 10
< 9 January | 11 January > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of NCIS Staff[edit]
- List of NCIS Staff (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)
Is an unreferenced page, that is merely a table form of List of NCIS characters with no decent lead or substance. The Windler talk 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Duplicates material already at List of NCIS characters, except that JAG characters are thrown in as well. No need for two articles doing the same thing. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the name's tabulation proves insufficient justification for another article's complication. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a duplicate without a significant use. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability for this separate list. It's an unnecessary duplication of Characters of JAG and List of NCIS characters. --BelovedFreak 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:20, 12 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masters Cast[edit]
- Masters Cast (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 lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable internet podcast. I can't find any independent reliable sources for this; GNews and other searches just turn up a bunch of false positives on "Bravo announces Top Chef Masters cast," "Terrence Malick, one of the American masters, cast him in...," and so on. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:19, 12 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
X-Entertainment[edit]
- X-Entertainment (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 lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, very non-notable personal website. Seems to be basically a WP:COATRACK to talk about Matt Caracappa anyway, and sure enough the page was created by User:Icymatt. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:20, 12 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slime Pit[edit]
- Slime Pit (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 suffers the same problem which befell List of Masters of the Universe vehicles it lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attak Trak[edit]
- Attak Trak (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 suffers the same problem which befell List of Masters of the Universe vehicles it lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable vehicle from a TV show; the nom's other concerns appear valid too. If there's anywhere to merge relevant info someone's welcome to do it. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to masters of the Universe--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle Ram[edit]
- Battle Ram (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 suffers the same problem which befell List of Masters of the Universe vehicles it lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable vehicle from a TV show; the nom's other concerns appear valid too. If there's anywhere to merge relevant info someone's welcome to do it. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:58, 11 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talon Fighter[edit]
- Talon Fighter (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)
Why the page should be deleted This article suffers the same problem which befell List of Masters of the Universe vehicles it lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable vehicle from a TV show; the nom's other concerns appear valid too. If there's anywhere to merge relevant info someone's welcome to do it. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:57, 11 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wind Raider[edit]
- Wind Raider (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 suffers the same problem which befell List of Masters of the Universe vehicles it lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable vehicle from a TV show; the nom's other concerns appear valid too. If there's anywhere to merge relevant info someone's welcome to do it. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:57, 11 January 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) 00:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masters Cast[edit]
- Masters Cast (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 lacks notability, there is no reliable third person sources and is pure fancruft. As shown by the criteria WP:FANCRUFT,WP:NOTE, WP:V Dwanyewest (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable internet podcast. I can't find any independent reliable sources for this; GNews and other searches just turn up a bunch of false positives on "Bravo announces Top Chef Masters cast," "Terrence Malick, one of the American masters, cast him in...," and so on. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 15:19, 12 January 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 --Patar knight - chat/contributions 06:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J-tek[edit]
- J-tek (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)
Unreferenced and seems to be mostly based off MySpace. Cannot find independent sourcing for term. Miyagawa (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's a non-notable "J-Tek Records" on Myspace, but there's no "J-Tek genre" of music. Searching together on two of the labels listed in this article just returns J-tek. Fails WP:N and WP:MADEUP among others. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete no context. Claims to be a genre but reads more like a non-notable band article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Rewrite. From what I've read, this seems like nothing more than a sub-genre of existing jungle techno. While the sources of this are primarily Myspace pages, there are quite a lot of them using that term. ----DanTD (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete. I have edited the article, please take a look again. I would like to let you know that this article is a response to another article in wikipedia, where the term j-tek was used but not defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_breaks) Plus there is a lot of people interested in the new sound of j-tek. please check some facebook pages and groups: http://www.facebook.com/pages/J-TEK-jungle-tekno-THE-SOUND-OF-2010/210173768266?ref=nf (maniaselecta 01:05, 12 January 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 no consensus. There's good support for a merge to "the main article" which I assume to be either Caravan raids or Battle of Badr, but given that nobody's specified I'm not sure everyone's on the same page - and there's fair support for keeping the article, too, so I'm not going to close this as a definite "merge". The way forward is to either source and expand this article, or consider merging it to one of the other two articles, I think.~ mazca talk 19:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Waddan[edit]
- Battle of Waddan (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 is titled "Battle of Waddan". Only one source is given and that one calls this a raid. So the whole subject can be included in "caravan raids". The little that merits inclusion about the incident in an encyclopedia is already in "caravan raids". Hence proposing deletion Raziman T V (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - 14,500 Google hits for "Battle of Waddan" clearly indicates notability and identification of this incident as a seperate entity. Faults in the article should be repaired with additional sources, not with deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the main article. The part of the article that talk directly about the "Battle of Waddan" is small compared to the parts that talk about other related subjects and give background and context. If we merged, the reader will be able to understand the context better. Sole Soul (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with main articlea and copyedit. Cathar11 (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main article and expand that article's section about the battle. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The talk pages of the four WikiProjects listed as having jurisdiction on this article (Islam[1], Muslim history[2], Military history[3] and Saudi Arabia[4]) have been notified about this AfD Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I have gone through another cleanup of Caravan raids and have copied more portions of this article there. I have left the Abu Sufyan part -- Raziman T V (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : Although it is probably better described as a raid rather than a battle, I see no reason why it cannot have its article if it is notable in its own right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom, no rs--123.237.192.202 (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the main article; there aren't enough sources for it to have its own article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep we may lack sources in English, but if the claim "the first battle involving Muslim forces and the Prophet Muhammad." is correct, then I'm happy to wait for arabic sources. ϢereSpielChequers 13:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the "main article"? –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 18 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Gilchrist[edit]
- Michael Gilchrist (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 person who fails WP:ATHLETE. Has yet to compete at college level, let alone professional level. Scjessey (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (without prejudice) - Unless WP:ATHLETE is someday updated to allow notability for well-known high school athletes. For now he just doesn't pass the criteria by definition. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward keep. WP:ATHLETE isn't the whole story—a person may still meet WP:GNG to be notable. I admit it seems very early to have an article on this kid, and I'm generally the first to nominate articles about school-age athletes who are supposedly going to be the next big thing. However, I think I'm pretty much swayed by coverage at ESPN, the Philadelphia Inquirer, and a variety of other places Google News will show you. I can't go with a full-on "keep" recommendation though because to the extent he's currently notable it's still only because of his future prospects, and, in my mind at least, for encyclopedic purposes that's not the same as being notable for current or past deeds. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources provided by Glenfarclas (talk · contribs) demonstrate that WP:GNG is met. Since WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep High school basketball players occasionally get enough media attention to pass the GNG. Gilchrist has been the primary subject of articles in several national publications, like Sports Illustrated and SLAM. (I used to have a copy of the latter, but I'm not sure what I did with it. You can at least see Gilchrist's name on the cover, though.) Even if he totally flames out and never makes it to the pros, he'll probably be the subject of "Where are they now" stories. Zagalejo^^^ 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I frequently read a comment that someone "meets WP:ATHLETE", but it consists of two sentences and a footnote, and I can't see what part of it is applicable here. Persons who are inherently notable under that rule are: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[8] People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." The [8] footnote adds "Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." Which part of WP:ATHLETE does this person qualify under? Mandsford (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't really pass WP:ATHLETE as it is written, but that guideline is often ignored in practice in favor of the GNG. A past discussion of interest is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wall (basketball). Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:ATHLETE is supplemental and does not replace WP:GNG. The coverage in reliabel sources is sufficient to establish notability, as multiple independent reliable sources have taken note of this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG. That's why WP:GNG overrides WP:ATH, so that genuinely notable junior athletes like this guy don't get excluded on the basis of arbitrary criteria. --Mkativerata (talk) 16:24, 15 January 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. Consensus here seems to generally hold that this individual fails the specific WP:ATHLETE but passes the general notability guideline through sufficient obscure but non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Ultimately, both our guidelines and the opinions of participants here are split, and there is no consensus to delete. Given that the article is adequately sourced to avoid WP:BLP issues, there is no harm in defaulting to keep. ~ mazca talk 19:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Prater[edit]
- Kyle Prater (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 person who fails WP:ATHLETE. Has yet to compete at college level, let alone professional level. Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears this article was deleted under CSD criteria (I'm somewhat surprised at this) immediately after I filed this nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other pages about athletes who haven't competed at a collge level that have been around for awhile such as Michael Gilchrist, Seantrel Henderson, and Brandon Knight So I dont see why this one is up for deletion. it has sources that make him notable. Ice (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (I speedied the article but have recreated it per requests). There are lots and lots of high school athletes who get rated as prospects and signed to college scholarships. Some of them get injured, or quit, and never even have college careers, let alone pro careers. Despite the news coverage of Mr. Prater, I don't think that high school athletes should be considered notable merely because they're college prospects. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE. If this kids gets hurt we're stuck with an article about a kid who wasn't even an All-State player in Illinois, let alone close to being a really top national player at his position, given that notability is forever. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, since it easily meets WP:ATHLETE due to his All-American status and nation-wide coverage (Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, ...). Plus there have been similar AfD discussions in the past, and the result was always keep (see Arthur Brown, Tre` Newton, etc.). End of discussion. --bender235 (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. @LonelyBeacon: What do you mean with "let alone close to being a really top national player at his position"? Prater is ranked #1 by Rivals, #2 by Scout.com, and #3 by Takkle among wide receivers in his class nationwide. --bender235 (talk) 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was looking at the All-State listings for Illinois, and this guy is not mentioned. I'm not sure what these national rankings folks are looking at, but the coaches who saw him locally sure didn't seem to think that much of him ... that's just to explain where I am coming from ... he may be good, but I find it odd that people who have never really seen him rank him so highly, and people who have seen him don't. Though that's neither here nor there.
BTW ... which of the two criteria of WP:ATHLETE does he meet: the part that says he competed at the professional level, or the part that says he competed at the highest possible amateur level, absent a more professional level (like in Olympic sports)? This guy doesn't come close to meeting the athlete criteriaThere are two criteria for WP:ATHLETE and I don't see this guy meeting either one ... I think the only argument for inclusion is the general notability guideline, but in my opinion, that guideline was not there to protect articles for college or high school athletes, unless they have done something so truly extraordinary that there is persistent multiple coverage (like win the Heisman, set a major national collegiate record, etc) ... not just coverage on a dedicated website or two. I'll admit that this is a gray area, but I just can't think that we are opening wikipedia to so many high school athletes that have earned local coverage. LonelyBeacon (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Sports Illustrated is not a local publication. Neither is the Los Angeles Times. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The LA Times link is to a local Chicago Tribune wire story ... the point I was making is that there are tens of thousands of high school athletes that meet the general notability guidelines because they are covered by their local newspapers week after week. However I think that the intent of guidelines like WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE is to guide the thinking of the GNG ... quoting from WP:BIO:
- This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. and This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice ...
- so to say that BIO (ATHLETE) should be ignored means that we are ignoring the community consensus, or that we have an occasional exception. We know that the first case is not a good idea. All-Americans and the opinions of national high school publications are not occasional exceptions .... every year there are always new top rated national badminton players or volleyball players, etc. This article being a breach of community consensus, and not an "occasional exception", from where I am standing, does not give the article the notability required to stay. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider Sports Illustrated, and ESPN to be local sources too? In any case, there is nothing wrong with local sources, especially when the newspaper is the Chicago Tribune, which is a major newspaper that has a reputation for fact-checking. There is no policy or guideline that excludes local sources.
You write that the "keep" voters here are ignoring Wikipedia:Notability (people) (abbreviated WP:BIO) because we are ignoring WP:ATHLETE. That is not true. The "keep" votes believe that this article does pass Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which states that: "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." In this situation, the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources so the article should be kept. Not only has the subject received local coverage, he has also received coverage from national publications such as Sports Illustrated and ESPN. As I said below, WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE. As Alansohn (talk · contribs) said at a recent DRV, "WP:ATHLETE is a great argument for retention, but an awful one for deletion, especially if the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate that it meets general notability guidelines as is the case here."
Wikipedia is not paper; because Kyle Prater is notable for his achievements (such as All-American status) during his high school career and for the many reliable sources he has received, the article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider Sports Illustrated, and ESPN to be local sources too? In any case, there is nothing wrong with local sources, especially when the newspaper is the Chicago Tribune, which is a major newspaper that has a reputation for fact-checking. There is no policy or guideline that excludes local sources.
- (indent)Of course SI and ESPN are not local, and of course there is nothing wrong with using local sources for establishing notability (I probably use more local sources than national sources in my editing). I am simply putting forth that the overall Wikipedia community has established a consensus on this: professional athletes are notable, and athletes that have reached the highest level of amateur competition are notable. That's not my opinion -- that is the consensus of the community established through the WP:BIO guideline. Are there to be exceptions? Sure. I could certainly belive that there are those very rare exception high school athletes who break national or international records and earn notability under the "exception" guideline. The people pushing for "keep" are arguing that this person reaches notability by not being exceptional ... he happened to top a couple of national opinion polls.
- However, since the WP:GNG is being brought up, I'll quote from that (specifically, from WP:N#TEMP): For example, routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article.
- Now there could be some debate on what "routine" means, but there is really nothing to sustain this kid's claim to notability. As I noted upthread: if this kid breaks his leg tomorrow, he will never have anything written about him again. The same (of course) could be said about a pro athlete, but then again, the community has reached consensus that the accomplishment of being a pro athlete is in and of itself notable enough to merit an article. All of these Prater articles seem to be centered around a very relatively recent set of events. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that routine coverage of sports would not give rise to notability. But I interpret that routine news coverage to be reporting of high school games. A full profile where the person is the primary subject of the article is not routine sports news coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete High school players should not have articles unless they are as notable as LeBron James or Jimmy Clausen were.--Yankees10 16:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think we should accept (High School) All-American status as a level of notability that meets WP:ATHLETE? --bender235 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I frequently read a comment that someone "meets WP:ATHLETE", but it consists of two sentences and a footnote, and I can't see what part of it is applicable here. Persons who are inherently notable under that rule are: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[8] People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." The [8] footnote adds "Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." Which part of WP:ATHLETE does this person qualify under? Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a High School All-American qualifies as "highest amateur level" in my mind. You can argue that it is equivalent to a track & field athlete winning an event at a IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics (e.g. Kirani James, Christopher Clarke, etc.). --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I believe the article should be kept, the artgument that this represents the highest level of amateur competition for the sport is clearly false. College football wold represent the highest level of amateur competition. And even then, just playing college football doesn't necessarily grant notability. The key point in this article is the coverage through newspapers and sports media at a national level. That makes him notable irrespective of any criteria from WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should keep in mind the age level. Players under the age of 18 usually don't play college football, just like athletes under the age of 18 don't participate in junior world championships (but Youth world championships). Being a HS All-American is the highest amateur level for a player under-18. --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And usual outcome of any AFD involving a junior athlete competing at the junior level of competition is that he fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, no. Check the AfD discussions of Arthur Brown and Tre` Newton for example. --bender235 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know that those two examples you've pointed to show that WP:ATHLETE was what was applied. It appears that the keep arguments in those examples (as with this one here) is that WP:GNG is being met through coverage in reliable sources without any appeal to the policy specific to athletes. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uhm, no. Check the AfD discussions of Arthur Brown and Tre` Newton for example. --bender235 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And usual outcome of any AFD involving a junior athlete competing at the junior level of competition is that he fails WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should keep in mind the age level. Players under the age of 18 usually don't play college football, just like athletes under the age of 18 don't participate in junior world championships (but Youth world championships). Being a HS All-American is the highest amateur level for a player under-18. --bender235 (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I believe the article should be kept, the artgument that this represents the highest level of amateur competition for the sport is clearly false. College football wold represent the highest level of amateur competition. And even then, just playing college football doesn't necessarily grant notability. The key point in this article is the coverage through newspapers and sports media at a national level. That makes him notable irrespective of any criteria from WP:ATHLETE. -- Whpq (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a High School All-American qualifies as "highest amateur level" in my mind. You can argue that it is equivalent to a track & field athlete winning an event at a IAAF World Junior Championships in Athletics (e.g. Kirani James, Christopher Clarke, etc.). --bender235 (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (indent) Just to clarify a point: WP:BIO is not a policy, but rather is a longstanding accepted communitywide guideline, based on the consensus of the Wikipedia community. There are exceptions to this guideline, as there should be (for example, Jon Scheyer is not covered by WP:ATHLETE, but has had considerable press coverage at the national level, and as such probably deserves an article ... heck, every year's Heisman Trophy winner isn't even covered under WP:ATHLETE, but they are generally considered exceptions). Based on what I have seen, the application of the exceptions to WP:ATHLETE have applied to rare instances of (at least) college level athletes who have received exceptional coverage at the national level (like national record holders or some such). I restate that, IMO, this person has not met either of the two conditions of WP:ATHLETE, and irrelevant of the outcome of this discussion, its inclusion is a breach of community consensus. It seems that I could make these same arguments for a nationally ranked high school football team, but I don't think writing St. Thomas Aquinas High School 2009 football season is an article that will fly around here ... despite the undoubtedly ten times higher amount of reliable sources that you can find for that one team over this one player. While the GNG is one of the single most important policies around here ... it too has community sanctioned exceptions. In short: I think the overall community has spoken already on this matter. The question in my mind is: does this individual meet that "rare exception" clause? To some, this athlete is on the level of Heisman trophy winners, Outland Trophy winners, and others who meet that "rare exception" clause. I may be in the minority at this discussion, but I stand by that a high school athlete, even a really good top prospect, especially given the permanence of notability, does not meet community consensus for an article unless they accomplish something akin to a major national record ... and even that seems a bit odd for an encyclopedia ... one wouldn't normally pick up a football encyclopedia and find the top high school players in there. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You repeatedly say that ignoring WP:ATHLETE in this situation is against community consensus; however, that is not the case. When a person has received significant coverage in reliable sources, none of which are "routine sports coverage", the person passes the inclusion guidelines. If this article were deleted, we would be ignoring WP:BIO and WP:GNG, which hold precedent over WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE is a subsection of WP:BIO. WP:BIO has no precedence over WP:ATHLETE; ATHLETE is a part of BIO. Given that we have established that this person does not meet the two standards of ATHLETE, let me quote:
- (Bio): This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed.
- So, given that WP:BIO/ATHLETE reflects the consensus of the community, and that there seems to be a general consensus here that this athlete fails WP:BIO/ATHLETE (because a lot of folks are saying how GNG supersedes BIO/ATHLETE; something that wouldn't have to be said if this person met BIO/ATHLETE), I have a hard time seeing how this is not violating the consensus of the greater community.
- WP:CONSENSUS is a policy along side GNG. Quoting from there (specifically WP:CONLIMITED): Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. I would think that we here represent a limited group of editors, and BIO/ATHLETE represents a greater community consensus. I restate: I am not seeing that this athlete fits into the exception noted in the guideline.
- You are wrong that the subject fails WP:BIO. He passes Wikipedia:BIO#Basic criteria (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.), which supersedes Wikipedia:BIO#Athletes. Because community consensus has indicated that people who pass any criteria set out by WP:BIO are notable, this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You repeatedly say that ignoring WP:ATHLETE in this situation is against community consensus; however, that is not the case. When a person has received significant coverage in reliable sources, none of which are "routine sports coverage", the person passes the inclusion guidelines. If this article were deleted, we would be ignoring WP:BIO and WP:GNG, which hold precedent over WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:ATHLETE is supplemental and does not replace WP:GNG. The coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability, as multiple independent reliable sources have taken note of this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources provided by bender235 (talk · contribs). Notability is fully established because WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE. Kyle Prater is notable for his accomplishments as a high school athlete. Per bender235, "Prater is ranked #1 by Rivals, #2 by Scout.com, and #3 by Takkle among wide receivers in his class nationwide." These significant accomplishments clearly show that Prater warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a high school player who is "ranked" by some ranking sites does not deserve an article. The sources are not acceptable, reliable sources to allow this article under the GNG, they are highly specialized directories. Abductive (reasoning) 03:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Directory sites are unacceptable, but the Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN are all valid reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- God lord Delete He's in high school. Also references in article insufficient to establish WP:N. Grsz11 05:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, I ask that you explain how the sources I provided in my response to Abductive (talk · contribs) are insufficient. While I deem most high schoolers to be non-notable, many high schoolers have received the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N, for an example of a middle schooler, see Zach Bonner.
The subject's All-American status, sourced by this article, provides further evidence of notability. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, I ask that you explain how the sources I provided in my response to Abductive (talk · contribs) are insufficient. While I deem most high schoolers to be non-notable, many high schoolers have received the coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:N, for an example of a middle schooler, see Zach Bonner.
- Strong delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Does not meet BIO/ATHLETE, and the coverage of him does not meet GNG, as it is restricted to narrow discussion of non-notable athletic accomplishments. THF (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closer: please note the failure of this article to meet WP:PERSISTENCE in evaluating the arguments. THF (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that reliable sources, such as Sports Illustrated, Chicago Tribune, and ESPN, discuss these athletic accomplishments establishes that these accomplishments are not "non-notable". GNG is met. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trib source is a blog, the others are online specialized sports columns "Inside recruiting" or "ESPNrise" and are unconvincing. They say things that can't make anybody notable, it boils down to "he plays high school sports really well." Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper), blogs from newspaper writers that are subjected to editorial control are valid sources. Sports columns from reliable sources are sufficient to establish notability. When high school athletes garner the necessary media coverage they are notable. If high schools sports were insignificant in the United States, ESPN and Sporting News would not devote numerous articles to high school athletes. While it can be argued that high school athletes, by virtue of their youth, are inherently non-notable, this argument is invalid because national publications deem the subject's accomplishments to be worthy of reporting. Although you disqualify the perfectly valid sources presented above, there are numerous other sources about the subject. The New York Times deems college recruits notable enough to devote an article about Prater and his fellow U.S.C. recruits. He also received coverage from Sun-Times Media Group. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mentions in passing do not constitute substantive coverage per GNG or BIO. What's the hurry? He'll be notable in two or three years if your crystal ball is true, and if not, he won't be encyclopedic. Or are you planning on finding the #13 prospect from 1975 and writing an article about him? THF (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that passing mentions are insufficient to establish notability; the sources I provided in the discussion provide significant, nontrivial coverage about the subject: Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and Sun-Times Media Group.
I am not making any crystal ball arguments, so that argument is inapplicable. An article about the #13 prospect from 1975 is certainly viable, but only if he has received the requisite coverage in reliable sources. In Kyle Prater's case, national publications have taken note of his accomplishments, thus ensuring that he is notable. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERSISTENCE. That a lot of sources have a single paragraph about a ranking or two or the recruiting of a particular high-school athlete doesn't make it encyclopedic: six years from now, no one is going to care what Prater's high-school ranking was unless he turns out to be notable for other reasons. Again, WP:CHILL. If Prater turns out to be notable, there can be an article about him then. Right now, he's not. THF (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because there is much coverage in reliable sources that spans over a year:
• Scout : May 7, 2007
• Scout : January 13, 2009
• Scout : January 25, 2009
• Chicago Tribune : April 15, 2009
• ESPN : July 22, 2009
• Sports Illustrated : July 27, 2009
• Sun-Times Media Group : August 10, 2009
• ESPN : January 9, 2010
• Chicago Tribune
• ESPN : January 13, 2010 - Furthermore, Prater is the main topic of the articles, as evinced by their titles:
• Prater Up to Six Offers
• Kyle Prater Talks About His ND Offer
• Proviso West's Kyle Prater rated the No. 1 receiver in the nation
• Sales pitches keep coming as top WR Prater narrows list to five
• Prater receiving serious attention
• Prater backs off commitment to USC
• Proviso West's Prater sticks with USC
• Football: Proviso West's Kyle Prater picks USC again, will move to Los Angeles this weekend
The persistent coverage in reliable sources from multiple publications proves that Prater is clearly notable. Cunard (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because there is much coverage in reliable sources that spans over a year:
- I agree that passing mentions are insufficient to establish notability; the sources I provided in the discussion provide significant, nontrivial coverage about the subject: Chicago Tribune, Sports Illustrated, ESPN, and Sun-Times Media Group.
- Comment - I think there is confusion here. I don't think anyone is saying: "delete this article because this is only a kid". Age is wholly irrelevant. There are certainly plenty of articles on Wikipedia regarding people under the age of 18 who have accomplished a great deal, and have met a threshold of notability. Brining up Zach Bonner, he accomplished something that was at the level that anyone in the world could do. However, I think it is an exceptional strectch to say that the accomplishments of a high school football player is on the same level as a professional football player. This is not about ageism. LonelyBeacon (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully agree that a person's age should not disqualify him from attaining notability and thank you for clarifying that. The subject, as was mentioned above, has several notable accomplishments, namely being named to the All-American team and receiving nation-wide coverage. While these accomplishments are clearly not on par with a professional athlete, they are notable in that national publications have accorded them coverage. In your analysis of Zach Bonner, you seem to misunderstand notability. As Uncle G (talk · contribs) wrote in his essay, notability is not being unique, famous, or important; notability should be judged by the depth of coverage in reliable sources. As encyclopedia writers, we should not judge the notability of people's accomplishments by our own standards: we should judge their accomplishments by how professional journalists have judged them. From the numerous sources provided in this discussion, the subject's accomplishments do indeed allow him to pass Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (biographies)#Basic criteria. Cunard (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is an All-American receiver who is going to be a college student next week, so he shouldnt be considered a high school athlete anymore. Ice (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. We don't exclude notable subjects because of their age or non-professional status. This subject clearly meets the general notability guideline. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:00, 18 January 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. It seems fairly undisputed that this individual fails the specific WP:ATHLETE but passes the general notability guideline through sufficient obscure but non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Ultimately, both our guidelines and the opinions of participants here are split, and there is no consensus to delete. Given that the article is adequately sourced to avoid WP:BLP issues, there is no harm in defaulting to keep. ~ mazca talk 19:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perry Jones[edit]
- Perry Jones (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 person who fails WP:ATHLETE. Has yet to compete at college level, let alone professional level. Scjessey (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are other pages about athletes who haven't competed at a collge level that have been around for awhile such as Michael Gilchrist, Seantrel Henderson, and Brandon Knight So I dont see why this one is up for deletion. it has sources that make him notable. Ice (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If what you say is true, those articles should also be nominated for deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources as demonstrated by this Google News Archive search. Some sample articles include this one from sportingnews.com and this article from The Virginian-Pilot, as well as this and this from ESPN. Notability is fully established because WP:GNG supersedes WP:ATHLETE. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:ATHLETE ... the general notability guideline would, in the United States, make (roughly) the top 100 top high school athletes in football and basketball (in each state) worthy of articles, not to mention a few other top athletes in badminton, cross country, bowling, etc, which is clearly not the intention of the policy, not to mention the winners of Teen Jeopardy, state spelling bees, people who raise the prize heifer at the state fair, local junior miss beauty pageants, etc, etc. Also WP:OTHERSTUFF needs to be avoided in defending articles. The article needs to stands on its own merits. It is important to remember that notability is forever, so if the article stands, and this kid gets hurt next month and never plays again, we have an article about a kid who did nothing more than have a pretty good high school career. I cannot believe that WP:N ever was meant for that ... part of the reason we have WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE, just like Harrison Barnes, Brandon Knight do today, or like John Wall, Avery Bradley, O. J. Mayo, etc. did by the time they were added. --bender235 (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I frequently read a comment that someone "meets WP:ATHLETE", but it consists of two sentences and a footnote, and I can't see what part of it is applicable here. Persons who are inherently notable under that rule are: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[8] People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships." The [8] footnote adds "Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." Which part of WP:ATHLETE does this person qualify under? Mandsford (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:ATHLETE is supplemental and does not replace WP:GNG. The coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to establish notability, as multiple independent reliable sources have taken note of this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, gazillions of kids get mentioned in their local papers, and these ranking sites are unacceptable as sources; they are highly specialized directories. Abductive (reasoning) 03:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fully agree that ranking sites are unreliable sources. However, in this situation there are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject; see this one from Sporting News and this article from The Virginian-Pilot, as well as this and this from ESPN. Neither Sporting News nor ESPN are local sources, so your concern there is invalid. Cunard (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Online specialized sports columns are unconvincing. They say things that can't make anybody notable, it boils down to "he plays high school sports really well." Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sports columns from reliable sources are sufficient to establish notability. When high school athletes garner the necessary media coverage they are notable. If high schools sports were insignificant in the United States, ESPN and Sporting News would not devote numerous articles to high school athletes. While it can be argued that high school athletes, by virtue of their youth, are inherently non-notable, this argument is invalid because national publications deem the subject's accomplishments to be worthy of reporting. Cunard (talk) 09:04, 15 January 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. SNOW Tone 11:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taakatism[edit]
- Taakatism (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 religion. I declined a WP:CSD#G3 speedy on this article and moved it into the Article Incubator for sources to be provided, explaining to the author what was required to meet WP:N. Seven weeks later, none have been added, but the author has moved it back to the mainspace. The only source cited is an article in religion.wikia.com, which is not a reliable source; moreover, that article was posted on the same day as this one, just ten minutes earlier. Searches find no indication that this is anything more than something made up one day; it fails WP:N and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY nothing here to salvage, possible WP:HOAX RP459 (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can't find any information whatsover about this. Not-notable at best, more likely a hoax as RP459 mentions. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. I'd say it qualifies as G3. Also, another article Aladna by the same editor is also a hoax, just checked through five of the "refs" on that one, with no mention of this. Some sweeping or vacuuming is in order. -SpacemanSpiff 02:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No refs. Google only gives hits to mirrors. Could be a hoax. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. May not be a hoax, but could be a religion practiced only by the article creator. No sources. Salih (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - theology that's made up would our reputation corrupt. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an example of what obviously frustrated editors think of WP's credibility and spamming they can get away with here. I was genuinely amused by this article and give it 3 chuckles out of 5. Annette46 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association[edit]
- Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association (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. No outside reliable, independent reference on notability: both for individual papers and the journal itself. Besides, the sole line in the entry was not updated for the past 3 years. Nahrizuladib (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Nahrizuladib (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There plenty of mentions in the news and major journals to establish notability. The limited article might be better served by merging it into Norwegian Medical Association until there is sufficient expansion of both.
- Merge — into Norwegian Medical Association. "Mentions" do not establish notability, the topic in question must be the "subject" of an article. Gosox(55)(55) 22:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Might not be enough English mentions for us to establish notability, and if so, probably not much chance of expanding this stub.Jarhed (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I expanded the article. The article is indexed by Index Medicus, MEDLINE and PubMed, which is an argument in favor of notability. - Eastmain (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (or indeed merge) but definitely do not delete. We would expect to cover a medical journal with that pedigree. Rich Farmbrough, 03:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Has been in Medline for 45 years, they must do something right. There's enough material for a decent stub, so I don't see the need for merging either (and this article is currently actually larger than the one on the association). Once the AfD is over, the article should be moved to the Norwegian title, which is the official title of the journal. --Crusio (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Without considering the formalities of documenting notability per our guidelines, it is clear from my experience of being a Norwegian that this is an important journal which is often referenced in other media. Therefore it is only a matter of time before the required attestations are in place. __meco (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Upon improvement.
Stupid question: do I remove the AfD tag myself, or wait for an admin?I'd like to withdraw my nomination of AfD for this article. Nahrizuladib (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you can at this time. Only before any have voted to delete can the AfD be withdrawn. I'm not sure it can be closed as Speedy Keep per WP:SNOWBALL, though... __meco (talk) 15:18, 11 January 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) 00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martyrium (band)[edit]
- Martyrium (band) (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:MUSIC. No significant coverage in independent, third-party sources, no releases on notable labels. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nom, non-notable band. Gosox(55)(55) 22:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Unnotable with no reliable sources to even try to show its notability. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 03:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding coverage for this band in independent, reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 09:08, 16 January 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. JForget 00:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wake Up, America[edit]
- Wake Up, America (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)
Placed a prod, but was removed by an anon. No indication of notability, only page that even links to it is Dennis Kucinich. A politician gave a speech at the Democratic National Convention. So what? Recognizance (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete speech fails WP:NOTABILITY one time event with little coverage... RP459 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a one-time event with no special notability and no need for a standalone article. Obama's press conference the other day got news coverage too, but we surely don't need Barack Obama press conference of 7 January 2009. If anyone cares to merge a sentence or so of this article to Dennis Kucinich, that might be appropriate. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mention this all you want to in Dennis Kucinich. I'm afraid it doesn't "electrify" me. Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and simply put a mention of the speech in his article. i could find no coverage outside kos, demonow, all liberal advocacy sites. if it helps, i am strongly biased towards his politics (though its hard to imagine what it would be like to have an ACTUAL outsider elected prez (right or left). perennial also rans are fascinating, probably valuable, but probably not good choices for the office). but WP, of course, is not a soapbox.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant public attention as demonstrated through sources. Everyking (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to get into "other stuff exists"-type arguments, but I'd like to point to Public image of Mitt Romney#"Faith in America" speech as an example of a speech that's covered as part of a larger article. As suggested above, this can be covered without its own article. Recognizance (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you nominated it for deletion. If you think it's reasonable to merge the content, why do you want it deleted? Everyking (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because deletion doesn't mean expunging it from Wikipedia. A sentence on Kucinich's article is fine. The example I cited was meant to reinforce that anything more belongs with 2008 Democratic National Convention. Recognizance (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you nominated it for deletion. If you think it's reasonable to merge the content, why do you want it deleted? Everyking (talk) 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to get into "other stuff exists"-type arguments, but I'd like to point to Public image of Mitt Romney#"Faith in America" speech as an example of a speech that's covered as part of a larger article. As suggested above, this can be covered without its own article. Recognizance (talk) 00:28, 12 January 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) 00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flora and fauna of A Series of Unfortunate Events[edit]
- Flora and fauna of A Series of Unfortunate Events (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)
The articles Fauna of A Series of Unfortunate Events and Flora of A Series of Unfortunate Events were once a single article. When they were split, this disambiguation was created simply because it could not redirect to one or the other. Since it was moved, the page now contains no valuable history. It serves as a useless disambiguation, since few or no users will actually search for "Flora and fauna of A Series of Unfortunate Events". The pageviews it does receive are undoubtedly due to the mainspace links it formerly had (all of which I have just replaced with appropriate links). — the Man in Question (in question) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And I'll keep an eye on the new articles so they can be deleted too when they get split into Horseradish in A Series of Unfortunate Events, Sour apples in A Series of Unfortunate Events, and so on. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An disambiguation page is something one makes when there is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved. It defeats the purpose to create an ambiguity. "Flora" and "fauna" are not synonyms. One might as well do a dab page called "History and Geography of Canada" and then throw in links to "History of Canada" and "Geography of Canada". Mandsford (talk) 19:34, 11 January 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) 00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
North Plains Systems[edit]
- North Plains Systems (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)
Unambiguous advertising for a non-notable software business. This has been suggested for speedy deletion before and rejected. Article is full of obviously promotional language:
- a provider of Digital Asset Management solutions
- ideally suited for deployment at small and medium sized corporations that need a full featured implementation
- a line of easy to use point solution Digital Asset Management products
- offers a best of both worlds approach to managing rich media
They do seem addicted to the habit of referring to their products as "solutions".
The flagrant promotional nature of the text means that this article should be deleted even if the business were notable; but it's not. Google News yields a fair number of links, but they all seem to be press releases. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Strong delete. Over the top spam. Would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic even if notable. Particularly impressive is the fact that past the 1st sentence the only wikilinked term is feature-rich. Pcap ping 22:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. JBsupreme (talk) 09:58, 15 January 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 Ex post facto law, per unanimous consensus here including the nominator. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ex Post Facto[edit]
- Ex Post Facto (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)
It meets the criteria of Template:Db-disambig except the page name does not end in "(disambiguation)". I prodded the article, but it was removed. Rockfang (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation pages do NOT need to end in "(disambiguation)", I don't know where you read that. Since you offer no reason for deleting this page, I have to say Strong Keep and speedy close unless a deletion reason is given. TJ Spyke 20:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I never stated that dab pages need to end with "(disambiguation)". WP:CSD#G6 has "...deleting unnecessary disambiguation pages..." as one of the examples for that criteria. The template used to mark that example is {{Db-disambig}}. That template states "...disambiguates two or fewer Wikipedia topics and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)...". That is why I mentioned "...the page name does not end in "(disambiguation)"".--Rockfang (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete andreplace with a redirect to Ex post facto law. TJ, the reason for deletion comes from the relevant guideline, WP:D, which states, "If only a primary topic and one other topic require disambiguation, then disambiguation links are sufficient, and a disambiguation page is unnecessary. However if there are two topics for a term but neither is considered the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is used." Ex post facto law is the obvious primary topic here, and because only two things are being disambiguated, a disambiguation hatnote is the most appropriate solution. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed a valid conclusion, however why delete the article to recreate it right away with a redirect? It can be converted to a redirect without deletion, which is why I contested the proposed deletion. Extended rationale below. --Taelus (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally have no problems with simply redirecting the present page; however, I am not the nominator. If Rockfang agrees to a redirect, this AfD can be closed immediately thereafter. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and discuss via another procedure. I understand what you are saying, but by deleting the article it will leave nothing behind. If you wish to move the primary topic to this location, then there is a more suitable forum for that at Requested Moves, if you want to redirect it to one of the two, and place a hatnote instead of using a disambiguation page, then feel free to do so. I contested the prod because deleting it like this will only leave a confusing "This page does not exist on Wikipedia" result for those who search for the term. --Taelus (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Ex post facto law. I think Willoughby and Taelus basically agree on this (and they are right), though obviously as Taelus says deletion is unnecessary. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator Redirect - Redirecting makes sense.--Rockfang (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected and closing. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:07, 11 January 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) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dlib C++ Library[edit]
- Dlib C++ Library (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. FOSS (open-source) software. Samboy (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any secondary sources discussing this library or even other programs mentioning its use. Wikipedia is not a catalog of free software. Pcap ping 03:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, can't find significant coverage. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not sure what Samboy is thinking, I do wish that he would elaborate. If there is no significant coverage to speak of, it really does not matter if the software is free/open source. JBsupreme (talk) 05:08, 16 January 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) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only Enemies Tell The Truth... Friends And Lovers Lie Endlessly[edit]
- Only Enemies Tell The Truth... Friends And Lovers Lie Endlessly (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, unreleased album. The album will be released by the closure of this Afd, but notability has yet to be established. Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related, recently created article as it is a non-notable single from this album:
And this article of a non-notable, unreleased album by the same artist created by the same editor:
- Soundtrack from a Happy Ending (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Steamroller Assault (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (1) Only Enemies Tell The Truth... Friends And Lovers Lie Endlessly, (2) Open Hearts (JD & Elliot), and (3) Soundtrack from a Happy Ending. Should you propose to delete (4) Mikal ("pronounced 'Michael' "), the article on this musician, I'm for that as well. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUM unreleased album without the required coverage that would be required for it to pas WP:NOTABILITY RP459 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete obvious non-notable.Jarhed (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now until notability can be established. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 03:42, 11 January 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) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mowglii's principle of relationships[edit]
- Mowglii's principle of relationships (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 topic - previous PROD removed by author. —DoRD (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:MADEUP pseudo-philosophy by non-notable internet personality. Only hits look like forums or Wikipedia itself. Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo789 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete obvious non-notability.Jarhed (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Who is Moses Simpson? There's an old phrase that says "Absence makes the heart grow fonder." Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 11 January 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) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funeral in Heaven[edit]
- Funeral in Heaven (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)
Comprehensively fails WP:MUSIC. No coverage in third party sources that pass WP:RS, no releases on notable labels... yet to even release an album. Myspace band. Possibly even speedy-able. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable as the nom and Joe Chill indicate. Seems to be a clear-cut Myspace band. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hmm, found 1 decent hit in Google news, but that's not enough to establish notability under WP:MUSIC. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:08, 14 January 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) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pakefield local elections[edit]
- Pakefield local elections (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)
Contains only results of non-notable local election in a single ward (sent to AFD after author contested prod). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but this fails WP:EVENT. It is highly unlikely that the local elections of a village of under 7,000 can ever meet WP:GEOSCOPE, which states that "an event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. ...Events that have a demonstrable impact on the region, such as city-wide elections, are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Because Pakefield is not a city and the elections did not have a demonstrable effect that was notable enough to meet WP:GNG, I think deletion is proper. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hey, what's happening over in Pakefield? City and County council elections generally are not notable. Mandsford (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable per WP:EVENT MuffledThud (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The table of results also appears on Pakefield, where it does no harm. Local election results for individual seats only appear on Wikipedia on a page like West Sussex Council election, 2009, where an editor has listed the whole set. This is not the case with Suffolk County Council election, 2009. --81.108.236.17 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 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) 00:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CHERUB webbooks[edit]
- CHERUB webbooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- The subject is not suitable for an enclopypedia. It seems to basically just be this page but on wikipedia. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a WP:COPYVIO RP459 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article was not nominated for AfD, it was PROD'd. The PROD template has now been removed by the original author. —DoRD (talk) 22:24, 11 January 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) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Knitting and crochet during the civil war[edit]
- Knitting and crochet during the civil war (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)
Personal essay, original research, no encyclopedic content. Premise problem as well: people knitted and crocheted during the Civil War for the same reason they did before and after: to make clothing. They might also have begun a campaign to knit for the troops, but this article doesn't tell us anything about that other than claiming that it happened. An article on the topic might describe the way such a campaign was conceived and initiated, how the knitted goods were conveyed to the troops, etc. Such info could be added to a stub, but I'm not sure this article in its current state qualifies as a stub. What say you all? —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Delete. Non-notable, OR, no reliable sources. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, of course. But be nice to the original editor; it's clearly a student trying, even if they haven't figured out Wikipedia yet. --John Nagle (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced, and no hope of this being a viable article. Related areas someone interested in this could work on would be 1860s in fashion, History of knitting, and the yet-to-be-created Women in the American Civil War (a counterpart of Women in the American Revolution). Fences&Windows 20:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Hardly even an essay. While it may be true that women knitted and crocheted for the troops in the Civil War, as they certainly did in WWI. This is hardly encyclopaedic. It is unsourced, except an external link to "blogspot", which is not WP:RS. No hope of rescue; better to drown it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced, no encyclopedic content. Pepper/piggle 22:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Welcome to Wikipedia,User:Iceveela. If it's any consolation, we were all new to Wikipedia at one time, and most of us got introduced to this forum the hard way. You know a lot more about the art of creating objects from yarn, and I hope that you'll use that knowledge to correct any mistakes that you see in existing articles. It takes awhile to learn the "encyclopedic style" that is used here, but once it becomes familiar, you'll see possibilities for sharing knowledge. Mandsford (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hello all, thank you for your criticism, i however, did not expect this to be so popular in just a couple of days, no offense to any who have and will post, but at least give it some time to flourish before you stomp on the pedals of this delicate flower. not all science is based on facts, but the hypothesizes that arises from the knowledge of the individual. if what you all say is true words, than astronomy shall have no place in this site of Wikipedia. neither in fact shall many other sciences, and cultural "facts". we know of in this day. furthermore. i shall imply that all who judge the swan based on the duckling has no place here as well. that is all i have to say. Iceveela (talk) 17:07, 16 January 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) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dynamite Chris Hart[edit]
- Dynamite Chris Hart (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)
Unreferenced BLP with an assertion of significance (professional wrestler etc.) but not of notability. Google throws up Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, WP and lots of other completely unreliable sources. nothing on Google news or archives but false positives. HJMitchell You rang? 18:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely fails WP:N in my opinion. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Falls well short of WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable sources = no article. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 20:08, 15 January 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) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TunnelCAD[edit]
- TunnelCAD (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 seeing notability, but software doesn't qualify for speedy and I'm reluctant to prod it because I'm not knowledgeable enough in the area to rule out notability. Google throws up nothing reliable, as far as I cna see; no hits at all on GNews or archives (exclusing false positives). HJMitchell You rang? 18:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Complete lack of secondary coverage. Nothing in google news, books or scholar. Pcap ping 05:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing on Google news, as nom points out. Not enough reliable sources (that I can find, anyway) to establish notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:57, 14 January 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) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zombieland 2: More Blood Ever[edit]
- Zombieland 2: More Blood Ever (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)
Violates WP:CRYSTAL; None of the details have been confirmed for Zombieland 2; no producer, director, cast, release date or anything. All material is speculation; this article should be removed and redirected to Zombieland pending more concrete and definite information on the sequel. mhking (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like a messageboard post (especially the production section), nothing but speculation nothing is confirmed other than that the movie is planned, production hasn't even begun yet. TJ Spyke 20:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yup, much of the production section was taken directly from an article on movie-moron.com (here) from October speculating on what would be in a sequel, so that has been removed (by me) as a blatant copyvio. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is so much wrong with this article I can construct a sentence where every third word links to a guideline this article violates. No sources to back up any claim made in the article whatsoever. The supposed IMDB page for the film is actually the one for the first movie. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 22:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if not a hoax (ahem), it is far too soon for this article as it cannot be reliably sourced. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - if it's not a WP:HOAX, then it fails WP:CRYSTAL. Either way, delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:50, 14 January 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. No policy/guideline-based arguments to keep. Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ProjectPier[edit]
- ProjectPier (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 cannot find significant independent coverage for this software. Previous AfD was somehow closed as keep on incredibly out-of-policy reasons, like "I use it", and list of random links that are just software catalog entries. It's mentioned in a couple of books, but the most coverage it has is a paragraph here, which is a book from the Atlantic Publishing Company. Pcap ping 17:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable project, well discussed in article. Automatic nominations of all FOSS seems questionable as well by a couple radical deletionist editors; the fact this is the 3rd nomination after previous keeps tells you something. LotLE×talk 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. One: This has survived AfD twice before; I, as a matter of principle, am opposed to being able to put an article on the deletion block as many times as a deletionist wants until it is finally deleted. Two: It’s open-source software. Samboy (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I had looked at this through my last run-through of the "project management" mess, and chose not to re-nominate it then because it had recently survived the last AfD. But it's still incredibly weakly sourced, and nothing in any of the sources really suggests that it's anything more than just another product of its kind. The references only serve to document the fact that it's out there. Google News sources are quite sparse, and some of them are actually in user comments. We are not in the business of providing a directory of open source software, or for that matter championing open source products over proprietary ones. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I looked at Google results in multiple languages (as this software is available in 20+ languages). There are plenty of results but quite all entries are copy-paste presentation text from software directories. Captone (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I took a look at the sources posted in the last AfD, and most of them are either promotional descriptions (likely copy-pasted from the software's website), unreliable, or too short to be of any use. Besides, there's no indication this software is any more popular than other software that it's similar to. The only significant coverage I can find is this, and a Google News search doesn't turn up much of anything else. Timmeh 22:07, 16 January 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) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goplan[edit]
- Goplan (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 was deprodded without addressing the notability concerns. I found some mentions in google books, but they are all fairly trivial in lists of similar software products. Not significant enough for a separate article. Pcap ping 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sign of notability. It also looks like the deprodder works for the company in question. Haakon (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Edits done by SPA - Captone (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete concur with nom, I can't find much in the way of WP:N-approved sources. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:31, 13 January 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. (X! · talk) · @763 · 17:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Senpuu[edit]
- Senpuu (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)
Appears to be a dic def although I am still none the wise as to what it means! Have tried to find info to make in to a reasonable stub but have been unable to find anything relevant (may be more a comment on my ignorance in this area). Nancy talk 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes, "せんぷう" does appear to mean 'whirlwind'. Honestly, it looks like a nice start at Wikitionary, but not a useful article to have here- no links to it in mainspace, which would at least explain its intended purpose. Very strange article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wiktionary per BJB. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICDEF. Also, please do not transwiki because it is already there: 旋風. Bendono (talk) 03:56, 16 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antz Racing[edit]
- Antz Racing (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 software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the game was from a major publisher for a major console and that gives it notability. TJ Spyke 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Very bad shape, but I think it needs editing, not deletion. It is (or was) published by Electronic Arts, developed by RFX Interactive (though I'll admit the latter may not be the most notable thing in the world) and maybe it's worth mentioning it is based on a pretty major motion picture? It's a bit borderline, but there's a few sources that can be found on Google, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep per reviews listed on Mobygames. Nifboy (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Three reviews on MobyGames, but none in English. Notable publisher...that discontinued it long ago. This needs a lot of work, and I don't feel that it's a good idea to demolish the house before it's built in this case, but if it's not fixed up, deletion may very well be in order. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notability easily established here, despite the clear User:Mcjakeqcool-type editing. –MuZemike 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Nifboy. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 10 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giant Killers[edit]
- Giant Killers (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 software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reviews in PC Gamer UK (per mobygames), CVG (also a preview), and BBC Sport of all things. Meets our minimum standards. Nifboy (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. There are several major press reviews (as noted by Nifboy). Meets WP:N. (Note: While Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant Killers was closed as "delete," the deleted article was about a college football team, not a video game.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notability easily established here, despite the clear User:Mcjakeqcool-type editing. –MuZemike 21:58, 10 January 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW and WP:SK The article has been tagged for for expansion and clean up. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 04:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Attack of the Mutant Penguins[edit]
- Attack of the Mutant Penguins (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 software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the game was from a major publisher for a major console and that gives it notability. TJ Spyke 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 17:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reviews listed on Mobygames. Nifboy (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Nifboy. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. There are several major press reviews (as noted by Nifboy) and the publisher is notable (as noted by TJ Spyke). Meets WP:N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep commercial game release by a major publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notability easily established here, despite the clear User:Mcjakeqcool-type editing. –MuZemike 21:59, 10 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Godzilla Generations: Maximum Impact[edit]
- Godzilla Generations: Maximum Impact (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 software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the game was from a major publisher for a major console and that gives it notability. TJ Spyke 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Godzilla Generations, which is what I thought this game was when looking for sources. Nifboy (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IGN review present in the article is a good source, there's some info here on allgame. In addition, a lot of DC reviews and features remain locked in magazines which haven't been added to databases, it doesn't mean the information isn't there. There is enough to pull together a basic article (and I'd know, I did last time with the first game). Someoneanother 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notability easily established here, despite the clear User:Mcjakeqcool-type editing. –MuZemike 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added the allgame source, cleaned the language, and added a stub tag. Agree, there are probably more sources out there; I'll see if I can track some down later. For now, I think we have the bare minimum for a stub. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hello, i have this game and added a few informations about the gameplay, however since it comes from my own experience with this game i cant refer to other sites. hope it still helps a little bit GBK2010 (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment heh. of course ^^ and where is the source of your thesis that the earth is round, they asked galileo. jokes aside. i just added a few facts bout this game..that it is halfway a railshooter more or less and the other half you fight against monsters from old godzilla movies one on one. i guess it wont but would screenshots i make from these levels which show exactly the gameplay i describe count as source? :) GBK2010 (talk) 15:44, 15 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Club Drive[edit]
- Club Drive (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 software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the game was from a major publisher for a major console and that gives it notability. TJ Spyke 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though perhaps more remembered for being among the worst-reviewed games of its generation than for anything else, this is notable as a published console game from a major publisher. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reviews listed on Mobygames. Nifboy (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Nifboy. The Mobygames page lists 10 reviews. Joe Chill (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite. There are several major press reviews (as noted by Nifboy) and the publisher is notable (as noted by TJ Spyke). Meets WP:N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notability easily established here, despite the clear User:Mcjakeqcool-type editing. –MuZemike 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and fix - subject is notable due to enough coverage by reliable sources. The article is atrocious right now and needs work though. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:42, 14 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Val d'Isère Skiing and Snowboarding[edit]
- Val D'isére Skiing and Snowboarding (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 software, prod removed. WuhWuzDat 16:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is in terrible shape, but the game was from a major publisher for a major console and that gives it notability. TJ Spyke 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TJ Spyke 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: according to MobyGames the game has had reviews in GamePro, GameFan, and others (online reviews listed here are less reliable). Meets our bare minimum requirements. Nifboy (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notability easily established here, despite the clear User:Mcjakeqcool-type editing. –MuZemike 22:00, 10 January 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 per A9. While it was declined the first go round, it's about as A9 as you can get. Smashvilletalk 22:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PULL MY CRACKER[edit]
- PULL MY CRACKER (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 song by non notable group without article. A9 speedy declined, despite clearly fitting the criteria. WuhWuzDat 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable group. Not even mentioned in Google News archives. --John Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Due to both Naked Sunday and Martyn Stayner both being redlinks (which means that the CSD should have been granted - if a band is non-notable, their songs are automatically non-notable). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:41, 10 January 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) 00:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosbrot[edit]
- Chaosbrot (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 name fails WP:N and is not cited by MIRS. Concerns about the article being OR and self-promotion have also been raised here. The non-notability of the article subject matter is, however, questionable. An old online forum discussion back in 2008, although fails to qualify as an independent reliable source, indicates that the subject matter has been touched upon before. It is possible that such a mathematical generalization may have been published before by reliable sources under a different name.
Possible measures:
- Delete for lack of notability and verifiability.
- Merge to Mandelbrot_set#Generalizations and remove "chaosbrot" as a keyword to avoid WP:PROMOTION.
- Move if reliable sources mentioning it can be found. Move article to name as it appears in the source.
- Keep if notability and verifiability can be established under the current name.-->
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Doomed Rasher (talk • contribs) 10 January 2010
- Comment - I've hidden a section of the nomination as at first and second glance they look like actual votes, and I think everyone here knows how AfD works. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication of notability, just original research - one of an infinite number of trivial generalisations of the Mandelbrot set.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as apparently non-notable. Paul August ☎ 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. There are no hits whatsoever on Google scholar, Google news archive, and Google books. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per David Eppstein. There are no independent reliable sources to establish notability. Regarding "otherstuffexists", gravity set looks dubious to me for the same reasons. Geometry guy 10:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research, and no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are some hits in various forums and blogs but nothing like a reliable secondary source. For something like this, appearance in a popular fractal generating program might be acceptable. I checked Fractint and Xaos, but I didn't see it there.--RDBury (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have my doubts about the image too. By my old-fashioned pen and paper calculations the p=-2 case should be infinite and the image generated is probably the result of a poorly chosen bailout value. Not that anyone cares but inaccuracy is often a side-effect of OR.--RDBury (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The p=-2 case does escape for a lot of values; take c = 10 + 0i. This, obviously, diverges to infinity, as well as a large subset of other values. The fact that it is cut off is a side effect of using 2 as the bailout radius as you discerned. General consensus is that "Chaosbrot" violates WP:N and should be deleted, but has anyone actually performed a good-faith search for academic publications addressing this variant under a different name? Doomed Rasher (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think whether it exists under a different name is irrelevant. If you create an article that OR, whether or not it's something new or something you discovered independently it's still OR.--RDBury (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mm, indeed; I was thinking that if it was discovered already, an article with reliable sourcing may be created at the new name as referred to in the publication, or this can be merged if WP article is already present. Seems to not be the case. Doomed Rasher (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think whether it exists under a different name is irrelevant. If you create an article that OR, whether or not it's something new or something you discovered independently it's still OR.--RDBury (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The p=-2 case does escape for a lot of values; take c = 10 + 0i. This, obviously, diverges to infinity, as well as a large subset of other values. The fact that it is cut off is a side effect of using 2 as the bailout radius as you discerned. General consensus is that "Chaosbrot" violates WP:N and should be deleted, but has anyone actually performed a good-faith search for academic publications addressing this variant under a different name? Doomed Rasher (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have my doubts about the image too. By my old-fashioned pen and paper calculations the p=-2 case should be infinite and the image generated is probably the result of a poorly chosen bailout value. Not that anyone cares but inaccuracy is often a side-effect of OR.--RDBury (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a well written article, and generalizes a whole class of fractals. It includes the famous Mandelbrot Set and the Tricorn, while many other variations only have the Mandelbrot Set. Personally, I would love to see Wikipedia build a nice series of articles on different fractals. This should be kept. --Timeroot 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources brought; WP:OR/WP:SYNTH holds even if information is true. Avi (talk) 18:05, 15 January 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) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VenSwichFilms[edit]
- VenSwichFilms (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)
Production company that lacks notability (not even a stub listing on IMDB). Eeekster (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
production company doesn't lack notability. Has more than four mayor written press articles in Dutch MediaToos53 (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian | talk-to-me 14:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting Comment. This discussion had not been listed on a daily log page, so had become "lost". ascidian | talk-to-me 14:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 10 January 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) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CodeLobster[edit]
- CodeLobster (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)
Page continues to be without verification (WP:V) or assertion of notability (WP:N). Proposed for deletion last April; contested by User:Codelobster with no explaination or attempt to address the issue. Google search shows no News hits, and a hundred or so download sites on Web hits, none of which provide reliable, significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 14:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm aware of its mention in O'Reilly's "Windows Vista Annoyances", but it is trivial [7]. Marasmusine (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete A grand total of 3 google news archives hits for the company with the same name that produces this [8], and a list-mention of another product of theirs in a book [9] is all I could find about this. There's a Softpedia review [10], but I don't give much weight to those notability-wise— the review seems pretty honest: it says: "I've seen better freeware." Pcap ping 19:34, 11 January 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. Jayjg (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annika Väisänen[edit]
- Annika Väisänen (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 confess that I do not read... is that Finnish? However, I can see that the name 'Annika Vaisanen' does not appear in most of the cited sources of this article, and that the person described in the article does not appear to meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you are talking about, sorry but I think if you don't understand Finnish, you should not make such statements. All references have my name on them except the one about the exhibition. That was my old job in a gallery. --Linnea78 (talk) 14:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for some reason, User:Linnea78 keeps moving the page from Annika Väisänen to Annika Vaisanen. The name is correctly spelled Väisänen. Ilyushka ☃Talk!Contribs 14:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Linnea, if you are Annika Vaisanen, then it is not appropriate for you to write about yourself. Also, in my opinion, one doesn't have to read Finnish to see that none of those articles is about Annika Vaisanen- you may wish to review the notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article about her is going to be deleted also in Finnish Wikipedia. Nro92 (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO. Also a google search with her name gives under 3,000 results. I don't believe that all of the results are about this person. Not much research has to be done to find out the article fails notability. Ilyushka ☃Talk!Contribs 14:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whar article do you claim is not about Annika Vaisanen be more specific please? Last time I checked the reference links worked fine --Linnea78 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The internet links have all Annika Vaisanen on them?![reply]
- Question Which article do you think best explains who Annika Vaisanen is and why she is important in the world of art criticism? Which one has her as its main subject, and confirms the information in the Wikipedia article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All these articles are about Vaisanen as the main subject: (Helsingin Sanomat is the biggest and most respected neswpaper in Finland). I don't know how to copy paste the articles she has written, but there's direct links to several at the bottom of the article. --Linnea78 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) The first and second reference are not online as far as I know, but I can scan you the paper version from the magazines. --Linnea78 (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heikkinen, Mikko-Pekka (19 May 2000). "Suomalainen roomalainen". Helsingin Sanomat (Newspaper).
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - Merilä, Kai (25 May 2000). "Lainasin vartaloni filmitähdelle". 7 Päivää (Magazine).
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help)
- Väisänen, Annika (3 Jan 2009). "Näkymiä Colosseumin aitiosta". Helsingin Sanomat (Newspaper).
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help)
- Lotila, Sami (1 January 2010). "Pidä Perttu enää en häntä kaipaa". Hymy (Magazine).
{{cite news}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help)
- The first two links do not go to an article at all.
Yes... because they are print only! --213.145.198.14 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The third link is by Annika, not about her, and tells us nothing about her or her notability.
Yes it does, it tells about working in the Gladiator film with a picture from the set, in the biggest and most respected newspaper in Finland!--213.145.198.14 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth article is the only one that is even related to her; it is very short, and doesn't seem to be related to art criticism. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The third link is a commentary (not an actual newsarticle) written by Annika about her experiences on the Gladiator crew. It was featured in the culture section of the newspaper, which that day featured articles about the phenomenon "violent entertainment from the classical era" (ie. Rome (TV series) etc, and especially a book review of Fik Meijer's The Gladiators).
The fourth link and the accompanying larger article in the actual Hymy-magazine is a "kiss and tell" -story, involving Perttu Kivilaakso, Annika and Anne-Mari Berg. Annikas views ("you can keep him") are prominently featured, although the article would surely not have been written nor published, had it not featured Kivilaakso and Berg (finnish Hilton-style celebrity, whose ordeals are in pretty much all of the finnish sensational media). -- Piisamson (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about Annika telling about her relationship with Perttu Kivilaakso, the rocker. Berg, the so called "celebrity" who is mainy known for having large silicon boobs and is selling makeup door to door, is not exactly notable. She was mentioned in a "box" at the end of the article. At least Annika has got some merits on her own. She has actually done something notable in life. --213.145.198.14 (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Annika Vaisanen is a writer, who also has written art criticisms to the biggest neswspaper in Finland.[1] http://www.feelthedarkness.com/spaw/img_popup.php?img_url=/images/spaw/hesari_1.jpg I wonder if you read the article at all? As I said, the first 2 references are links to the magazines, which have written about her. The references do state the year and date of the publication. Do you need page numbers?
Annika Vaisanen has worked as a stand in and double for the actress Connie Nielsen in the feature film gladiator. "Näkymiä Colosseumin aitiosta" is about that. Several Finnish magazines wrote about her experience in Gladiator. There is both her NAME and PICTURE in the article. http://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/artikkeli/Näkymiä+Colosseumin+aitiosta/HS20090103SI1KU026bd
What comes t the HYMY magazine article, it's not fully in the internet. The actual magazine is still in the shops, that's why. Tha article is 4 pages, and there is her picture in it 3 times, also in the cover of the magazine. http://www.hymy.fi/tasta-puhutaan/kolmiodraamassa-vastakkain-kohumalli-ja-salarakas-pida-apocalyptica-perttu-enaa-en-hanta-huoli
Any other questions? --Linnea78 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 other magazine articles about her (articles are not online):
↑ Maija Tiensuu: Ihanasti Boheemi. Deko magazine, 1.4.2008, s. 52-57. Yhtyneet kuvalehdet Oy. ↑ Annika Väisänen: Maailma kotona. Trendi magazine, 1.2.2008, s. 98-101. Forma —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linnea78 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 more articles where Vaisanen has been quoted (the other is a jazz album, which she reviewed and the second is an art exhibition).:
http://www.cymbidium.fi/index.php?page=Helsinki_Cooler_vol_3
http://www.totuusvaitehtava.fi/omaelamankerrat-ja-kulkurunot --Linnea78 (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate Userfy as per WP:STEAM and few other guidelines already mentioned above. Monni (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Wikipedia articles do NOT have to be about celebrities. Enough (five) references from outside reliable sources.--Apollo789 (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC) — Apollo789 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. Apollo789 apparently is Linnea78. A request for checkuser...? --Jetman (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She is a freelance writer with some articles in different newspapers and magazines, nothing more. A stunt role in a Hollywood film is not a big issue. To be deleted (=Kannatan poistoa) in fi.Wikipedia. --Ufinne (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep as she is in a love triange with a famous Finnish musician from Apoalyptica, Perttu Kivilaakso. Hymy magazine put Vaisanen in their January cover! The other 2 people from the "triangle" have their pages on Wikipedia. http://www.hymy.fi/
213.145.198.14 (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
G7. Author requests deletion, if requested in good faith and provided that the only substantial content to the page and to the associated talk page was added by its author. (For redirects created as a result of a pagemove, the mover must also have been the only substantive contributor to the pages prior to the move.) If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request.--Linnea78 (talk) 10:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC) {{db-author}}, {{db-self}}, {{db-blanked}}[reply]
- Delete. The person in question is a freelance writer with no national notability. Artistic merits are minor. Having played as an extra in a movie does establish notability, either. --MPorciusCato (talk) 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article should stay! She has got more merits than 99% of Finnish people. Article is well sourced and the merits are international. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.143.167.10 (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Favoring keeping for these reasons: ' WP:CREATIVE WP:GNG WP:NOTFILM WP:INDY Describes the value of having sources independent of the subject WP:POTENTIALAn article should be judged based on what it can grow into one day, not what it already is WP:JUSTAVOTE "Votes" of simply the words "keep" or "delete" do not make a case and are not counted in a deletion discussion. WP:DEADLINE There is no deadline to make any edits to any articles or to finish any project — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.198.14 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 11:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bulbagarden[edit]
- Bulbagarden (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 web site and I can't seem to find any sources that would indicate notability. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:Notability, WP:RS. Looks like it was meant to be a stub, but it could have been meant to be a list. Either way should be deleted.--NavyBlue84 17:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete the article asserts no notability, and has been deleted many times under the now-SALTed title Bulbapedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Burn with fire: non-notable website placement. Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 02:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone and everything. JBsupreme (talk) 09:56, 15 January 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) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Z-Chen[edit]
- Z-Chen (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)
Doesn't assert notability sufficiently Monni (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - A targeted Google search (beyond the searches that come up automatically upon clicking the links on this page) reveals a few pieces of news coverage and a few album reviews in English-language Asian sources, but I don't know enough about that media market to know if the publications are reliable. (For example: album review and tour article.) Perhaps someone can argue that these sources confer notability. But the singer apparently has not been noticed outside of Asia, so maybe he would be a better fit for Chinese Wikipedia. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Blogs and wiki pages (or cached copies of them) are not reliable, but newspaper articles are, even if they are only partially online. I suggest people who know him better try to expand the article with reliable and verifiable sources before this is closed. I only nominated it here because it was tagged earlier for CSD A7 but contested. Monni (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A comment from 2002 and a contract that was not continued, perhaps he wanted to become notable but I don't see sufficient level of reporting or album releases or actual concerts to assert musical notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 14 January 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. SNOW Tone 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Cole (revisionist)[edit]
- David Cole (revisionist) (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 AGAIN. This article was apparently deleted in a previous AFD and then since recreated. The subject still doesn't appear to be any more notable, so I'm not sure why that was allowed to happen. JBsupreme (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Was it actualy deleted after fist AfD ? WP:CSD#A7? Codf1977 (talk) 12:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was. See the talk page of the article for a little more explanation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:Notability and WP:RS. Not sure if it meets WP:Stub requirements.
- Delete - there are some reliable sources available, such as [12] from the Anti-Defamation League, and [13] from Google Books. However, I cannot find enough significant coverage in reliable sources to justify an article per WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insignificant coverage in reliable sources. Laurinavicius (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It should be noted that following the AFD that brought about this article's deletion, this article was restored upon the request of User:Pottsf, an individual who regretfully exhibits some denier tendencies. That point aside, there is not enough coverage from reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO, and since the subject has recanted his Holocaust denial, having an article on him is a BLP can of worms. WilliamH (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's a clear lack of reliable sources to establish notability here. I wouldn't have restored this, but since at least two of the "delete" voters last time around was evading a block or a ban, I guess it can't hurt to run another AfD and do it right this time. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - some coverage, but not enough to pass the notability guidelines. Also, the fact that it was previously deleted by AfD, as others have noted, does not help its case. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:28, 14 January 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) 00:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barber street sebastian fl[edit]
- Barber street sebastian fl (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 claim of notability made - it seems to be just a regular street. (No appropriate speedy deletion category (my preferred option), and proposed deletion tag removed without explanation.) Bazonka (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this meets the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete non-notable street (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- looks NN to me (but I am not a local). Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a street in Florida that doesn't seem to have any special claim to fame. Cocytus [»talk«] 15:15, 14 January 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. (X! · talk) · @761 · 17:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alertboot[edit]
- Alertboot (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)
Promotion for non-notable software product. I have only been able to find a few press releases and no significant independent coverage. Article was written by the president of the company. Haakon (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just an add - also nominate for WP:CSD#G11 Codf1977 (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - MaRBLE (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC) — User:Marble600 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 1) Reviewing the intial article itself as posted by contributor is not relevant to WP:CSD#G11 as written. It was not overly promotional at all, based on what I read.
- 2) I'd argue that being associated/developed with Sophos is notable. At the very least, WP:CSD does NOT apply here.
- 3) Having said that, the article needs improvement.
- Comment @EdoDodo -- It appears you marked me as a "Single-Purpose Account" (few or no other edits). While I'll admit I have not been an active member, post-count is irrelevant to the reasons I presented. (If it matters, I've been registered since September 2006, so I'm hardly a sock puppet.) My comments regarding this article are pretty balanced and neutral; I'm judging it based on its own individual qualities and the speedy deletion rationale given, based on WP's rules. My stated bullets, in and of themselves, hold merit regardless of who posted them. Feel free to communicate directly with me, if you'd like. Cheers! Marble600 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- What concerns me, is that you made your first ever edit 10 minutes before this edit (to a test page) and that this was your second edit. In it's self a bit strange, but your knowedge of WP policies seems very good for a non-editing user. While I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet and am assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe this edit was truly your second ever WP edit.Codf1977 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I can understand your skepticism, however, it really is the case. Long-time lurker, what can I say? :) (You know, we lurkers do exist in large numbers; I'm sure, prior to August 6, 2009, you were lurking too.) Regarding my knowledge of the WP policies, they're linked on the article itself and referenced by the users here; IMO, it's not very difficult to read and understand them, especially when they're right in front of you. (And, yes, I'm also the guy who reads the rules in online forums too.) I think you'd agree that my opinion is not "rah-rah-ing" the product with a "Keep it! This product is teh best!!!!!!1one" statement:
- >> The reason for Speedy Deletion was "non-notable software" given by Haakon, and then you added that it should be considered for Speedy Deletion for being promotional (WP:CSD#G11).
- >> I read the original posting, and I didn't find it to be "...exclusively promotional...[with] need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic".
- >> Furthermore, WP:CSD#G11 states that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion".
- In light of that statement and since it wasn't exclusively promotional and/or spamming, I'd argue against using that particular rationale as a case for deletion.
- Now, is it notable software? Dunno...I suppose that will be determined by the community-at-large. However, if this company is associated with Sophos, that's notable in and of itself, since Sophos is one of the largest security software firms in the world, on par with McAfee, et al. So, I simply offered a counteropinion to encourage discussion in lieu of CSD, for which I didn't feel was the case here. At the very least, you can't deny that I made some valid points worthy of further discussion. We may disagree, but neither that nor my "edit count" nor the fact that I like to test out wiki-specific code prior to posting should, in any way, discount my worthwhile argument. Cheers! Marble600 (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What concerns me, is that you made your first ever edit 10 minutes before this edit (to a test page) and that this was your second edit. In it's self a bit strange, but your knowedge of WP policies seems very good for a non-editing user. While I am not accusing you of being a sock puppet and am assuming good faith, I find it hard to believe this edit was truly your second ever WP edit.Codf1977 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @EdoDodo -- It appears you marked me as a "Single-Purpose Account" (few or no other edits). While I'll admit I have not been an active member, post-count is irrelevant to the reasons I presented. (If it matters, I've been registered since September 2006, so I'm hardly a sock puppet.) My comments regarding this article are pretty balanced and neutral; I'm judging it based on its own individual qualities and the speedy deletion rationale given, based on WP's rules. My stated bullets, in and of themselves, hold merit regardless of who posted them. Feel free to communicate directly with me, if you'd like. Cheers! Marble600 (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- I am not going to get into an argument over this, as I said I am assuming good faith on your part. Please however see it from other editor’s point of view, most people don’t register accounts and then wait over three years before making their first edit, most register accounts just before they make their first edit.
- You will see I have removed the speed tag, as it was contested by the another editor (which you could have done) I still think the article is promotional and am sure it will fail as non-notable. Codf1977 (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in secondary sources. Zero ghits in google books and nothing significant in the news archive either. Pcap ping 05:21, 14 January 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. It's clear that the few sources that have been given are not reliable enough to establish notability. Additionally, I would like to advise Pacificleo to read over the conflict of interest policy. (X! · talk) · @760 · 17:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mitr[edit]
- Mitr (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)
Apparently minor and three-month-old mobile phone development platform. No assertion of notability beyond reprints of press releases. (Was prodded for four days until an editor unprodded it for linking to an essay on software notability instead of just WP:N.) McGeddon (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure about notability as I don't live in India. However, it should be noted that the software is not three months old. It was released in October 2008. Also, the essay in question that was linked to is widely rejected by the community if you look at the RfC on the talk page. Consider redirecting/merging to Spicelabs India as it is mentioned in the citations on this page. (needs an expert from WikiProject India).ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my mistake, still getting used to the new year. I'd only linked to the essay for clarity (a couple of days before the RfC you mention started); the article still falls short of the basic "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirements of WP:N. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 07:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A number of sources that mention this platfom in passing have been found, showing that it is at least known. However, none of these sources give it significant coverage and most simply quote the maker's press release, so fails WP:N. GDallimore (Talk) 11:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - most of the cited coverage is from indian financial media and are sourced mainly from the company's press releases and promotional campaigns.--Sodabottle (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I work for Spice Labs and I would like to present some of fact to Wikipedia community to help them decide. Mitr is a startup in Mobile Application Framework space . Its a highly complex cross platform development tool for mobile application development.being a product startup that too focused on a highly selective audience ( Mobile Programmer ) We have a very little benefit by getting mentioned in a mass media publication like Times of India or Say NewYork Times for that matter . still I would like to mention few instances where we discussed Mitr on public forum . some of the confusion is also because of the fact that earlier we were known as MobiSoc so all the media mentions are for that name only we have recently been re branded as Spice Labs. here are link to article for your consideration
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Mobisoc-makes-Internet-on-mobiles-a-new-experience/390470/ Indian Express is one of the most respected News paper in India.
http://www.medianama.com/2008/10/223-mobisoc-ties-up-with-naukri-jeevansathi-makemytrip-financialexpress-sulekha-for-mitr-app/ Medianama is a blog which is defacto leader in technology reporting in India . its started by an Ex employee of Paidcontent and they are notorious for having very strict editorial policy.
http://www.watblog.com/2008/10/20/naukri-jeevansaathi-sulekha-financial-express-makemytrip-go-mobile-via-spiceteles-mobisoc-mitr/ coverage at WAT Blog which is a blog about tech in india and its run by a TED Fellow.
http://www.gomonews.com/mobisoc-wants-to-be-the-new-mobile-java-with-mitr/ some folks have discovered Mitr on their own and tried beta version and choose to write their feedback
http://www.mobisoc.com/images/press/Nov2008-MyMobile.jpg a print magzine in Tech space also covered us . hereis scaned copy of article
apart from the media mention we are also actively involved in nurturing an ecosystem of Mobile Application in india . We have sponsored and participated in couple of user centric tech un-conferences like Barcamp and Mobile Monday .
as a regular reader and occasional contributor to wikipedia I respect this forum and your effort in keeping wiki clean . If stability of Mitr as tech platform or as a business is your concern that I can assure you that its a REAL deal and We are here for long run . if you want us to rephrase the article or some section of it please let me know . I rest my case :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacificleo (talk • contribs) 07:36, 16 January 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. If anyone is interested in merging content, let me know. Tone 11:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Airbus A380 routes[edit]
- List of Airbus A380 routes (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)
Wikipedia is not a travel guide and no reason why routes operated by one aircraft type are notable. Contested prod since October to see if article develops but it is still basically a travel guide MilborneOne (talk) 10:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WeekKeep - This should be kept or moved to the A380 page, the problem with moving it is it will grow and will then be moved out.Codf1977 (talk) 11:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. Airbus A380 is the largest passenger airliner in the world with only 38 planes built till date. I think listing the routes in Airbus A380 in a concise manner should do it. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unencyclopaedic, and not necessary to go into much detail (which constantly changes anway) in the main article on the A380. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some context would be helpful for this article, and nobody, not even al-Qaeda, actually needs to know the flight numbers (as with the the scheduled departure or arrival times, one can go to a link for that). For context, there are, at the moment, only the four airlines listed which operate the Airbus A380, and only 24 are actually in operation. It's the largest airliner of all time, with the capacity to carry 525 passengers, so its use is necessarily limited to specific high-traffic routes. As Codf1977 nad Geet point out, this could be merged back into the article about the plane, but would eventually be spun back out. I agree that the format should be revised. Mandsford (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-encyclopedic list. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - listcruft. Requires substantial maintenance for limited value. This is the sort of thing that is better handled by a database search in an air travel database, rather than manually in Wikipedia. --John Nagle (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete - As an aviation person, I understand why these routes *might* be interesting, but without an explanation of the routes (i.e., why the route is high traffic enough, airport limitations, etc.), it's just an unneeded, unencyclopedic list. If we really want to keep this information it should be merged back with the A380 article. Otherwise, as the nominator said, it was PRODed, and then it wasn't improved. There's no reason to believe it will be improved any more this time around. Delete it if it's not merged. -SidewinderX (talk) 21:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or MergeThe A380 is the most significant plane launched in the past 40 years and there are very few routes thus far. It is of great interest to aviation enthusiasts to have this information in one location. This does not look like a "travel guide." --156.80.10.182 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 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 Closed This is the wrong venue- this needs to be discussed over at RFD, not here. Non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chrismahanukwanzakah[edit]
- Chrismahanukwanzakah (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)
Commerical catch phrase from early 2000's was finally deleted in 2007 but sneakily re-created. Time for this to go for good. Rasputin72 (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a soft redirect, this is not a matter for AfD- you may want to try WP:RFD- that would be the proper venue. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessary redirect. Besides, I always thought the correct terminology was Hanukwanzmas. Rolls off the tongue better. JBsupreme (talk) 11:19, 10 January 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 Guardians of Ga'Hoole. History preserved if anyone wants to merge it. Tone 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole)[edit]
- Soren (Guardians of Ga'Hoole) (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 originally merged into a parent article after the first AFD in 2008. The article since has been re-created, against the wishes of the community. All these paragraphs and an image of some fictitious owl. Actually, in looking at the edit history of the article, the merge was never executed for whatever reason. I suggest we just delete the article. Rasputin72 (talk) 08:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - The characters are a part of a very notable series, it should have been merged originally and it still should be. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the characters article, delete as second choice if for some reason that doesn't or can't happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to an appropriate character list, which was the conclusion of the previous AfD. Edward321 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 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. SNOW Tone 11:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Young Blu[edit]
- Young Blu (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)
Unsigned artist that doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't appear to meet WP:RS and WP:MUSIC. South Bay (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Who is this guy? No coverage or albums of note. Should have been speedied. Rasputin72 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely fails WP:MUSIC. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — No sources available and unsourced BLP. Gosox(55)(55) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete should have been speedied, both as failing to claim notability and as clear advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can not find in-depth coverage for this rapper in reliable sources; does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow Talk 08:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO; being mentioned in an up and coming blog is not sufficient. Cocytus [»talk«] 14:34, 14 January 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. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 04:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kuttettan[edit]
- Kuttettan (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 film Rasputin72 (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable in India is acceptable as notable for enWikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click on the Google news link above [14] and it says this was one of the memorable movies the late director was remembered for. If you searched through various popular newspapers in India [15] you'd find more mentions of this film. Dream Focus 04:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Indian newspapers aren't available online for the 1990s. This movie is currently termed as "memorable" and "success" by reliable sources, has a cast/crew of notables, should be enough for us to consider it to pass our guidelines in the hope that someone with access to print sources can expand the article. -SpacemanSpiff 04:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per SpacemanSpiff. Salih (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep per everyone. pablohablo. 14:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It appears to be notable enough. JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 13 January 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) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A-WING International[edit]
- A-WING International (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)
Nonworthy company. Spam. Rasputin72 (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 08:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: "Nonworthy" is a new one to me. Could the nominator please elucidate? -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. This company is not significant on any level, and there exists no reliable third party coverage of this company. Rasputin72 (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You speak with a stunning confidence that surely can only come from somebody who has already visited a large Japanese library and examined the Japanese-language CD-ROM-based and other subscription-only information on corporate affairs. Well done! You were fast; may I send you my own requests for library sleuthing? -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In your exhaustive research on this topic, Rasputin72, what did you conclude about the relationship between A-WING and 新日本電力? -- Hoary (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you can. Feel free to contact me with requests for archival research anytime. Thank you and have a nice day. Rasputin72 (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, db-corp, unless someone can come up with a claim to notability and a decent source. Hairhorn (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rasputin72 has already stated that none exists. He seems to have overlooked a story in the December '09 issue of 電設資材, for one. Unfortunately it's not a magazine to which I subscribe. Hairhorn, do you have it? -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I had a look at Google's translation of their site, and although the site was professional-looking they only had one press release (from last year) in their news archive. In any case, the article certainly doesn't assert notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, at least pending assertion of notability in the article. Perhaps Hoary can clarify why he believes the company is notable? 2help (message me) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe anything about the notability of the company. I'm merely astonished that a simple descriptive sentence can be labeled spam for a "nonworthy" company, and that anyone can so take so little time for a flat assertion that "there exists no reliable third party coverage" of any subject in Japan, a nation where a pitifully small percentage of putatively reliable sources are googlable or indeed on the web at all. -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia entries are for notable topics; this entry gives no particular reason to think the company is notable, that's why it's up for deletion. If you can demonstrate this company is notable, go ahead, there is no requirement that sources be online or in English. Hairhorn (talk) 00:54, 12 January 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) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Poker Game (film)[edit]
- The Poker Game (film) (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 reviews, well-known actors, IMDb entry, etc. for this independent, micro-budget film. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage in third party sources. Rasputin72 (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 16:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I did find a few sources verifying its existance, its lack of distribution and derth of awards all call toward it being non-notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:21, 10 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Laguna BelAir School[edit]
- Laguna BelAir 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)
no signifcance shown. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep and improve per the general precedent of keeping high schools. Though, I'm not sure I can provide a better reason than that to keep... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All high schools are notable. The article can be expanded and sourced with this article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer and this article from Manila Times. Cunard (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Cunard. JBsupreme (talk) 11:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a verifiable high school with sources available from which the page can be expanded. TerriersFan (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - high schools with verifiable sources are generally notable. Cocytus [»talk«] 14:24, 14 January 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 11:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yahweh and Allah[edit]
- Yahweh and Allah (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 presents a fringe view. At most the view could be presented in a small section in God, Monotheism, or some related article. The mainstream view is that there is one God, the creator of the Universe, and He was Jewish before He was Christian or Muslim. Borock (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Delete You are right. In any case, joining Yahweh and Allah as in the title doesn't make much sense. I think this should be merged but not into God but rather in existing Yahweh and Allah articles. I also doubt very much it will add much to the very well developed articles that exist under Yahweh and Allah. In God, a referral to Yahwen and to Allah pages is enough actually. werldwayd (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't "merge and delete". See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Fences&Windows 17:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Monotheism There is information here that is not in the monotheism article, and a comparison of the monotheistic religions' concepts of the supreme being clearly fits in the monotheism article. This Afd also addresses an important issue/dispute that has been discussed by RSs - namely - does the fact that the Jewish, Christian and Islamic religions have different concepts of the one, supreme being mean they are worshiping different gods? It also discusses the interesting fact that Arabic speaking Christians refer to God as "Allah". I will check and improve the refs. KeptSouth (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because Allah means the one God. So what else are they going to call Him? Also Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of Allah, so how could his God and theirs be different ones? Borock (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Monotheism As it as been sad, there is information here that is not in the monotheism article. This article also makes it look like there is one concept of God in the Bible(there by one concept of God for all Christians and Jews), that being that Yahweh is the Holy Trinity. Something that not all Christian hold too and the Jews do not hold too at all.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 10:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a sub-article of Christianity and Islam.--478jjjz (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Any useful material into Monotheism, I don't see any justification as a separate article. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I honestly do not like the way that this article is written, tossing off generalizations about what the Bible says and what the Quran says. However, I think that the topic that it raises is legitimate encyclopedic material. Regarding the Supreme Being that monotheists believe in, there is, as parts of the article point out, a strong disagreement among theologians about whether Allah and God/Yahweh are the same, or whether it's a case of hundreds of millions of heathens/unbelievers worshipping something different than what the person who holds the opinion worships. Perhaps this can be repackaged into something that doesn't sound like a Wikipedia editor's POV. Mandsford (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- despite being relatively well referenced this article seems to be written to express the POV of a Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the exactly opposite impression. The pope is quoted in an off-hand way after several Protestants had had their say, when really his statement is 1,000 times more important since he is the spokesperson for the largest Christian body. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- it is a notable topic about religious disputes in general. There are literally billions of people who argue about this subject, with very little who acknowledge that Arab Christians also use the term Allah. ADM (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is original research and, as the nom said, a fringe view. However a good article should be written about the identity of God in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I also noticed that the Jewish view (which is closer to the Islamic view) is left out of the article. This has the effect of making the differences between Islam and Christianity more pronounced. Kitfoxxe (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, possibly rename. I am for an article comparing and contrasting Yahwek and Allah, but I think it may need to be renamed to something like "comparisons between Yahweh and Allah" or something like that. The current title doesn't really give an excellent synopsis of what the article's topic is. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, rename, and cleanup Yes, it needs to cover Jewish thought, too--in fact, calling Yahweh the uniquely Christian name for God is.... dissonant at best. Really, per Backtable, we need a good article discussing the three great monotheisms' take on God. This current article is at best two legs of a three-legged stool, but deleting it won't really improve the encyclopedia. I specifically disagree with the OR assertion--I just went through it and only found the need to add one fact tag. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Neither Christian nor Jewish tradition uses the name Yahweh. It's used by scholars, the (New) Jerusalem Bible, some small sects &c. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, someone needs to research the tetragramaton....Strong Keep this is a well sourced article. I'd suggest anyone not familiar with the theology take a few minutes and review. Just make sure you understand the background...,.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually there is an article on Yahweh already. This article Yahweh and Allah doesn't add anything about the Yahweh information there.
- Comment - Jehovah's Witnesses have their take on Yahweh as well as distinct from either Judaism or Christianity. The name of the religious group is also based on a variant of Yahweh, namely Jehovah. So its not strictly the three monotheistic religions as such. The article doesn't reflect on this. werldwayd (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Monotheism or Abrahamic religions, where there's already similar, better written material. The current name doesn't work at all, and presupposes that Yahweh and Allah are different deities. If the article isn't merged, it needs a name that doesn't have this POV. -Mairi (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this article pushing a point of view any more than Conceptions of God which seems to argue that there all gods (true and false) are different ways of looking at the same supreme being.--478jjjz (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first sentence of the article: "Yahweh and Allah are the personal names of the Gods of the Bible and Qur’an, respectively." This is a fringe point of view. The mainstream view is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God. Note that it doesn't matter if God really exists or not for this discussion since it is about what people believe and/or what religions teach. (joke...If you are an atheist you should vote delete since that would mean that there is only one God that you need to disbelieve in not three.... joke.)Borock (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It also doesn't make much sense. If Allah is a personal name, why not Elohim, Adonai, Ho Theos ...? Ask someone who knows Arabic. They'll tell you that Allah is just a contraction of al ilah. Al is the Arabic definite article & ilah is a general term for god(s). Thus Allah corresponds literally to the New Testament's ho theos. Peter jackson (talk) 11:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first sentence of the article: "Yahweh and Allah are the personal names of the Gods of the Bible and Qur’an, respectively." This is a fringe point of view. The mainstream view is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims all believe in the same God. Note that it doesn't matter if God really exists or not for this discussion since it is about what people believe and/or what religions teach. (joke...If you are an atheist you should vote delete since that would mean that there is only one God that you need to disbelieve in not three.... joke.)Borock (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The title already implies a counterfactual and ahistoric distinction. I cannot find much merge-worthy in the article, either. Yes, a discussion of the identity of the Abrahamic god in Judaism, Christianity and Islam is a worthy topic for an article, but Yahweh and Allah is not that article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are already articles on Yahweh and Allah. Any similarities or differences should be apparent in those articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzeise (talk • contribs) 21:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am truly baffled that there are those arguing that original research concerns are unfounded or that this article is well-referenced. This article is clearly a pile of original research with deficient referencing and inaccuracies. The presence of a ref tag does not mean something is appropriately or sufficiently referenced, and it certainly doesn't exclude original research. If all of the original research and inaccuracies were removed from the article, the vast majority of material left would be radical evangelicals espousing the fringe belief that Allah and Yahweh are distinct gods, almost exclusively referenced to the evangelicals themselves. There is nothing to merge or preserve in this article. Any similar points that might be appropriate in another article need to be referenced to quality independent reliable sources and written according to such sources. Preserving original research, inaccurate information, and fringe assertions sourced to primary sources is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Vassyana (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I want to rescue the article, but "it's bad" is not a good reason for deletion - that's a good reason for a rewrite. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The validity of the topic, especially as framed, is quite disputable. That is a substantive deletion rationale. POV forks, such as this article, have been subject to deletion as such as long as I've been on the project. If there is little to no salvageable content, as in this instance, preservative reasons against deletion are not operative. Vassyana (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I want to rescue the article, but "it's bad" is not a good reason for deletion - that's a good reason for a rewrite. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As WP:OR and WP:Fringe. On the other hand an article on the fact that some Protestant figures have made this assertion could be written. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure that an article asserting that "Jesus was not Jewish" (another fringe view that is out there) would be quickly deleted. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:17, 16 January 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 keep, clear consensus, AFD started by blocked sockpuppet. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Burning Land[edit]
- The Burning Land (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)
possible spam, and wikipedia is not amazon.com Rasputin72 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The book was on a Scottish best-seller list, and I added three book reviews. - Eastmain (talk) 07:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I had not been finished with the article before Rasputin put up the deletion. Now that I am finished I wouldn't mind any comments or tips. Also if you search up any other books you'll probably find thousands of plot summaries and reviews. - --Virusguy5611 (talk) 17:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep notable book by bestselling author. I don't see the problem here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Eastmain. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 10 January 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 User:Malcolmxl5 non-admin closure Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Murphy martin[edit]
- Murphy martin (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, while well written and concise, seems to be about someone of rather insignificant standing in the world. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per A7, no indication of importance. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Textbook A7 Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:56, 10 January 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 keep, clear consensus, AFD started by blocked sockpuppet. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ruit van Bonjol[edit]
- Ruit van Bonjol (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)
trifling bauble of a medal. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What? A military decoration issued by a sovereign nation is notable. There are three references. A Dutch speaker could expand this, sure, but what is worthy of deletion? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article appears to have three good references, and I agree with Bradjamesbrown that "A military decoration issued by a sovereign nation is notable." And even if I thought the article should be deleted, I would avoid terminology such as "trifling bauble of a medal". — Eastmain (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - this is a bit of a strange nomination. All it needs is translation from the Dutch, and there are good dead-tree sources at the Dutch version. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:14, 10 January 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 04:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parrot AR.Drone[edit]
- Parrot AR.Drone (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 quadricopter toy. If it had a camera with a decent resolution (they are only 640x480), I might think about buying one! No evidence of notabilty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23]. Joe Chill (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I was too lazy to start this myself, I am glad someone else did. Its been in every paper and news show since the introduction at a trade show. The nominator could have looked at the 216,000 GHits or the 610 GNewsHits, and maybe read one or two first, before the nomination. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Nominator happens to be an admin... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment : Just a note that, it is a first time product. The camera will improve as time goes on.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep : This is a first time product, no others exist... If this was non-notable then even iPod fails the notability test... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Interesting technology, and probably the start of a whole series of such toys. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why is it when I use Google news it doesn't show anything? Joe Chill's links work, it called "parrot ar.drone" in the news articles. Dream Focus 05:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been having trouble with Google News for a few weeks now. For the New York Times I can find the links to an article through the Google web search, but they I haven't been able to find the same article in Google News. Some tinkering by Google must be going on. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Joe Chill, I see sufficient sources. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Joe Chill, had detailed coverage in quality independent sources such as the Guardian link thats added to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:34, 13 January 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 deletion, A7, non-notable company. —C.Fred (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Music Maniac Records[edit]
- Music Maniac 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)
No indication how this subject is important. Guess what...I started a music label and sell tapes out of the trunk of my 1978 Dodge. Can I have an article on Wikipedia too? Rasputin72 (talk) 05:36, 10 January 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) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Lebanese people (Venezuela)[edit]
- List of Lebanese people (Venezuela) (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)
Wikipedia is not a site for lists of all possible types. The hilarity is compounded by this "list" only having one person! Rasputin72 (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This kind of list should only be created when it becomes too large to fit into the article Lebanese Venezuelan. Since Lebanese Venezuelan has not even been created, that day has not yet come. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sole point of this page seems to be that Tarek Saab, a very important person in Venezuelan politics, is of Lebanese ancestry. Noted. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 10 January 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 (G11). It's not just possible spam; it is spam. —C.Fred (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott ko[edit]
- Scott ko (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. Possible Spam. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:20, 10 January 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christi Sanders[edit]
- Christi Sanders (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, self serving, probably written by child of the subject. Possible conflict of interest. Unsourced. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very cute but should be deleted, no significant coverage of the subject, probably a great mom though. J04n(talk page) 05:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While one could probably write an article about this Christi Sanders, the one we have here isn't notable. Very cute, but not notable. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : This should've been a CSD A7 anyway... --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 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) 00:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Willie Baptist[edit]
- Willie Baptist (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 can't see any sign of notability, his greatest "claim to fame" being ambiguous "involvement" in some uprisings and industrial disputes. Google search throws up an interview, his profile on the website of the organisation he works for and Twitter. HJMitchell You rang? 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, if its on Twitter it must be notable...NOT. Delete. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems more notable than Christi Sanders... but still... Should've been a CSD A7 --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:57, 11 January 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn by myself, no arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Democratic Party (UK, 1998)[edit]
- Democratic Party (UK, 1998) (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 don't think this party is notable. It's not clear if it is still operating (they are still registered, but their website is defunct, last updated in 2005)[24][25], but regardless they never picked up significant coverage.
They got an AP story when they launched in 1998,[26] a little bit of passing press when the Earl of Burford stood for them in 1999 against Michael Portillo in the Kensington and Chelsea by-election,[27][28][29] and some more passing mentions when one of the founding members, Alan Kilshaw, became involved in a scandal involving buying babies[30][31] (wot, no Wikipedia article?), but I don't think the WP:GNG is satisfied.
The Guardian called them "obscure" in 1999 and I don't think the following decade changed matters. If they're judged notable I'd be happy to bash the article into shape. Fences&Windows 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 04:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I think the 1998-1999 coverage establishes notability. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above about notability being permanent. Note also that an entry about this group appears in The History of British Political Parties which would definitely count as coverage in a reliable source at a level well above trivial. Keresaspa (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the coverage scrapes over the WP:GNG line, which I'm comfortable with because I think it sensible to lean towards including articles for borderline political parties (as opposed to borderline reality TV contestants!). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 11 January 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. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
York Region municipal elections, 2010[edit]
- York Region municipal elections, 2010 (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)
Blank "placeholder" article about 9 months premature. Non Notable. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, still working on these pages... And, I'm not sure how an election in an area with 1 million people is not notable, but okay... -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not premature. Some candidates are already in the running, and municipalities have set up web pages for the election. - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a national or even a state election. For the rest of the world, it is routine news, not worthy of a permanent article. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, of course. As per Eastmain. 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Andrew (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10
- Strong Delete Geeteshgadkari says it best. National and legislative elections are inherently notable, but the precedent of keeping tabs on every mayoral and city council election (or county government election) in the world is revolting to think about. While the outcome of the local elections in this part of Ontario is important to the author, it is of no more significance than the results of a local election in Charikar or Shijak or Ghardaia or any of the millions of cities on the planet. One of my favorite sentences from WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)January 2010[reply]
- See Category:Mayoral elections. While there may not be an actual policy explicitly favouring them, as long as they're referenced city council elections are generally treated as permissible and keepable article topics. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. This article will unquestionably grow over time, and already has useful information. I'd love it if we had articles on elections in Charikar and Shijak, and I look forward to the day we do. I can't comprehend how new content can be considered "revolting." - SimonP (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is redundant because Ontario municipal elections, 2010 covers the same ground. I also note that there's no article for York Region municipal elections, 2006, which would be redundant in view that the subject is covered by Ontario municipal elections, 2006. PKT(alk) 00:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that comparable articles do exist for places in other countries, this isn't delete-worthy solely on the basis of being local. That said, I do wonder if this is the most appropriate and useful organization of it. Do we really need the provincial overview article and city-specific articles and a regional-level omnibus? We should do one of three things: (a) not do individual city-level articles for the municipalities involved here, and list their results only in this article, (b) have the provincial level article link to this article instead of directly providing individual summaries for these municipalities, (c) keep the province and city level articles but ditch this one. No vote yet; just two cents for the pot. Although I may come back with an actual preference later on. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to clarify, York Region is the city/local level of government in this area, which is an amalgamation of the former city governments in the region. Ivanvector (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bearcat ... as I understand it, the most pertinent question is whether this material should be (i) kept on one article page, (ii) broken down into several individual pages, or (iii) merged into a larger page dealing with provincial elections. I have no opinion on this question per se, and I think this is the sort of thing we should determine on a case-by-case basis (wherein one key factor is how long the pages are likely to be). For that reason, my vote is to keep the page for now while reserving the option of merging it to a larger page, or splitting it, at some point in the future. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge: to Ontario municipal elections, 2010. There will be multiple reliable sources covering these events, and there are already a few. DigitalC (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but make sure that any events on the page are well sourced, and any unsourced speculation is removed. There is plenty of precedent for "future election" articles like this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep or Merge to Ontario municipal elections, 2010 as mentioned. However keep in mind that election dates are set by Ontario law, such that we could theoretically create these pages for every future election in the province. I think the threshold here is that there are declared candidates for this one. Ivanvector (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Non-blank, and apt to be come even more non-blank well before the elections, hence is not 9 months premature. Groups of elections are notable, hence notability is not a real issue here. Collect (talk) 15:28, 18 January 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 a3, no meaningful content, refers to made-up slang at a single middle school. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tapcent![edit]
- Tapcent! (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)
Seems a bit trivial for a stand alone article. Plus sourcing is a bit lacking. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:42, 10 January 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) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will Robson[edit]
- Will Robson (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)
Sculptor and mosaic artist. Creator has obvious CoI. Is he notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
The article should be kept for the following reasons: the artist in question lived in Jamaica, and contributed to the tapestry of the Jamaican art scene whilst he was there. He was sought out and got commissions for five star, international rated hotels. Please note, that these weren't just local inns, and these projects were not tendered for, but he was invited to, as seen by him being chosen for Expo 92. If you look at this link (http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20071104/arts/arts1.html ) Jane Issa, who is a member of the Issa family who are owners of major hotel chains in Jamaica and the Caribbean, mentions Will and Margaret by (misspelt, sur)name. This article was done seven years after he left Jamaica and it shows that Will Robson has left his mark on the arts and crafts scene in that part of the world.
With regards to conflict of interest, I do take some sort of umbrage at this claim, because I am coming from the aspect of recording a person who contributed to the Jamaican art scene and the last time I recall, Wikipedia was dedicated to notable persons WORLDWIDE and not just artists in Europe or the USA. Sometimes these people do not get pinged on the google search, because said search is skewed towards American and European based artists. For example, if you look at the Wiki entry for Barrington Watson, who is a world noted Jamaican artist, he only has a stub, which is shameful. In addition, the notion of an online presence and the digital age didn't take root until 2001 (co incidentally, when wikipedia got its first start) and as such, the artist in question should not be penalised because articles about him are in newspaper archives, which can only be viewed on payment. In addition, with regards to other artists in terms of their presence online, its basically press releases put out by galleries, which is a form of self promotion.
In conclusion, as much as I can appreciate why one would think of my entry being a conflict of interest, the only conflict of interest is that I am a Jamaican, and that if I'm not moved to put notable Jamaicans forward, who will?Jazzypom (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO, not to mention one of the most obvious WP:COI/WP:SPAM cases I've ever seen. Why on earth does this guy think we should host his resume? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Andrew Lenahan's claims, on his entry in wikipedia how many times is his website listed, and if that is not advertising, I do not know what that is, and in terms of notability what is notable about Gary Jones http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Jones_%28footballer_born_1977%29. Is that entry anything more than a resume about what the guy has done? What is it with wikipedia and footballers? The whole thing about spam with regards to this article that I have posted is an unfair criticism.Jazzypom (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Figuring out whether an artist is notable is a tricky question, but without reliable sources, I can't figure it out. I'm leaning delete unless this can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST, though this is admittedly hard for a modern mosaicist to do. Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem encyclopedic or notable...Modernist (talk) 21:17, 12 January 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. It seems here that there are two different grounds on what should happen with this article. Both sides have a few strong points, and a few weak points. However, it doesn't seem to be weighted in one way or the other, so this is a NC closure. (X! · talk) · @755 · 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peel Region municipal elections, 2010[edit]
- Peel Region municipal elections, 2010 (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)
simple placeholder article does no good. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm still working on this... Plus, I found your comment on my user page to be very rude, and uncalled for. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. And what comment was that exactly? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Have a nice evening". Your sarcasm was unnecessary. And if it wasn't intended to be sarcasm, I hope you understand why that it would be conveyed as such. AfD debates always ruin my evenings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. That was not intended to be sarcasm, but a friendly coda to my message. I don't see that using wikipedia and having a nice evening are mutually exclusive activities. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is putting a damper an un otherwise nice evening... Anyways, I would like to see some debate here. It's no longer just a placeholder. Why should it now still be deleted? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. And what comment was that exactly? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not premature. Some candidates are already in the running, and municipalities have set up web pages for the election. - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a national or even a state election. For the rest of the world, it is routine news, not worthy of a permanent article. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed", nor of everything that has happened or is going to happen. There are, literally, millions of municipalities on the planet, many of which will have an election this year. There is no inherent right to use Wikipedia to keep tabs on what's happening in one's own backyard. The elections in the Peel Region of Ontario are no more notable than those in, say, Franklin County, Nebraska. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are, Peel Region as over 1 million people. Plus, we have decided on Wikipedia that municipal elections are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it in WP:ELECTION. Please let me know which policy you're referring to about inherent notability. As noted, there have been millions of municipal elections over the years, so it would be crazy to count those for automatic entitlement. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my country, we have 604 districts each with a population of 1 million and each undergoing its own local election every 5 years. I don't think we should keep adding articles for all of them every 5 years. These elections are not notable to anyone in the rest of the world. Also, for "we have decided on Wikipedia that...[citation needed]". --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Category:Mayoral elections. While there may not be an actual policy explicitly favouring them, as long as they're referenced city council elections are generally treated as permissible and keepable article topics. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ELECTION pertains to internal Wikipedia process, not to determining the notability or non-notability of outside-world elections. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In my country, we have 604 districts each with a population of 1 million and each undergoing its own local election every 5 years. I don't think we should keep adding articles for all of them every 5 years. These elections are not notable to anyone in the rest of the world. Also, for "we have decided on Wikipedia that...[citation needed]". --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it in WP:ELECTION. Please let me know which policy you're referring to about inherent notability. As noted, there have been millions of municipal elections over the years, so it would be crazy to count those for automatic entitlement. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Region municipal elections, 2010. - SimonP (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is redundant because Ontario municipal elections, 2010 covers the same ground. I also note that there's no article for Peel Region municipal elections, 2006, which would be redundant in view that the subject is covered by Ontario municipal elections, 2006. PKT(alk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's the better way to handle this type of information. It's not that I'm against municipal elections per se, or that I think the results need to be suppressed. As part of an article about the province, state, region, that's okay. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to prevent that page from getting to lengthy. Ontario has a lot of municipalities. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that comparable articles do exist for places in other countries, this isn't delete-worthy solely on the basis of being local. That said, I do wonder if this is the most appropriate and useful organization of it. Do we really need the provincial overview article and city-specific articles and a regional-level omnibus? We should do one of three things: (a) not do individual city-level articles for the municipalities involved here, and list their results only in this article, (b) have the provincial level article link to this article instead of directly providing individual summaries for these municipalities, (c) keep the province and city level articles but ditch this one. No vote yet; just two cents for the pot. Although I may come back with an actual preference later on. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Bearcat ... as I understand it, the most pertinent question is whether this material should be (i) kept on one article page, (ii) broken down into several individual pages, or (iii) merged into a larger page dealing with provincial elections. I have no opinion on this question per se, and I think this is the sort of thing we should determine on a case-by-case basis (wherein one key factor is how long the pages are likely to be). For that reason, my vote is to keep the page for now while reserving the option of merging it to a larger page, or splitting it, at some point in the future. CJCurrie (talk) 02:16, 12 January 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. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carmel (film)[edit]
- Carmel (film) (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 is about a movie that fails WP:CRYSTAL and does not cite sources other than IMDb. Would not be opposed to recreation when the movie is notable. Gosox(55)(55) 04:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to fix it by editing and revising it, but the production section still makes no sense to me. The movie also has no set release date from what i could find. Most of the information at this point is listed on its imdb page and does not have much relevance on wikipedia currently. However, once a release date is announced and the movie has its own website, I can see it having an article on wikipedia.Dflav1138 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep I feel like everything Schmidt has done helped make the article clearer and more relevant. The law suit stands out as information that helps people understand the delay of the filming, and makes this film just as notable as any other film. Dflav1138 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and continue improvements. I performed some additional expansion and cleanup, but only after User:Dflav1138. In reading available sources, I was able to make better sense of the article and perform copyedit, expansion, and further sourcing. With respects to the moderator's WP:BEFORE, the article now includes easily found sources per Dflav1138 and myself. Further, WP:CRYSTAL specifically states: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." As filming began last February and the project is receiving coverage in multiple reliable sources, along with coverage because of its many notable actors, I believe notability as been established and it is of benefit to the project to allow this article to remain and be further improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements by editors Dflav1138 , MichaelQSchmidt , DreamFocus and Hebrides. Noteability now seems well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:23, 13 January 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. (X! · talk) · @751 · 17:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles[edit]
- List of artists by total number of U.S. number-one singles (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)
From the article's title, it appears that this page intends to list every artist who has topped the Billboard Hot 100 along with the title of each of their number songs, which I believe is an excessive listing of statistics. From the article's content, it might be a list of the artists with the highest number of number ones, which is already included in the List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. Liqudluck✽talk 04:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per issues raised above. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 05:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looking at the article's edit history for the last couple of years, I don't see any major increases in size, as would occur if someone was trying to expand the article to cover every artist who has topped the Billboard Hot 100. Rather, the article is limited only to listing the nine artists who have had at least 10 #1's each and their respective chart-topping songs. As long as the article remains limited in scope -- and seemingly, it has remained limited for the last couple of years -- I don't see a problem here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't see this as being improved without destroying the original concept. This has never been anything other than a list of nine artists, as a click on any part of the [history] will demonstrate. For those nine artists, it provides, in a bulky, unreadable form, data on the name of each number one song, the year of its release, the number of weeks it remained at number one. Anyone expecting to find a true list of artists by number of #1 hits will not see it here. If kept, call it what it is, Detailed analysis of the nine best-selling musical artists since 1955 instead of this misleading title. Mandsford (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above. High-maintenance list. This is a database query, not an encyclopedia article. --John Nagle (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No opinion on the merits of this article at this time, except to say that if kept this should be renamed to something like "list of musicians by total number of U.S. number-one singles". "Artists" is vague and POV. ThemFromSpace 22:58, 10 January 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. per A7 by User:PMDrive1061 JForget 04:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mohibur Rahman[edit]
- Mohibur Rahman (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 person WuhWuzDat 03:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable.Jarhed (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 16:08, 11 January 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 keep. Nominator withdrew nomination, no delete !votes (non-admin closure) — ækTalk 21:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tatsuya Suzuki (born 1988)[edit]
- Tatsuya Suzuki (born 1988) (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 is about an athlete who has never played in a fully-pro league and there are no references available to meet the general notability guideline. A proposed deletion was contested because an editor confused this person with the Tatsuya Suzuki born in 1982 - who is a notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw - I did confirm that he made one meaningless appearance after Frontale had progressed from the 2007 ACL group stages. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jogurney (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Following translated official team page (as well as the related jp.wiki page) shows an appearance in the Asian Champions League against a Thai professional side in 2007. (Just) meets WP:Athlete. Camw (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The page also referenced the Japanese wikipedia page on this player which also very clearly shows the 2007 AFC Champions League appearance. The player unequestionably meets WP:ATHLETE. In addition, I think prodding pages that exist in other Wikipedia's is not the best course of action; and they'd be best taken to AFD. Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 10 January 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. henrik•talk 06:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zenel bej Begolli[edit]
- Zenel bej Begolli (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:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Athenean (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Keep as a member of the Assembly of Vlora. The nature of a national declaration of independence is that it is issued by a body that has some of the characteristics of a national parliament and national government. The United States Declaration of Independence, for example, was issued by the Second Continental Congress. In the case of Albania, its declaration was enacted by the Assembly of Vlora, which was a national assembly. Arguably, then, each signatory of a national declaration of independence is automatically notable as a member of a national parliament or the equivalent. Also worth noting is the fact that all or almost all the people who signed the United States Declaration of Independence are also notable for reasons other than having signed the declaration and participated in the Second Continental Congress, whether as political or military leaders or for other reasons. This is a strong hint that the same is true for signatories of other national declarations of independence. As indicated in Albanian Declaration of Independence, the signatories are known as the Founding fathers (Albanian: Baballaret e kombit) of the Albanian modern state. - Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge: I see no reason keeping one line articles.Alexikoua (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge There is no reason to create an article that says nothing more than "________ was one of the signatories of Albanian Declaration of Independence" other than for the achievement of having been the first person to create a page. However, it's a limited achievement if one has no intention of trying to learn anything more about Zenel bej Begolli. Mandsford (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep each signatory of the Albanan independence or member of the Assembly of Vlora, for many reasons. First for talk's reasons. Second. These people were not important only for their signatures. They were not invited in vain, but as the best representatives of Albanian regions at that time. All the muslim names were given the title of "Bey" which signified that they had important military achievement for the Ottoman empire under their belt; in addition they were important land-owners, which makes them the equivalent of a nobleman in the western world. For this reason they were virtually unknown or wantedly so during the communist regime in Albania as the government didn't want to put big landowner names in the History of Albania (they were basically deprived of all their wealth), hence little has been written about them during the communist regime. However historians don't stop their research even in communist times and work much more after those time. They find that these people were the most important politicians of Albania at the turn of the XXth century. Extremely important for WP:NOTABLE. Keep in mind that you will see the greek plethora of ptolion, athenean, megistias, alexikoua make it very hard for these people to remain in Wikipedia through this voting. Most of these Albanian polititians are from Chameria hence the greeks want them deleted at any cost from the English speaking encyclopedia.sulmues (talk) --Sulmues 14:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 13:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, maybe not. WP:POLITICIAN covers "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office...
members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. (Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.") Which part of WP:POLITICIAN does he pass? Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Albanian Declaration of Independence. The article can be recreated if content is found which is not already at the Albanian Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:49, 12 January 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 Albanian Declaration of Independence. I would also encourage Sulmues to read over the canvassing policy and this essay (X! · talk) · @750 · 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dervish bej Ipeku[edit]
- Dervish bej Ipeku (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:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Athenean (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasoning of Eastmain in [32]. *Keep each signatory of the Albanan independence or member of the Assembly of Vlora also for the following: These people were not important only for their signatures. They were not invited in vain, but as the best representatives of Albanian regions at that time. All the muslim names were given the title of "Bey" which signified that they had important military achievement for the Ottoman empire under their belt; in addition they were important land-owners, which makes them the equivalent of a nobleman in the western world. For this reason they were virtually unknown or wantedly so during the communist regime in Albania as the government didn't want to put big landowner names in the History of Albania (they were basically deprived of all their wealth), hence little has been written about them during the communist regime. However historians don't stop their research even in communist times and work much more after those time. They find that these people were the most important politicians of Albania at the turn of the XXth century. Extremely important for WP:NOTABLE. Keep in mind that you will see the greek plethora of ptolion, athenean, megistias, alexikoua make it very hard for these people to remain in Wikipedia through this voting. Most of these Albanian polititians are from Chameria hence the greeks want them deleted at any cost from the English speaking encyclopedia.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)--Sulmues 14:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge: As per nominator. @Sulmues: the person isnt from Chameria, if you find him notable, why you dont search for some additional info instead of canvassing [[33]]? Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Instead of deleting the Albanian founding fathers why do you add useless articles about Northern Epirus agents, paid by the Greek government to create instability in Post WWII Albania, such as Panteleimon Kotokos and Eulogios Kourilas?(talk)--Sulmues 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 13:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Albanian Declaration of Independence. The article can be recreated if content is found which is not already at the Albanian Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:49, 12 January 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. henrik•talk 07:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hajdin bej Draga[edit]
- Hajdin bej Draga (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:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Athenean (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence until someone cares enough about bej Draga to learn more about him. There's no achievement in creating this article. It's like getting a girl pregnant and then saying "good luck to both of you". Mandsford (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasoning of Eastmain in [34]. *Keep each signatory of the Albanan independence or member of the Assembly of Vlora also for the following: These people were not important only for their signatures. They were not invited in vain, but as the best representatives of Albanian regions at that time. All the muslim names were given the title of "Bey" which signified that they had important military achievement for the Ottoman empire under their belt; in addition they were important land-owners, which makes them the equivalent of a nobleman in the western world. For this reason they were virtually unknown or wantedly so during the communist regime in Albania as the government didn't want to put big landowner names in the History of Albania (they were basically deprived of all their wealth), hence little has been written about them during the communist regime. However historians don't stop their research even in communist times and work much more after those time. They find that these people were the most important politicians of Albania at the turn of the XXth century. Extremely important for WP:NOTABLE. Keep in mind that you will see the greek plethora of ptolion, athenean, megistias, alexikoua make it very hard for these people to remain in Wikipedia through this voting. Most of these Albanian polititians are from Chameria hence the greeks want them deleted at any cost from the English speaking encyclopedia.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)--Sulmues 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to Albanian Declaration of Independence.Alexikoua (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:POLITICIAN covers "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office... members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. (Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.") Mr. bej Draga will live on as a redirect, until someone can write a real article about him. Mandsford (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Albanian Declaration of Independence. The article can be recreated if content is found which is not already at the Albanian Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:49, 12 January 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. henrik•talk 07:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bedri bej Ipeku[edit]
- Bedri bej Ipeku (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:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Athenean (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence. At least the nominator, unlike the article's creator, tried to find something out about bej Ipeku. Please, no lectures about how he's inherently notable because he signed a notable document. He will live on as a search term, and maybe someone who is interested in contributing to an encyclopedia will find out more about him. Mandsford (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasonging of Eastmain in [35]. Keep each signatory of the Albanan independence or member of the Assembly of Vlora also for the following: These people were not important only for their signatures. They were not invited in vain, but as the best representatives of Albanian regions at that time. All the muslim names were given the title of "Bey" which signified that they had important military achievement for the Ottoman empire under their belt; in addition they were important land-owners, which makes them the equivalent of a nobleman in the western world. For this reason they were virtually unknown or wantedly so during the communist regime in Albania as the government didn't want to put big landowner names in the History of Albania (they were basically deprived of all their wealth), hence little has been written about them during the communist regime. However historians don't stop their research even in communist times and work much more after those time. They find that these people were the most important politicians of Albania at the turn of the XXth century. Extremely important for WP:NOTABLE. Keep in mind that you will see the greek plethora of ptolion, athenean, megistias, alexikoua make it very hard for these people to remain in Wikipedia through this voting. Most of these Albanian polititians are from Chameria hence the greeks want them deleted at any cost from the English speaking encyclopedia.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)--Sulmues 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge: As per nominator. @Sulmues: the person isnt from Chameria, if you find him notable, why you dont search for some additional info instead of canvassing [[36]]? Alexikoua (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. I invite everyone to read WP:POLITICIAN. Mandsford (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Albanian Declaration of Independence. The article can be recreated if content is found which is not already at the Albanian Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:48, 12 January 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. henrik•talk 07:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dhimitër Zografi[edit]
- Dhimitër Zografi (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:NOTABLE and WP:ONEEVENT. While the Declaration is itself notable, and many of its signatories are as well, it does not appear that this individual is notable for anything other than his signature. I cannot find anything about him in the literature. Since he is already listed at Albanian Declaration of Independence, Delete or Merge. Athenean (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Keep as a member of the Assembly of Vlora. The nature of a national declaration of independence is that it is issued by a body that has some of the characteristics of a national parliament and national government. The United States Declaration of Independence, for example, was issued by the Second Continental Congress. In the case of Albania, its declaration was enacted by the Assembly of Vlora, which was a national assembly. Arguably, then, each signatory of a national declaration of independence is automatically notable as a member of a national parliament or the equivalent. Also worth noting is the fact that all or almost all the people who signed the United States Declaration of Independence are also notable for reasons other than having signed the declaration and participated in the Second Continental Congress, whether as political or military leaders or for other reasons. This is a strong hint that the same is true for signatories of other national declarations of independence. As indicated in Albanian Declaration of Independence, the signatories are known as the Founding fathers (Albanian: Baballaret e kombit) of the Albanian modern state. - Eastmain (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Albanian Declaration of Independence until someone cares enough about Mr. Zografi to actualy write something about him, such as where he was from, who he was, etc.. There are several articles that say nothing more than "________ was one of the signatories of Albanian Declaration of Independence", which is nothing more than what we already know. I have zero respect for someone who creates a stub with no intention of working on it. Mandsford (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above (Delete as second choice). Presumably notable, but unless someone actually bothers finding sources and expanding the artcle, it can't stay. An article with no information is worse than no article at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same over at Veli Gërra, Jakup Veseli, Azis Tahir Ajdonati, Taq Tutulani, and Rexhep Demi. Is there a way to create a centralized AfD for a whole bunch of similar articles? --Athenean (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasonging of Eastmain above. Keep each signatory of the Albanan independence or member of the Assembly of Vlora also for the following: These people were not important only for their signatures. They were not invited in vain, but as the best representatives of Albanian regions at that time. All the muslim names were given the title of "Bey" which signified that they had important military achievement for the Ottoman empire under their belt; in addition they were important land-owners, which makes them the equivalent of a nobleman in the western world. For this reason they were virtually unknown or wantedly so during the communist regime in Albania as the government didn't want to put big landowner names in the History of Albania (they were basically deprived of all their wealth), hence little has been written about them during the communist regime. However historians don't stop their research even in communist times and work much more after those time. They find that these people were the most important politicians of Albania at the turn of the XXth century. Extremely important for WP:NOTABLE. Keep in mind that you will see the greek plethora of ptolion, athenean, megistias, alexikoua make it very hard for these people to remain in Wikipedia through this voting. Most of these Albanian polititians are from Chameria hence the greeks want them deleted at any cost from the English speaking encyclopedia.sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 14:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)--Sulmues 14:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. kedadial 13:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think he does. WP:POLITICIAN covers "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office... members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges.... Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. (Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article.") This is a case of creating an article just for the thrill of creating an article. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge into Albanian Declaration of Independence. The article can be recreated if content is found which is not already at the Albanian Declaration of Independence article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per norm (or Merge).Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 12 January 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. (X! · talk) · @748 · 16:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Lotu5[edit]
- DJ Lotu5 (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)
Prior AFD indicated there was a lack of sources and the AFD had low participation, so I am restoring and re-nominating as non-notable for lack of reliable sources notability to gain better consensus. MBisanz talk 04:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this personality is not notable. There is a lack of 3rd party references, despite claims that he/she has undertaken various programs, such as aiding potential illegal immigrants. If these were really significant undertakings I would expect to see some 3rd party news coverage at least, but alas, my searches have found nothing.58.170.83.117 (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lack of 3rd party references? A current google news search:
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=micha+cardenas
shows 490 news article about the art project the Transborder Immigrant Tool.
There is also a current article in Art21, a PBS series about 21st century artists, which since the article is about an artist, seems like a very reputable 3rd party reference:
Perhaps the Los Angeles Times is a reliable 3rd party source?
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/05/freephone-project.html
Or an educational site, the Center for Research in Computing and the Arts at UCSD.edu?
Lotu5 (talk) 06:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for your he/she comment, I would hope that Wikipedia editors could at very least follow the AP stylebook guidelines for journalism stating that:
Use the pronoun preferred by the individuals who have acquired the physical characteristics (by hormone therapy, body modification, or surgery) of the opposite sex and present themselves in a way that does not correspond with their sex at birth. If that preference is not expressed, use the pronoun consistent with the way the individuals live publicly.
Since the article is about a person who has received hormone therapy and presents as a woman, there is no acceptable reason to say he/she, aside from being a sexist slur. Lotu5 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia editors generally follow Wikipedia's guideline's, as opposed to those put forward by other entities, and acceptability is determined by a consensus of the contributors. We also ask that you assume good faith; my previous unsigned comment used the he/she construct to avoid insult, not to cause it. I reached my conclusions based on searches using the article's name, which returned no third party references. As you've demonstrated, when searching using the name Micha Cárdenas, there is some third party coverage. As a result, I have withdrawn my previous unsigned comment. No hard feelings? Handschuh-talk to me 13:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per evidence presented by Lotu5 and further independent sources covering his/her work at the Mexican border (NBC Chicago, East Valley Tribune (originally AP)) and his/her artistic activities (The Daily Aztec, PhysOrg.com). It is possible to expand/fix the current (COI?) version using reliable third party sources. In my opinion, the artist and activist Micha Cardenas meets general notability guideline. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete and recreate article as Micha Cárdenas. Subject's involvement with Transborder Immigration Tool software is probably notable, though subject is generally only pictured and acknowledged in news articles I've read. Other links provided show some hints of notability, though there is nothing to indicate that this pseudonym of the person is notable. Even the PBS (blog) link provided uses a different name for this person as an artist. The only consistently verifiable name for subject is Micha Cárdenas. I suggest deletion and recreation as the article being considered has a significant WP:COI feel to it. Vulture19 (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with renaming to Micha Cárdenas. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How's about we split the difference and just move the article without deleting and recreating it? Handschuh-talk to me 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Vejvančický (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How's about we split the difference and just move the article without deleting and recreating it? Handschuh-talk to me 13:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:33, 10 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Acoustic Live Radio Show[edit]
- Acoustic Live Radio Show (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)
unofficial ep without significant coverage in reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." In this case, I can find no such coverage. Gongshow Talk 02:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is little more than a track list, without sources that establish notability. Yappy2bhere (talk) 14:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article states it's not official, and was only available as a digital download. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:57, 14 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slim da Mobster[edit]
- Slim da Mobster (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 enough to have an article of its own. Source could be placed on the article Detox (Dr. Dre album) but the artist has not released any material of his own. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Close but not yet, the MTV article cited in the article is a good first step but there is nothing else that I could find. Does not yet meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 15:15, 10 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mazaradi Fox (rapper)[edit]
- Mazaradi Fox (rapper) (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 artist; signed to a label but has not released an album. Possible suggestion: redirect article to label. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:23, 10 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hayes (rapper)[edit]
- Hayes (rapper) (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 artist; merely reference in an MTV article Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, doesn't warrant its own article. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: for obvious reasons. South Bay (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sources demonstrating notability since I tagged it. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one Google news hit, can't even tell if it's him. Does not seem to pass WP:MUSICBIO due to a lack of significant coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:49, 14 January 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 11:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gedeon G. Quijano[edit]
- Gedeon G. Quijano (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 entirely sure of notability of subject. Has two independent references, but the vast majority of the information is uncited. Miyagawa (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How is a governor of Misamis Occidental; which I believe are effectively first-level national subdivisions in the Philippines lacking in notability? If it's not true, then delete, because I can't find independent confirmation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A number of sources verify he was a provincial governor. He therefore passes WP:POLITICIAN easily. The article could do with some work though. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Gedeon Quijano; passes WP:POLITICIAN easily. Ditch the middle initial. –Howard the Duck 07:15, 17 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liquor, Weed & Food Stamps[edit]
- Liquor, Weed & Food Stamps (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 sign of notability: no news hits, the Google hits are only directory entries and download sites. Contested prod. Fences&Windows 01:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. I'm not finding 3rd party coverage either RadioFan (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bizarre discography. J04n(talk page) 02:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete mixtapes aren't usually notable per WP:MUSIC. No sources to make this an exception. ~DC Talk To Me 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing on Google news, appears to fail WP:NALBUMS due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 13:40, 14 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The New Dibble Show[edit]
- The New Dibble Show (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 can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:48, 10 January 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) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gemini Issue Tracker[edit]
- Gemini Issue Tracker (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. I cannot find any significant third-party coverage that would indicate this passes the general notability guideline. Article written by two fresh single-purpose accounts. Haakon (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable and an Advertisement masquerading as an article--Hu12 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get this Delete thing as you have other articles like Fortress (software) that are not deleted. Can someone explain why Gemini Issue Tracker is more of an advert than other articles for similar products? KennyLids (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Request made on page for other users to contribute to the article KennyLids (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- With all due respect, a product that has been voted as the best in it's category by The Code Project (read: millions of Software Professionals), should be recognised. Furthermore, can you tell how another similar article Fortress (software) is notable and this is not? Would welcome your guidance. KennyLids (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that other stuff exists; Wikipedia is work in progress and cannot be expected to be consistent yet; instead there are guidelines that should guide all articles. It looks to me like Fortress (software) fails notability, and someone should perhaps nominate it for deletion, but that is not an argument to keep this article. You need to find significant third-party coverage of the product to indicate it passes WP:GNG; if that is not possible, then there is no notability (and I have looked and come up with nothing). Haakon (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added more notability by providing links to Gemini Issue Tracker as used by National Health Service and Math.net. KennyLids (talk)
- I removed the section, given it had no independent, reliable sources. I didn't notice the AfD until after. The article need independent, reliable sources that demonstrate it's notability. --Ronz (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added DotNetNuke as Notable User back in again this time with link to actual reference that proves usage credibility. 81.134.96.171 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a self-published source, and I've tagged as such. It's of no help in establishing notability. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I am sure the guys over at DotNetNuke can update the page to confirm the source. Is that OK? 81.134.70.240 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that anything written by DotNetNuke would be acceptable because they wouldn't be considered a reliable source for such information that demonstrate the notability of Gemini. --Ronz (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I am sure the guys over at DotNetNuke can update the page to confirm the source. Is that OK? 81.134.70.240 (talk) 17:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a self-published source, and I've tagged as such. It's of no help in establishing notability. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obvious spam. Zero google books or news archve hits. Mr. KennyLids is welcome to nominate for deletion similar articles that fail WP:GNG. Pcap ping 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establishnotability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:11, 11 January 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avraham Qanai[edit]
- Avraham Qanai (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 — questionable notability. [email protected] (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Avraham Qanai is a major contributor to Karaite Jewish theology and culture in the U.S.A. Thus, I believe the article falls under the criteria of a notable BLP: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." As per the "Creative professionals" subcategory of Notability, "The person...had works in many significant libraries." A few of the numerous libraries that own the book co-authored by Qanai and mentioned in the article are: Columbia University Library, University of Florida Library, UCLA Library, University of Toronto Library and Memorial University of Newfoundland Library. --AFriedman (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the article should be updated accordingly. It looked like a red-linked mess of a run-on sentence last time I checked. [email protected] (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to fill in most of the redlinks and add biographical details about Qanai. One of the problems here is that most Karaite Jews live in Israel, and many don't speak English. Many of the relevant biographical references may be in Hebrew, Arabic (I think this is the native language of some of Qanai's mentors), Karaite Judaeo-Tatar (Qanai's native language, I believe, although my source for this isn't verifiable by WP standards) etc. and other foreign languages. User:Isaackight may know about information for the redlinks, based on some off-wiki correspondence I've had with him. A while ago, I placed a {{cn}} tag after the sentences about Qanai's mentors. --AFriedman (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. A career that mixes naturotherapy, workplace democracy and Karaite Judaism. Why not? But apart from websites that could be self-published, and a book that does not seem to have drawn any reviews, the only independent mention seems to be Quackwatch. Sources do not have to be in English, or in electronic format. Does he:wikipedia have anything on him? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, and good work tracking down those additional sources. It's always nice to see neutral people working on articles like this one. Supposedly, Qanai's family is Karaite and his ancestors came from Crimea and elsewhere--so if this information can be verified, that would explain the Karaite Judaism part. I don't know how he developed his other interests, or what it says about him in he:Wikipedia. Also, I'd like to know more specific information about his background in Karaite scholarship and his life story. I've heard from other people that he speaks numerous languages and has lived in several continents, for example. All in all, I think he's a very enigmatic person and a biosketch of him would be useful to people interested in Karaite Judaism. On Wikipedia, I've encountered more than one user identifying as Karaite. --AFriedman (talk) 05:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --Webley455 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, too little substantive independent coverage of him for passing WP:ANYBIO. The library holdings of his books are actually pretty low, per Worldcat search[37][38]. Passes neither WP:ANYBIO nor WP:AUTH. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, rereading the section about "enduring historical record" it seems to me that Qanai doesn't meet that criterion. However, the WP policy about how many libraries should hold a book in order to make its author notable is quite vaguely worded. I still say "keep" because the information in the article is useful to some people, and Wikipedia isn't running out of space any time soon. --AFriedman (talk) 04:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 10 January 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 Outline of Asia. Tone 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regions of Asia[edit]
- Regions of Asia (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 is pointless and full of POV, the page is completely uncited and definitions of regions are nonsensical in certain cases. There is a vast template as well as other pages that already perform the function this page should fill Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't find it biased, but I say delete as being redundant. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 10:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article has been around since 2006 and has established itself. I see no indication of "bias"; rather, it's a portal to other articles about Asia. I don't think citations are required since this is a gateway to other articles about Asia. If there are other articles which perform the same function, but better, please list what they are. In December 2009, 816 readers looked at it. Removing it may inconvenience future readers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Random IP editors consistently put in their POV. For example, until I fixed it, the article was using the Greater Middle East as a region, when the GME is a political region defined by the second Bush Administration as opposed to an actual reason. From I experience, I have often noticed that IP editors come to pages like this to remove places like Pakistan and Afghanistan from South Asia just to support their bias. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If this page was fixed it would be this page United Nations geoscheme for Asia. As it stands now it is random and incomplete. J8079s (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete since "region" is not defined, this list has extremely imprecise inclusion criteria. the un geoscheme is a potential type of grouping, but this isnt that. region could be anything from a small watershed or ethnic enclave up to transnational subdivisions per the un geoscheme. countries are not regions. i dont see any value in this list, and i seriously doubt its deletion is going to inconvenience readers.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. "Regions of Asia" is a very likely search term. It is talking of physical regions smaller than nations as well, unlike the UN geoscheme, which is more political. Hence, not redundant. Refinement is required, but deletion is not called for. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Geography of Asia. The article is virtually useless for use as a reference. I think some of it uses what's called "alphabetical order" but mostly it's a list of blue links organized randomly. Mandsford (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (Merge) with Geography of Asia. Izzedine 07:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Outline of Asia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Outline of Asia is the best redirect. J8079s (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't it time for an admin to close this. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you think it should be closed? You opinion now is likely to be decisive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the guy who posted the AfD, so my position is Delete, but I am fine with the page being turned into a redirect to Outline of Asia. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 21:26, 16 January 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 Animaniacs episodes. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Super Strong Warner Siblings[edit]
- Super Strong Warner Siblings (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 episode fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Neelix (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable average TV episode. Entire article is pretty much OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to List of Animaniacs episodes. Fails WP:EPISODE. Joe Chill (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. No reliable sources. Sarilox (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to List of Animaniacs episodes per Joe Chill. JBsupreme (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect This is more appropriate for the Animaniacs entertainment wiki. Entertainment wikis didn't exist during Wikipedia's early days, where the content was top heavy on separate articles about TV episodes and characters. These now have a home elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 18:37, 10 January 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) 00:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Wille[edit]
- Chris Wille (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 fails to address the requirements of WP:BIO. I find many articles in Google News about the Rainforest Alliance's Sustainable Agriculture Program with quotes from Wille speaking as chief on that program but these do not establish Wille himself as notable. Being a chief of a program or being "one of ten" named by a magazine does not of itself establish notability. Ash (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree Mr. Wille and the Rainforest Alliance are fused at the hip. But when; Reuters – OneWorld US – Washington Post – Telegraph – BBC News – CNNMoney – Providence Journal – Cincinnati Enquirer – USA TODAY – Fair Home – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel – Wall Street Journal – Cincinnati Business Courier – United Press International – Chicago Tribune – Mail & Guardian- New York Time, plus numerous other national and international news agencies, as provided here [39] look to Mr. Wille as the expert to quote on a specific topic, does not that make him the expert of that topic and qualify for inclusion under Professional? Thank you for your help in answering question. JAAGTalk 19:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unless you can find reliable sources in those sources you've linked from which to write a biography, which is what this article purports to be, then there are no reliable sources about the person. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- II am sorry if I miss apply the term LOL here, I do not mean any type of insult or disparagement, but does not the requirement, before publishing in such agencies' as the New York Times – Washington Post and AP International require that the author of the piece be responsible for verifying the information from reliable sources and those verifications go through a n editorial review before publishing? And if that is the case, you are asking me to verify that the sources from the New York Times – Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have gone through such a process? I am sorry I can not, but is this really required at English Wikipedia? JAAGTalk 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidelines that you quoted yourself (and as the nomination makes clear and Woogee went on to re-state) 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." Nobody has suggested that these sources are not reliable sources, only that the articles do not have Wille as the subject. If you find some sources that do have Wille as the subject, then there is a potential rationale for notability. As for laughing at another person's comments in an AfD discussion, it seems hard not to consider it a direct insult even when prefixed by saying it is not.—Ash (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- II am sorry if I miss apply the term LOL here, I do not mean any type of insult or disparagement, but does not the requirement, before publishing in such agencies' as the New York Times – Washington Post and AP International require that the author of the piece be responsible for verifying the information from reliable sources and those verifications go through a n editorial review before publishing? And if that is the case, you are asking me to verify that the sources from the New York Times – Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have gone through such a process? I am sorry I can not, but is this really required at English Wikipedia? JAAGTalk 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Unless you can find reliable sources in those sources you've linked from which to write a biography, which is what this article purports to be, then there are no reliable sources about the person. Woogee (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I mis-read the concerns of the editor thinking that he wanted me to verify that the article writers of the New York Times and Washington Post verified that what the individual, in this case Mr. Willie, said was a person in position to make such statements, and as such had the authority to make those statements. Regarding the notability, my line of thought was that is these news sources use Mr. Willie as the expert to quote on the subject matter, does not that qualify him for inclusion under Professional. Again, as I said in my comment, this is only a question. So I can better understand how this Wiki works. Sorry for any mis-understandings. JAAGTalk 02:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will assume good faith on your part, and will respond with, what reliable sources have information about Mr. Wille's biographical data, other than that he's a spokesperson for the program? If reliable sources only say he's a spokesperson, that's not enough to build a biography from. Woogee (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per not being the subject of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 10 January 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. (X! · talk) · @747 · 16:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan Shader[edit]
- Bryan Shader (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 fails to address the requirements of WP:PROF. Examining Shader's biography on the University site and checking Google Scholar, I see one reasonably well-cited co-authored book and staff awards from the University but no evidence of the impact needed to address the requirements of PROF. There is little reason to expect that reliable sources will be found in the near future to address these criteria. Ash (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep on basis of WP:Prof #1 with GS cites of 145, 39, 38, 32..... h index = 13. Input from mathematicians would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Neutral.I am really on the fence here. He is certainly very prolific (MathSciNet lists 76 publications), and has several journal editorships indicating a degree of professional recognition. However, I would have expected a higher h-index, especially for someone who publishes a lot and works, at least in large part, in the area of combinatorics, where the publication rate is higher than in most of pure math. MathSciNet gives top citations as 69[for the book], 20, 14, 12, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8. While their citation record is not complete (especially for papers published before around 1995), this is still less than I would have expected. The grant record, available from his full vita[40] is also slightly strange: he does not seem to have ever had a traditional individual NSF research grant, although he has been a co-PI or senior personnel on some infrastructure grants and a PI on some conference grants. The CV also lists him as co-organizing a bunch of conferences. The awards listed seem to be university level. Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Weak delete. I don't see anything here that would cause him to stand out in any way. There's no particularly compelling evidence of passing WP:PROF #1 nor any other of the WP:PROF criteria. The article is an orphan and seems doomed to remain an orphan unless we can point to a more specific contribution that he's made to academia than being a mathematician and co-authoring a book. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral Pretty much an average professor, but did co-author a book. However, it was only co-author. Royalbroil 01:14, 14 January 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 11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SoundBox Banditz[edit]
- SoundBox Banditz (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:BAND. Only real claim of notablity is a single newspaper article that was on a different subject but happens to mention the band in relation to the newspaper article's subject. The two editors associated with the band Djtrypcide (talk · contribs) and Redwolf5000 (talk · contribs) have also made other claims of notablity, such as the music being used in a high school football team's video. Even if that were true (and no independent reliable sources have been provided), it would still not make the band notable. Singularity42 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article was not on a different subject.The subject was music.Which is what the band does. Multiple links are on this bands page which proves it notability.
- http://www.nj.com/news/local/index.ssf/2009/05/students_record_tribute_to_ora.html,
- http://www.ourstage.com/profile/soundboxbanditz,
- http://www.myspace.com/sbbrecordz,
- http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=1019393, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2009
- Okay, the article was on two subjects, the band being one of them. I still dispute that the article meets the WP:BAND criteria on its own. Ourstage, MySpace, and Soundclick are not reliable sources. Singularity42 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A music video of this band is repeatedly shown on Channel 35 Orange Township in NJ
- Comment: The video played on local news regarding the game i mentioned earlier about Orange vs Summit with music by this band. They are givien credits at the end of the video
http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1310478605016&ref=mf, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPb2SgOnJlc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 23:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Insights from the bands page only on the first day of the week.[41] can be seen here: http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j140/2Phenominal/FBSBB.jpg, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Djtrypcide (talk • contribs) 23:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Multiple !votes are not allowed. I've replaced your redundant "keep"s with "comment"s. You may continue to comment, but do not attempt to "stuff the ballot box". Decisions are made by consensus and on the merits of the arguments presented, not a straight vote count, so it doesn't really accomplish anything anyway. — Gwalla | Talk 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article doesn't provide us with enough references to show in-depth coverage from reliable sources, and as such fails the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So by what you have posted, is it to say that the article shall be deleted??Redwolf5000 (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article had been relisted, which means it'll stay open for another 7 days to generate more discussion and a clear consensus. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is much appreciated considering it shall go under more evaluation.76.117.182.103 (talk) 03:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After Deliberation has SoundBox Banditz been allowed to keep their wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.182.103 (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The newspaper article is about them, I won't dispute that. But it's local news in a local paper, so it doesn't count for much WRT WP:BAND. Their CDs are self-released, and I can't find any evidence that they have gotten a track in national rotation or gone on tour (or even performed at a live show). Just the hip-hop equivalent of a garage band. — Gwalla | Talk 17:35, 15 January 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. Cirt (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Soltan Hajibeyov[edit]
- Soltan Hajibeyov (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)
Notability. This composer has made no impact in the classical music world. His works haven't been performed by major ensembles or published by a major publishing company. No results on google or yahoo. Karljoos (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:29, 27 December 2009 (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) 01:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Seems to meet the general notability guideline (try searching in Russian), if not any music-specific ones. People's Artist of Azerbaijan SSR title is confirmed by his (rather brief) entries in the Great Encyclopedic Dictionary [42], and the Theatre Encyclopedia [43]. cab (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: He might meet some criteria, but I think that not every professional musician deserves an article. There are millions of musicians with CVs like this gentleman's, but they do not deserve an article. I don't see any relevance in his career as a composer, apart of some appointements at, and this said with all respect, a provincial conservatoire. There can't be an article about every single professional musician!!--Karljoos (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People's Artist of the USSR is a very significant honor, basically the highest artistic honorary title that was available in USSR. Also, the Russian Wikipedia article mentions that he received the Stalin Prize of second degree in 1952. Passes WP:BIO on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, he was the subject of a published biographical book about him[44]; the title of the book translates from Russian as "Sultan Gadzhibekov : life and creative work". That definitely makes him pass WP:BIO. I think that perhaps the title of the WP article needs to be moved to a better transliteration of his name, since Hajibeyov is really far off the mark. The transliteration should be something like Hadzhibekov or Gadzhibekov. Nsk92 (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to all of the above it looks like he passes WP:PROF #6 as rector of an important music school. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:05, 10 January 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. In this debate, it seems as though the people who expressed an opinion to delete had much more solid arguments than those who expressed an opinion to keep. As such, I am deleting this article. (X! · talk) · @746 · 16:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chido Govero[edit]
- Chido Govero (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 young woman doing various things re sustainability. Blatant COI - Gunter Pauli is founder of ZERI who sponsor Chido. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: few third-party reliable sources. "www.example.com" is not a source, may I add, who are you playing? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This article is important and will stay:
- Interesting persons making comments. Chido has been sponsored for her activities for years while she was a minor by ZERI. What else do you expect? Ever since she was 18 she has been getting support for trainings from Foundations, as is mentioned. Today her list of sponsors is zero, she is self-sufficient. She earns her own money. I wish you all could say the same at the age of 23 coming from life as an orphan. See the video link and the newspaper article that have been added, as well as the award from SCAA, the reference provided by YES. Take time before you shoot.
- So how many references are needed before one has notoriety for the Americans or notability for the Brits? Chido turns down invitations for press or invitations for international lectures because if you are Zimbabwean and want to live and work in Zim then you are low key. She is dedicated to provide a livelihood for girls in Africa in a way that in my 35 years of work in the third world I have not seen. And this strange question ... "who are you playing?" Wake up young man in Australia obviously you have not been to Africa and lived the abuse of orphans, nor the plight of AIDS-patients.
- Suggest you earn your way to Africa and see the real life that millions face, not the luxury that few can enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter pauli (talk • contribs) 01:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Your WP:TRUTH needs a SOURCE. That is Wikipedia policy. Your article reads like an advocacy through the language it uses (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV), and there is also a possible conflict of interest, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. And throwing personal attacks around won't really help with your argument to keep. I also believe that your argument for the children is irrelevant in this AfD discussion, as it is a fallacy of relevance based on appeal to emotion, and does not relate to any reasoning regarding article deletion or Wikipedia policy. I understand that you feel that the plight of this particular individual may be significant, however Wikipedia policy states that notability must be proven with sources that are verifiable and independent; this is to avoid things like original reseach and synthesis, to which editors may invent their own information without any exterior referencing. If you are unable to provide thorough, reliable and detailed references, then I am afraid the article does not belong on Wikipedia, no matter how significant the subject may be. All in all, this is an online encyclopedia; if you would like to publish your own synthesis on the subject, by all means feel free to find a web host, or contact a humanitarian agency website for publishing approval, as this would be a more suitable choice than Wikipedia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So would you mind stating how many external sources are needed?:
Your WP:TRUTH needs a SOURCE. So reading your text it means A source (one). You find several verifiable sources: organizers of the 2006 event in Kenya, US-based newspapers, the largest coffee organization in the US, Kufunda Village in Zimbabwe hosting Chido ... . And others. There is no appeal to emotion: facts may stimulate emotions since these are hard to face for people not used to face facts of life in cultures or continents they have never been. If one were to appeal to emotions it would be written quite differently. So your suggestion that I - editor - invent my own information seems farfetched if one would have bothered to check the sources. Your final line on a humanitarian agency website demonstrates that my English is poor ... read for yourself Chido is not in need anymore of humanitarian aid. I will have to rewrite it and make that more blunt.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter pauli (talk • contribs)
- Comment - It's not up to us to find the sources - that's your job. I'm sure that in the seven days it usually takes to go through one of these discussions you can find AND ADD some. Not blogs, not anything that can be user edited, not forums, not press releases, and not your official site. (the last one can be put in, but it doesn't count as a reference. Take a tip from me - don't get all het up. We are trying to help you. Do remember that this a place with rules and procedures, designed to keep out the utter trash that gets posted. Your article looks very worthy - but it must fit the standards set. Keep calm, ask questions, and listen to our answers. Don't worry about the quality of your English - I can always sort that out later. Peridon (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 - Please sign your remarks here by typing four ~ things at the end. That signs the remark so we know who, and where the end is. Peridon (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 3 - There are six independent references offered in the article. Is this not enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter pauli (talk • contribs)
- Comment 4 - The website is NOT Gunter Pauli's website, it is the website of the ZERI Foundation of which I am a director, and which was established with co-financing of the United Nations. So it would be appreciated that there is no confusion between a person and a legal entity. I am surprised that people who are supervising the editing seem to "shoot from the hip" without going through the details. The information of Chido will be removed soon since we are offering continuously new insights on the activities of the Foundation. Pauli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter pauli (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do use the 4 tildes to sign. Refs: No 3 BTTR mentione mushrooms but not Chido. No 1 is Zeri and not separate from the subject. Link No 2 (africau.edu) doesn't work for me. YES campaign is example.com. Kufunda - yes, that looks OK to me. Women supporting women is example.com. The Wal-Mart one is a mention, but a help. The San Jose one looks good, but I suspect it of being editable or self-publish. That's one and a bit for me, out of seven. (I discount the Press Release one - on the grounds of press releases merely establishing existence.) Please read my post above again and note that I am trying to help you, seemingly against your wishes. Peridon (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 5: Added more references from the Netherlands (in Dutch) and from Zimbabwe. User talk:Pauli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter pauli (talk • contribs) 21:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification Comments 1 and 2 were labelled to distinguish two close comments by me. You don't have to keep up the numbering. Once again, please use four tildes to sign posts, like this: Peridon (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Zimbabwe mail looks good. Not too sure about Ode - it looks as if it uses sent-in material. Can't really be sure from the legalese. Peridon (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep hoping for more reliable references... Looks just about OK to me, but could do with a bit more just in case. Peridon (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Added another reference from the project Chido directed in Tanzania with Sustainable Harvest. Yes another independent source.
Pauli —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunter pauli (talk • contribs) 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - Here is a better reference link for the article republished later in sanjose.com --> it is written by journalist Stett Holbrook, a freelancer based in the San Francisco, Ca region - he's widely published, including NYTimes. Metro is a regional print-version newspaper: http://www.metrosiliconvalley.com/metro/08.12.09/feed-0932.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelStraus (talk • contribs) 06:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Conclusion? There are now independent additional sources from Colombia (in Spanish confirming her trainings in Colombia), USA, and the BTTR Ventures which in their present format of website does not mention Chido, does mention in their press release that Chido was indeed their source. Then Fast Company, the monthly magazine in interview with BTTR VEnture founders indicates the same. The Sustainable Harvest confirms the action in Tanzania. Then CAOS highlights (in Dutch) their dedication to further train girls in Zimbabwe through Chido. Finally the Just Children Foundation also relates to the trainings Chido is doing. Would you agree that this is solid enough? I do not yet have the ability to improve the format as requested, but believe that comparing with other articles and biographies, I do see that the question of notoriety has been responded to. If not, let me know but then will point out many entries that not even come close to the number of references and sources provided in this one. Thank you for the challenge! Gunter pauli —Preceding undated comment added 11:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She is doing noble work, no doubt, but I don't see substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The content is more suited to her organization's website. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is not about Jambo Juice or wheat grass, this is about the real world where people make a real difference. The coverage -according to ChildofMidnight- is not substantial. I am sorry, are you sipping wheat grass and have you taken the time to have a serious look at the independent sources from US (or is Fast Company not independent), with organizations from the Netherlands, USA, Colombia confirming separately the initiatives, the value and the contributions at an early age. I really have difficulty with this approach. Wiki-guys do not seem to have a clear definition of independent sources because if the 18 sources are all shot down by saying I DO NOT SEE. Chido has no organization's website. She is focused on the real work and not on paying web masters to set up pages for her in a foreign country. That is why she deserves to be in Wikipedia. Do not forget that she lives in Zimbabwe, not in LA or Jakarta. Gunter pauli —Preceding undated comment added 03:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete – Individual lacks substantial coverage to support article. Notability is not established and references do not meet criteria. ttonyb (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm sticking to my Keep, but I really am having difficulties with Mr Pauli, who is not helping the case for this article because of his (to my mind) aggressive approach of telling us how we should run the place. I agree with him, however, that a lower level of expectation for independent sources should apply than if the subject were in, as he says, LA or Jakarta. Countries like Zimbabwe and Somalia have limited internet access, and the press tends to keep away if possible. I've seen enough to convince me now. If this article is deleted, I would suggest that possibly ZERI might merit an article - written in a neutral style, of course, with a section about Chido. Peridon (talk) 12:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Peridon, I certainly understand what you are saying; however, the support I see is primarily pointed at the coffee product and only minimally at her. The majority (and substance) of the article is not supported by any references and Gunter pauli appears to expect Wikipedia to take his word for the accomplishments. I agree that she appears to be "real-world" notable, but the article appears to lack Wikipedia notability.
- Comment Gentlemen, my apologies if I have offended, but could you kindly see what comment was shot at this article and quote BLATANT COI unquote. With all due respect not knowing the culture of Wiki this seems to me as an aggression without looking deeper. I appreciate that considerations are made about the fact that if you live and work in Zimbabwe, just getting a visa to travel overseas is a nightmare, just getting food and electricity is a challenge. The media in Zimbabwe: you shy away from it.
- We have over 14 years of history working on food security in Africa and Latin America, and worked with thousands. Her contribution is beyond self-development: an export crop in disarray is relaunched and converted into the basis for food security. There are thousands benefiting and hundreds already imitating, she moved from someone rescued by aid, to grow into a pro-active agent of change earning money and investing in social and economic development, not just in Zimbabwe. Gunter pauli —Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment – Gunter pauli, the reason there is a {{COI}} associated with the article is your association with the subject of the article. It is posted there to advise the reader that, "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject". We also understand that she is probably a great person that has contributed greatly to eradicate hunger, but without independent, verifiable, support, it is hard to support this article for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While there is some 'marketing speak' on the page that could be modified, this is a legitimate entry, for instance Chido Govero was a keynote speaker at a conference/exhibition (Green Festival) attended by thousands of people in Denver in 2009. [48] --Davidwfox (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) — Davidwfox (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course keepComment- since there are no reliable sources in Zimbabwe, all information gathered comes from the initiatives overseas. There are many and the interpretation that there is a lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources demonstrates that Andrew did not take time to check those available. It would be appreciated if Andrew is constructive like Peridon, when indicating which source was not reliable, it was replaced by other and as such a full back-up on each of the points by third parties was construed. Gunter pauli —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment It is interesting that the tally last week was 3 for delete - 3 to keep, but 2 who voted against, switched to vote in favor! I However, their vote against still counted? To my great regret I have come face to face with the opinions expressed by two individuals (ONLY TWO) on "substantial coverage" (earlier called notoriety) and unfortunately arrived at to the conclusion that Western male views are out of touch with the reality in Africa, especially in a country like Zimbabwe. If you are a writer or an artist in the US, UK or Australia it is easy to build "notoriety" and "substantial coverage". It is so easy. You do not even have to leave your bedroom to do achieve that. If you are a women in Zimbabwe, where the political regime obliges you to operate diligently and carefully, where electricity is not even available, then one realizes what a challenge it is to break out of the mould and take care of yourself and your fellow citizens, then you realize the difference a person makes in the livelihoods of others changing the developmental model that shifts away from aid to a business concept that actually works and is proven to work. Are you aware that journalists are not permitted to enter the country without a special government visa? As long as you measure notoriety and substantial coverage for someone in the US the same way as you measure in Zimbabwe, then wiki will be a biased representation, sorry for my male Western-education colleagues. Goodbye. Gunter pauli
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Afshin Shafiee[edit]
- Afshin Shafiee (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)
Person doesn't pass WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 09:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A handful of GS cites on fundamental physics topics but nowhere enough for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2009 (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) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. An award or a particular honor has to be recorded Rirunmot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very low citability of his work (see GoogleScholar search[49]; the first hit there appears to be a false positive, a medical article; the physics papers have citation hits in low single digits), nothing else in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of passing any criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 11 January 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) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
J.Reu[edit]
- J.Reu (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 performer, no reliable sources provided nor found during a search. Lots of MySpace and YouTube links, but nothing reliable. Woogee (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: poor, unsatisfactory references that do not meet WP standards. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 00:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are three links to Myspace/youtube so saying there are lots of myspace and youtube links is wreckless info. The links to either myspace and youtube are for video footage frome the actual tours and to show that best buy emloyees have started rapping about the store and the growth.
The three links to myspace or youtube: [2] [3] [4]
I didn't post some of these references but there are references on the page.
Here are the references: [5] [50] [6] [7] [8]
To me thats a lot more than just myspace or youtube links. But this is a new article and I will be working on this helping the original article starter to get more reliable references. This article should not be up for deletion
- Please read WP:BAND and WP:RS. I was talking about myspace and youtube links when I do a Google search. Woogee (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the WP:BAND and WP:RS. I didn't start this article but the person in question has indeed composed music that was on almost every Television channel nationwide. "Welcome to the holidays" was a jingle written for the best buy TV and Radio campaigne in the winter of 2006 for the christmas holiday by JReu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleaka (talk • contribs) 02:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am contiuously researching this artist for more reliable sources the jingle was written in 2006 so thats a few years ago so I'm trying to find some info from 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theleaka (talk • contribs) 02:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything other than the current zero is "more". But having penned a jingle is not going to do it. Woogee (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Using a bunch of unreliable sources doesn't get him past it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 10 January 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) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tomomi Hirano[edit]
- Tomomi Hirano (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)
Unreferenced BLP article. Subject is a member of a redlinked group (no article) that is a sub-part of the Hello! Project. I can see news articles in here name but they are about a Fishery's dept official. She seems to have attracted no significant interest from reliable sources...does not meet biographical notability standards required here. Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (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) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 10 January 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) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barad (band)[edit]
- Barad (band) (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 can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:11, 4 January 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) 00:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:31, 10 January 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) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Younger[edit]
- Jon Younger (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)
The biographic page fails to meet WP:BIO guidelines. This guy looks like an impressive consultant and commercial innovator but the article references do not address the notability required by the guidelines and being successful in business or co-authoring a book is not a guarantee of encyclopaedic notability. Ash (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 17:42, 3 January 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) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 10 January 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 11:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T-L Irrigation[edit]
- T-L Irrigation (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 company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established with third-party reliable sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added references. - Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm, I still don't think it meets WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 00:02, 5 January 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) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not a huge amount of notability but enough to warrant inclusion per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Likely more out there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as it fails WP:SPAM. This article makes no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP, nor is there any significant coverage to support such a claim. Press releases and propomotion are not evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:07, 13 January 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. (X! · talk) · @131 · 02:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Jedlicka[edit]
- Wendy Jedlicka (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)
Deprodded article. I cannot find significant coverage for this person, and there is no indication that the person would meet WP:BIO. Additionally, I don't believe the references cited are sufficiently reliable and independent for a BLP. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe speedy delete, as this article is mostly copied from [51] with very minor changes. My checking has not shown that she is a remotely notable person, and this seems like WP:ARTSPAM. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jedlicka is a known expert in sustainable packaging design - a growing field in itself. I support the inclusion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.7.85 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC) — 67.220.7.85 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Agreed that Jedlicka is a high-profile expert in sustainable packaging design. In addition to her books, she leads the Minneapolis College of Art and Design's sustainable design certificate program, one of the few green design programs in the US. Green packaging may be a small field, but it is of much more consequence to the world than hundreds of other things with articles in Wikipedia (e.g. videogames and the like). I support the inclusion of this article. (Jeremy Faludi, Stanford University lecturer in sustainable design) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.86.130 (talk) 04:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC) — 71.202.86.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Do you have any reliable sources to indicate that the subject would meet the notability guidelines? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles quoting W. Jedlicka http://www.packagedesignmag.com/issues/2008.10/publisher.shtml http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009914.html http://www.core77.com/blog/events/reflections_from_greener_by_design_2009_13591.asp http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/alissa-walker/designerati/problem-not-packaging-design-its-systems-design http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/strategy/e3i1de189927bfff7588e85b360b414d0a7?pn=2 http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/sustainable_devices/ http://www.energytimes.com/pages/departments/0910/earthmatters0910.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.4.163 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— 66.57.4.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Thank you for checking for sources. Ignoring the blogs and a site that she is a writer for (see WP:SPS), the remaining mentions include brief tangential quotes calling her "a designer" or "expert". None is about her or goes any further to demonstrate notability.—Ash (talk) 15:03, 16 January 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) 00:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Jedlicka may be an expert in packing design but unfortunately doesn't pass WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete: I had previously considered putting the page up for deletion myself, mainly due to a number of awful unreliable sources quoted. However a search on Google Books shows her publications (previously in direct publisher links) which I have now added to the article, giving a bit of weight to a case of notability as a sustainability and packaging expert. However I do not find any evidence so far that the books themselves are particularly notable (no citations in Google Scholar for example), though the publisher certainly is.—Ash (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Ms. Jedlicka is a leader in this growing field and works tirelessly to connect others to sustainable design and practices. Her latest book (just off the press and published by major publishing house Wiley) is over 500 pages in length, and offers 2-3 times the materials, information and resources than other similiar books. The book's contributors also include leading industry organizations such as the Sustainable Packaging Coalition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.167.126.211 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 14:50, 16 January 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. While this may look like a different outcome, the people who expressed an opinion to keep have expressed more solid arguments than the others, and as such, this is a keep. (X! · talk) · @129 · 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bonded Fibre Matrix[edit]
- Bonded Fibre Matrix (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 product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this method of erosion control is featured in many soil engineering texts [52] and has even been the focus of at least one news item in the New Sunday Times[53]. The article clearly needs work, including references, etc. but the subject is certainly notable. Handschuh-talk to me 03:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – To Hydroseeding as a type of application. With regards to a redirect, only if the piece is renamed Bonded Fiber Matrix (Mulch) in that BFM is a term used in engineering that covers a wide range of different applications other than seeding. JAAGTalk 07:56, 3 January 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) 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 10 January 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. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Rapp[edit]
- Jerry Rapp (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:N. No WP:RS cited. Basket of Puppies 02:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article states person is a professional screenwriter, director, and producer and a quick check can confirm. passes WP:N. Can provide more diffs if neccessary. Lack of WP:RS cited should be reason to tag and remove possible libelous material rather than reason for deletion IMO. Kindly Calmer Waters 02:39, 3 January 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) 00:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe article is not well written, but according to the subject's IMDB page, there seems to be evidence for ample notability. I would advise a re-write with research instead of a delete. Evalpor (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:12, 10 January 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. This is a semi-close call. However, after pondering over the different opinions raised here, I think that the people who expressed an opinion to keep expressed stronger arguments than those to delete. (X! · talk) · @127 · 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hot Lava (game)[edit]
- Hot Lava (game) (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 is WP:OR and cites no WP:RS There's only one reference from a Simpson's trivia page on TV.com. - tbone (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: notability not established. Do we really need an article on this? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:14, 4 January 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) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and figure out appropriate title and alternative names. This is a notable and common children's game. Whether it is called Hot lava I have no idea outside the Simpsons I have no idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even a game, really. Extremely unlikely any substantial coverage in reliable sources exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Too useful to delete, although it still needs sources. I found this page while trying to figure out what "the floor is lava" meant, and this is a decent explanation for the perplexed. --Tfkw (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The issue is supposed to be whether notability could be established. Less than two minutes with Google makes it clear that it could be. --RBarryYoung (talk) 01:21, 12 January 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) 02:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Faye Marsh[edit]
- Faye Marsh (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)
Unreferenced autobiography of a non-notable athlete. I42 (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm Neutral. Google search with "Faye Marsh Watford" throws up several (local) news stories about this FA Tescos Womens Premier League athlete. Annette46 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2009 (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) 01:10, 3 January 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) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced BLP. Jennifer500 (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Removed by User:Dougweller:banned editors cannot edit, this is a sock of user:John254 I42 (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- unreferenced is not reason for deletion; unreferenceable is, if nothing can be found after a search. but in this case,
- unreferenced is not reason for deletion; unreferenceable is, if nothing can be found after a search. but in this case,
- delete because nothing substantial has been found after a reasonable search. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 10 January 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 11:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Julia McIlvaine[edit]
- Julia McIlvaine (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 WP:RS cited, fails WP:N. Delete. Basket of Puppies 01:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete (IMHO) the bigger issue is with WP:V. A recurring voice credit on a Nickelodeon cartoon along with some major live appearances on several notable TV shows, would imply at least some notability - but per the nom, there are no reliable sources and I wasn't able to find any. 2 says you, says two 02:01, 3 January 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) 00:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough references.--Apollo789 (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While disgreeing with Apollo789 about the current sourcing, it seems that a search finds plenty of available sources to address any concerns toward WP:V. The nom noted these were missing, but surmountable issues should be addressed through regular editing, not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:21, 16 January 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. no consensus for deletion JForget 00:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inhibitory Control Test[edit]
- Inhibitory Control Test (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)
Test is not widely used and if relevant could be discussed in hepatic encephalopathy rather than requiring its own page. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seemed quite notable to me; but if the decision is taken to delete the article, please move the contents to a subsection in the hepatic encephalopathy. Cheers, --CopperKettle 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The publication by Bahaj et al., 2007, cites the use of the test to "characterize attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia, and traumatic brain injury"; so maybe it is not so hepato-specific and deserves a small article of its own.. --CopperKettle 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.Keep. I would be inclined to keep for now and see if reliable sourcing can be found to establish relevance beyond simply diagnosing hepatic encephalopathy. It seems to me that this test is a more general assay of neurological function. Perhaps it should instead be merged into a neurology-related page. I think it's improbable that it would be used only for one disorder. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked further, and PubMed turns up a large amount of sourcing, and clearly does relate the test to a lot more than just the one disorder. The page needs to be corrected to reflect that this is not just a one-use test, but I think it clearly passes notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be grateful for any help in improving the article; I've started it on a surge of interest while reading on Wilson's disease, so it is a bit slanted indeed. --CopperKettle 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked further, and PubMed turns up a large amount of sourcing, and clearly does relate the test to a lot more than just the one disorder. The page needs to be corrected to reflect that this is not just a one-use test, but I think it clearly passes notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 3 January 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) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject of the original publication PMID 17222319 but also PMID 18723018 and mentioned in the review PMID 18043677 and the editorial PMID 17593162. Seems sufficient sourcing to establish notability, especially since this test is not new and has been used in other fields previously (refs in PMID 17222319 introduction). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 12 January 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 Francesca Chiara. Tone 11:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Il Parco Dei Sogni[edit]
- Il Parco Dei Sogni (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)
Unnotable first album by barely notable article. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Was redirected to artist per the guidelines of WP:MUSIC but a fan disputed without discussion and without adding any sources showing significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 27 December 2009 (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) 01:09, 3 January 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 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I usually don't relist non-blp articles a second time unless they haven't been sorted but am doing so this time on the request of the nominator. For any others I have closed "no consensus" due to lack of participation, they can be immediately renominated per WP:NPASR which has the same effect as another relist. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Francesca Chiara. I don't see enough significant coverage specifically for the album to warrant a separate article. Jujutacular T · C 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Francesca Chiara. The biography already includes one line about the album, and the description of the album in this article is much more interesting than the biography. In fact, I'll do that just now. (Done.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and could someone please explain "Single declutching"? Is it akin to taking one egg from a clutch of eggs? Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:02, 11 January 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.
- ^ Väisänen's art criticism in Helsingin Sanomat: [54]
- ^ best buy Jake Rockswell & J.Reu Pioneering the Best Buy Rap game
- ^ .Real Footage From Best Buy tour
- ^ Fan Video Of J.Reu & Bets Buy Tour
- ^ Bio of J.Reu @ Cadenza Musicians Directory
- ^ Se7en "Girls" Remix Ft. Lil Kim & J.Reu
- ^ UnLadyLike Ft J.Reu & RedStone
- ^ Teyana Taylor "Google Me" Remix Ft. Redstone