Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 15
< 14 January | 16 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. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Memories of a Broken Heart[edit]
- Memories of a Broken Heart (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)
Part of a series of articles to do with Jose Rodrigo Arango. The other two articles are also being discussed for deletion including another supposed single "The End (single)", which, like this one, has not yet been recorded and appears to be a melange of other artist's recordings. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with above that this violates WP:CRYSTAL. I can find zero information about this album in reliable sources. Gongshow Talk 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Am unreleased album with no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 23:12, 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 redirect to Comic book death. Some of the keep votes (primarily Orlady's), seemed to focus on this being a "notable" concept. However, as some editors later pointed out, there is already a page for the concept itself at comic book death. Other keep arguments were of the WP:ITSUSEFUL type, or just contained flat-out personal attacks. With that said, if someone wants to merge the list into the other article, everything is still right there in the article's history, although I would recommend talk page discussion first to determine the most appropriate way of doing that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead[edit]
- List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead (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)
Consensus was pretty much reached at WikiProject Comics, but I thought it would be best to list it here. The page has already been userfied at User:Marcus Brute/List of comic book characters that have returned from the dead by the author. Jujutacular T · C 23:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This list would include practically every superhero comic book character ever, considering the several times all life on Earth has been destroyed and somehow restored. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 00:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but the title should be "died and been resurrected", to complement the existing List of dead comic book characters the existing title, an article which nobody seemed to object to. The list is long enough that there's reason to keep them separate. Fortunately, wikiprojects cannot delete articles. That it might contain a great many entries is not reason for deletion--it would still be appropriate to have a page that --as this one does--includes the specific issue and the circumstances. Helpful summary list--and certainly it's sourced by giving the specific location in the series, , as the work itself is a suitable source for such obvious plot specifics. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The phenomenon of comic book death and resurrection is certainly notable, and the details provided in this list give it value as an information resource. As DGG points out, the fact that a list is long is not a valid reason to delete that list. I've added a couple of sources to the article to support notability. --Orlady (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete whenever a continuity is rebooted, characters are resurrected. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Comic book death. This list has hardly got started yet. There are issues of scope which might cause trouble - Sherlock Holmes and Buffy have both returned from the dead and appear in comics but is this what readers expect here? It seems best to confine this list to some outstanding examples which is best done as part of the main article. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The list is long enough to justify its existence without merging, and is notable enough for people who follow comic book culture. Change the page name for something more apt, such as List of dead and resurrected comic book characters, See DGG"s comment above. --Kudpung (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The list has no value whatsoever. ALL Marvel and DC characters have died and come back from the dead. All of them. Doczilla STOMP! 20:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a lot of nerds read this stuff, wikipedia needs the nerds, we cant have them protesting, well be ruined if we make them unhappy. 72.150.245.144 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - Comic book death and resurrection is neither novel nor notable in comics (or other similar genres), but a standard storytelling device. The article reflects the use of death as an arbitrary story telling device (evidenced by the "faked death," "retconned," "Revealed to have survived/imprisoned" none of which would point to a character dying). The failing is that the article is written in such an 'in-universe' fashion that any commentary on such thematic devices is lost. The article then serves as a hodge-podge of plot synopses that could sooner and more effectively be found in the individual article pages, with no information or content being lost. -Sharp962 (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - per the discussion back on WT:COMICS. The page also fails WP:!. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On what basis do you think this fails WP:What Wikipedia is not? --Orlady (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, by reading the content section of that policy? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of specific "not"s there. Which one(s) are you applying to this article? It's pretty easy to guess that you aren't referring to "not a dictionary" or "not a soapbox" (to name to), but it's not obvious what provision(s) you are referring to. --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Try WP:NOTDIRECTORY: "Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is a legitimate topic worthy of an article and that article is comic book death. As has been said virtually every comic book character can be considered to have "died" so such a list would just be a list of every comic book character, at least in the Big Two (where their universes have been destroyed and rebuilt). I know we have a list of dead comic book characters but I also think that should be deleted too. One point to keep in mind - these are fictional characters and so actually defining whether they are actually alive or dead at any one point is a bit of a moot subject (possibly one better suited for fan speculation or some beard-stroking philosophers with time on their hands) - given that they don't technically ever have to go through the act of "dying" to be dead (they can be retconned as having died 'off panel' at a writers whim - "where has Rocket Lad got too?" "Oh I heard he died in the Ultimate Crisis of 2010 fighting Muck Man"). So the fact that characters can be shown to die in a comic book and that seems to be no impediment to their returning is noteworthy (and already covered), lists of who is dead or have returned to life is not just bordering on the trivial, listcruft, original research and probably some other things too but it is almost impossible to define and come up with clear inclusion criteria (as they were never alive in the first place), in addition to this being a vast and pointless task. It might be worth transwiking to the Comics Wikia and seeing what they want to do with it. (Emperor (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- In fact being fictional characters who aren't actually alive, the main consideration is whether you are an active or inactive character and being dead has little bearing on this (as it would in the real world). So live characters can travel to some form of Hell and interact with characters who have died (probably most recently seen in Incredible Hercules) and dead characters can remain dead but be active within the main fictional universe as ghosts but most obviously as zombies (recently seen in Marvel Zombies, Blackest Night and Necrosha). All this before we consider that changes in a fictional universe may result in "living" and "dead" characters who were never born but can still be active characters (as we saw in Morrison's Animal Man when he played on the Crisis on Infinite Earths by having the main character meet those "lost" and now effectively dead characters) or that forgotten and unused characters, who are effectively dead can still, confusingly, be active characters (in a few recent Grant Morrison stories, Final Crisis and... Seven Soldiers/52? the main characters discover these lost characters in Limbo). So whether they are "dead" or have been "dead" and returned to "life" is actually irrelevant as it has no bearing whatsoever on whether they are an active character in a story, even before we consider the philosophical angles of how they can truly be defined as being alive or dead. The only way you can deal with this is in an out-of-universe overview of the situation, it is not desirable, wise or possible to produce definitive lists of who is or isn't "dead" even within a purely fictional perspective (and such in-universe writing and articles are not encouraged, see WP:WAF). (Emperor (talk) 17:37, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Fish[edit]
- Andy Fish (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, and completly biased article. Found5dollar (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fish is legit http://artscopemagazine.com/asdyn/index.wr?is=20&a=1 http://media.www.berkeleybeacon.com/media/storage/paper169/news/2008/03/27/News/Graphic.Novel.Program.Could.Become.New.Major-3287632.shtml http://www.telegram.com/article/20081009/NEWS/810090468 http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-181614596.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-194261977.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-202509984.html http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-190138817.html http://www.emerson.edu/ce/programs/certificate/Graphic-Novel-Certificate.cfm http://thelittlechimpsociety.com/andyfish/emerson-college-honors-graphic-novels-by-andy-fish/
The efforts to remove his listing are politically biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnderCoverFish (talk • contribs) 00:33 16 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources show notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, links are indicative of notable artistic career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.80.219 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep based on sources found so far. Anything more reliable? Bearian (talk) 02:28, 22 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. since the only sourcing provided is a mention in the context of something else this has no verifiable content to merge but there are no objections to someone setting up a redirect afterwards Spartaz Humbug! 08:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple Spreadsheet[edit]
- Simple Spreadsheet (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) 23:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge. Per Pohta ce-am pohtit below (thanks for locating that other article I had not noticed), the Simple Groupware product is a larger set of tools that includes Simple Spreadsheet. None of the individual tools needs long enough description for a separate article, but they do merit coverage on WP. Very active discussion on a Google Group indicates sufficient community knowledge and interest for notability. LotLE×talk 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Not per WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just so cute, Joe Chill, how you follow me around on AfD, claiming that every indication of notability of a topic magically doesn't count, no matter how prominent... and that the only criteria should be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which prompts deletion of all software articles. LotLE×talk 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow you around? I started this nomination and I don't follow anyone around! Where does it say in WP:N that being discussed a lot on Google Groups is a criteria for notability? Or that free software is a criteria for notability which you also said before? How does using notability guidelines instead of ignoring them equal WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Uhh, Lulu, please don't start crying wolf here, that's quite unnecessary. If something is not notable, it simply isn't notable. Most of us navigate via categories and through deletion sorting channels. Sadly, there is much to be cleaned up around here. Reason for deletion is the lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google groups is not a source. Miami33139 (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per LotLE’s vote above Samboy (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Groups isn't a reliable source. Joe Chill (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clearly a disruptive vote. Miami33139 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Simple Groupware. This is just a module of that product by the same company (equally uninspired title if I may say so—it took me a while to find), but the larger product is reviewed in linux.com and included in a round-up in Linux Magazine (both reviews mention the spreadsheet, e.g. saying that it's "arguably on a par with the similar application from Google"). Pcap ping 16:00, 21 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. Even if we ignore the hoax angle, consensus is clear. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swender[edit]
- Swender (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 article is more suited to Wikionary raseaCtalk to me 21:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced DICDEF. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete. Vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete and watch the creator - hoax-only account so far. Their first hoax was speedied whereupon they created this one - why is this one even being discussed? Skäpperöd (talk) 09:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NAD. Ilyushka ☃Talk!Contribs 07:36, 19 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. Delete and redirect. Any editor wanting to argue the other article is at the wrong location is advised to start a doscussion at the article talk page if one has not already taken place. Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Privislinsky Krai[edit]
- Privislinsky Krai (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 is a WP:POVFORK of Vistula Land. The WP:COMMONNAME of the region is "Vistula Land". "Privislinsky Krai" (a Russian term) gets 880 ghits, 4 Google books hits, and just 1 Google scholar hit. "Vistula Land" gets 3,310 ghits, 292 Google books hits, and 33 google scholar hits. User:Ajh1492 created this POVFORK in August 2008, and it was merged and re-directed to Vistula Land in March 2009 (after a brief revert-war). In late December 2009 Ajh1492 undid the redirect, and today redirected Vistula Land to this article. I recommend this article be deleted, then turned into a re-direct. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, then re-direct to Vistula Land. Jayjg (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, pov fork. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, The vast majorities of the Vistula Land references on Google are WP:MIRRORS of WP. Privislinsky Krai is the proper translation from polish of Kraj Przywiślański. Vistula Land or Vistula Country are just colloquial names that should be referral entries to Privislinsky Krai. I include a number of references from relevant primary sources.
- "Encyklopedia w INTERIA.PL - największa w Polsce encyklopedia internetowa, encyklopedie Biologia, Nauki społeczne, Humanistyka, Historia, Kultura i Sztuka, definicje, słownik synonimów i leksykon". Retrieved 7 January 2010.
- (in Polish) po upadku powstania zlikwidowano ostatnie elementy autonomii Królestwa Pol. (łącznie z nazwą), przekształcając je w "Kraj Przywiślański";
- (in English) after the fall of the uprising last elements of autonomy of the Kingdom of Poland (including the name) were abolished, transforming it into the "Privislinsky Krai"
- "Onet.pl Portal wiedzy". Encyclopedia WIEM. Retrieved 7 January 2010.
- (in Polish) "Królestwo Polskie po powstaniu styczniowym: Nazwę Królestwa Polskiego zastąpiła, w urzędowej terminologii, nazwa Kraj Przywiślański."
- (in English) "Kingdom of Poland after the January Uprising: the name Kingdom of Poland was replaced, in official documents, by the name of Privislinsky Krai."
- Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geographical and Spatial Organization, p. 539, [1]
- (in German) Rudolf Jaworski/Christian Lübke/Michael G. Müller (Hrsg.), Eine kleine Geschichte Polens. Frankfurt/Main 2000, S. 269.
- (Original German) - Der westliche Teil der vom russischen Reich besetzten Territorien der ehemaligen polnisch-litauischen Adelsrepublik trug in den Jahren 1815-1864 die amtliche Titulatur Königreich Polen (Carstvo Pol’skoe) und hieß nach 1864 offiziell Weichselland (Privislinskij kraj). Nach der Niederschlagung des polnischen Januaraufstandes von 1863 vermieden die zarischen Behören jeden Hinweis auf die polnische Staatstradition. Vgl. dazu u.a. Rudolf Jaworski, Das geteilte Polen (1795-1918),
- [Netherlands] gnatius Adversus Valentinianos?: Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien, By Thomas Lechner, Published by BRILL, 1999, ISBN 9004115056, 9789004115057, 370 pages
- p. 491
- [Austria] Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Enzyklopädie des europäischen Ostens (EEO) [Encyclopedia of Eastern Europe]
- [Slovakia] Virtuálne informačné centrum podpory slovensko-poľských malých a stredných podnikov.
- [German] Alltagsgeschichte der unteren Schichten im russischen Reich (1861-1914): kommentierte Bibliographie zeitgenössischer Titel und Bericht über die Forschung, By Angela Rustemeyer, Diana Siebert, Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, 1997, ISBN 351506866X, 9783515068666, 279 pages
- [French] Il existe un dossier sur ces plaintes issues du kraj de la Vistule (kraj privislinskij), soit de l’ancien Royaume de Pologne : RGIA, f. 1290, op. 10, d. 70. Un article à propos de l’enregistrement des uniates a paru dans Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 302, 1896
- [German] Stadt und Öffentlichkeit in Ostmitteleuropa, 1900-1939: Beiträge zur Entstehung moderner Urbanität zwischen Berlin, Charkiv, Tallinn und Triest, By Andreas R. Hofmann, Anna Veronika Wendland, Geisteswissenschaftliches Zentrum Geschichte und Kultur Ostmitteleuropas, Contributor Andreas R. Hofmann, Anna Veronika Wendland, Published by Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002, ISBN 3515079378, 9783515079372, 308 pages
- [Austria] DEUTSCHUNTERRICHT FÜR ERWACHSENE IN DER ALTAIREGION/ WESTSIBIRIEN IM KONTEXT VON INTEGRATION UND AUSSIEDLUNG
- Popular references in Polish
- Blogs ... [2]
- Polish Newspapers
- [Poland] [Catalog of the exhibition at the Museum Zamojskim, Zamość 2001]
- [Poland] Interia.pl History Portal
- Not that the other WP's can be used as sources, but for the sake of completeness . . .
- PL:WP ... Kraj_Przywiślański, Historia_Polski_(1831-1914)
- SK:WP . . . Poľsko
- "Encyklopedia w INTERIA.PL - największa w Polsce encyklopedia internetowa, encyklopedie Biologia, Nauki społeczne, Humanistyka, Historia, Kultura i Sztuka, definicje, słownik synonimów i leksykon". Retrieved 7 January 2010.
Ajh1492 (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect per nom — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the English name. This is basically a naming issue. The question is whether "Vistula Land" as an accepted English translation of "Privislinsky Krai" I see from Google Books that it seems to be by far the most widely used [5] vs. [6] & [7]. (I see that most of the books that use the non-English language name use Privislianskii krai not Privisliansky krai --both most be used in searching, -- and I also see that some of the occurrences of Vistula Land are not for the phrase but for either ...Vistula. Land ... in two adjacent sentences or for the use as the geographic region not the historical state. But even correcting for these, the English name by far predominates). I do not see how use in any other European language than English makes the least bit of difference. I am furthermore unclear to what extent to POV of the article differs: it would seem to me thatthe best article would be a merge of the two. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By that argument then Bejing should be deleted and redirected to Peking, Mumbai should be redirected to Bombay and numerous other examples. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The current English forms of those two cities are indeed Beijing and Mumbai, though other names were used in the past. For the general rule, see Moscow, not Moskva, Mexico City not Ciudad de México, The Hague not the official 's-Gravenhage. The question has been decided in policy: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) says "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." and "If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used." In this connection, Talk:Congress Poland and WT:WikiProject_Poland/Archive 1#Privislyansky Krai is illuminating==there does not seem to be all that much agreement. I not a name proposed there, Vistula Country, seems to have little support in Google books see [Vistula Country]] whjere it seems to be almost always used in the sense of " the area around the Vistula" as a general name, not for a specific period e.g. "From the thirteenth century the Germans had made their way into this Vistula country". And, as a guideline explicating the MOS policy, WP:WikiProject Poland/Conventions says "For the naming of articles follow the advice in Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy and the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) guideline... If there is no established usage in verifiable reliable sources in English then use Polish spelling and diacritics" and "English usage for places within the present borders of Poland is usually the present official name of the place in Polish, but there are exceptions, such as Warsaw, the Vistula and Silesia. When a city or other place is mentioned in a historical context, if there is no common English name for it in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name with the current Polish name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the place is mentioned." Ajh, this question was settled comprehensively. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to Vistula Land and delete as WP:CFORK. "Vistula land" is more common English name.DonaldDuck (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering this article is talking about historical events, the historical name for the time should be used. Then to be consistent the following articles need to be renamed because they are also Krais of the Russian Empire, if they aren't renamed, then the complaints are just pushing their POV . . .
Ajh1492 (talk) 13:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention Krais of Russia Ajh1492 (talk) 22:00, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alina Dorian[edit]
- Alina Dorian (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:ENT. Article offers no sources or real claim to notability that sets this model apart from the legions of non-descript others, assuming her credits could be verified. But popular resources like the Fashion Model Directory and Models.com offer no hits on the name and what Gnews returns is all on a doctor of the same name. Google images doesn't even return anything on this model. Mbinebri talk ← 21:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only self-published material on web search and nothing on news search. Favonian (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence of sufficient reliable-source coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 14:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources. Zohairani (talk) 18:57, 19 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) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Famous Audio Hacker[edit]
- World Famous Audio Hacker (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)
Speedy has been repeatedly declined, original author and apparently the subject of the article wants it deleted, but won't take the hint that they need to file an AFD, so this is a procedural nomination only. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't read my talk page. Yes, this article is by me and about me and was shameless self-promotion. For legal and privacy reasons, I now need the content removed. All apologies for the abuse of the system and misunderstanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.71 (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hmmmm why is it I'm not seeing this group mentioned by name in any of the supposed sources listed? JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ok kids, this is why we don't post our autobiographies on Wikipedia, mmmmmmkay? Wine Guy Talk 07:05, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
El pequeno diablo[edit]
- El pequeno diablo (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've run Spanish-language searches for this beasty and produced no relevant results. I know a bit about Latin American folklore but have never heard of this one (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist!). An apparently Chilean editor (IP) commented on the talk page that they'd never heard of it. There are no references whatsoever and the article creator never did anything else after creating this page. Simon Burchell (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Possible hoax, unsourced, can't find anything to verify it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Literally "The little devil," possibly notable, but will be hard to verify. I can't find much at Google scholar. Can anyone help? Bearian (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it's even notable. The only search results coming back are to do with a film or, occasionally, just an irrelevant description of something else completely different being described as a "little devil". I think this is a hoax. BTW the Spanish word that would normally be used for such a figure in folklore would be duende, making me doubly suspicious. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:24, 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) 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simeone Deary Design Group[edit]
- Simeone Deary Design Group (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 non-notable design firm. Article has a spammy tone, and has serious WP:COI concerns over its creation. There are two external links to "references", but the references don't actually discuss the design firm, they merely include a single sentance where the name of the firm is mentioned. I don't see where this company meets the criteria spelled out at WP:GNG or WP:CORP in that I cannot find any substantial, independent references that actually discuss (rather than merely confirm the existance of) this company. Jayron32 20:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I have misused the website. Simeone Deary is the interior design firm behind some of the high profile buildings currently going up in Columbus, Indianapolis, and Chicago and a few other cities. Of the references posted, they do speak of the firm and the work. The Elysian brand was created by this firm and is quickly becoming a new level for the hospitality industry. It is possible that one of the articles only includes a single sentence, but the firm is discussed in much greater detail in the others. I am happy to remove that article if needed.--Jessicalynnb (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)jessicalynnb[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. This business is built upon the vision of its founders, but in architecture I generally prefer a foundation. News Archive finds only minor trade awards. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Searches provide no comprehensive reporting or coverage of company that could be used to establish notability; local industry magazine articles and corporate links won't do. Flowanda | Talk 11:01, 19 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. While there were a couple users who argued for merging, it seems consensus pointed to deleting instead. This debate was an interesting read, and both sides brought up decent points, but I felt overall that the deletion advocates' arguments were more grounded in policy. So, in summary, deleting per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NEWSEVENT. I have no problem with the article being recreated after more details emerge, iff those details make this crash special or significant. As always, bring any disputes concerning this closure to User talk:The Earwig. — The Earwig @ 02:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Bladon aeroplane crash[edit]
- 2010 Bladon aeroplane crash (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 normally wouldn't nominate an article so soon after the event, but this just is not a notable accident. Sadly, it is quite a common situation. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. The investigation has not been conducted and notable aircraft defects or problems could be found and the article could be a useful reference. Considering the number of media reports and the rarity of air crashes in Oxfordshire I would leave this anyway. Macintosher (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable per WP:NEWSEVENT. Ipoellet (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki: Would it be appropriate to transfer this to Wikinews? (I'm not very familiar with Wikinews, so am unsure of its criteria for inclusion.) --Deskford (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Over at WN we don't write in an encyclopedic style, so it would need rewritten from scratch anyway, plus the licenses aren't suitable - it would be a copyvio. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Yet another NN aviation incident, involving a light aircraft. Why does every aircrash get an article and virtually never a road crash? WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fatal light aircraft crashes are an unfortunately frequent occurrence. When the investigation is concluded, at that point we might be able to conclude that this particular crash is notable but not until then. Adambro (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:AIRCRASH, mostly speculation, and of that which is cited almost all is general news reporting with bits of more specialist fire service reporting mixed in. Based on the information available at the moment, the absolute most coverage this event deserves on Wikipedia is a statement on the Oxford airport article that it happened (and even that might be pushing it). Thryduulf (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -sorry. At it stands it’s a good article which might sit well on a news or special interest site, but doesn’t look at home on Wikipedia. Firstly, in my view it is rather soon after the incident, and may inadvertently distress the people involved. Secondly, there is not enough concrete data to work with, and we cannot yet know that the incident is notable. Perhaps it could stay as a draft on a user page. SkyeWaye (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the Merge idea seems a good one, as this incident is notable for Bladon, and looks in keeping within that article. A draft user page would keep the item in readiness should it prove notable, after the AAIB investigation. It’s usually up to the AAIB to establish the facts, at least to the level which is useful on Wikipedia: and this will take a while.SkyeWaye (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, Macintosher, but I'm going to go with the majority here and say that it lacks enough notability for a stand-alone article, although the mention at London Oxford Airport should definitely remain; most airport articles have an "accidents and incidents" section for something like this. C628 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bladon - as that community is not likely to have had many crashes, so it might be locally notable. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bladon - Agreed that it should stay as a draft and possibly be transferred to the Bladon article where there's already a link. Oxford Airport isn't proven to be of any special interest, but it did occur in Bladon. Macintosher (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This is an aircraft crash that claimed victimes lives! It's got enough news reports, it's likely to be dicussed for a while on the news and has plent of resources. Zaps93 (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think there is enough notability in this article. It was not that a big crash. 2 lives is almost nothing. So I say delete.--Heymid (talk) 17:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is disrespectful, your practically saying their lives ment nothing. Zaps93 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your support of this article, however, we must consider that sadly many crashes do happen and information should be placed strategically in other, more notable articles. I personally would like it to stay on WP in its own right, but I am not an administrator. I shall make sure that a draft or part of article is kept up to date. I think this is respectful. Macintosher (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said on your talk, I'll make sure you get a copy if this is deleted. Some more support has come in, see below - I copied it from this page's talk. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say do not delete as this is an uncommon incident in UK air safety history:
- There are very few light aircraft crashes in the uk (contrary to other comment).
- This was in rare and extreme weather conditions for UK
- There 'may' be water-in-fuel (engines reported as 'stopped' whilst in service) or other mechanical reasons for accident that will only be shown by Farnborough team investigation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.228.146 (talk • contribs)
I would refer to the above unsigned user to what we have said above, and I hope this positive contribution will assist when it's decided what information to preserve and whereabouts on WP. The information should be available in one form or another based on what Blood Red Sandman has said above. Macintosher (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Bladon article, where this event can be adequately covered. Per WP:AIRCRASH, there is currently nothing to indicate that this artilce is worthy of a stand-alone article. No prejudice to re-creation if it subsequently emerges that WP:AIRCRASH criteria can be met. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Zaps93: I am very sorry. I really have to be careful for what I am writing to the public. I promise to be more careful next time. What I ment was the same as one of the previous writers, that all plane crashes don't need an article, whether it is notable or not.--Heymid (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't be, I over reacted, I now see what you meant. My appologies aswell. Regards, Zaps93 (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a non-notable light-aircraft accident which are not that rare despite the comments, probably not that notable to Bladon either as the field is close to the airport not the village. MilborneOne (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a mention could be made in the London Oxford Airport article then. Macintosher (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is an aircraft crash is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This happened less than 15 miles from me, very sad and the cause is a mystery at the moment. The AAIB report will take about four months to release, article could be resurrected if some new and unusual form of crashing is discovered. Did not affect the residents of Bladon (not he first aircraft out of Kidlington to crash into a field shortly after take-off) and should not be recorded under the Oxford airport article either. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 02:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Piper PA-31 incidents are rare so in any case it seems a WP mention should be kept. Anyway, I find it unusual for you not to take a more careful approach to preserving your local history! I suppose that's up to you, but should this happen near me I would make sure some data was kept on WP. Your decision as to your duty, I suppose. Macintosher (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirteen fatal PA-31 accidents in the last four years just in the United States doesnt sound that rare an occurance. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two are listed other than this on the PA-31 WP page and there is no link as of yet, so this could be a unique incident in terms of the WP record. Plus, considering the fact that 2044 PA-31s were built that's very few crashes per year - just over 3 a year on average. By contrast, the Boeing 747 (not a plane in the same class, but a useful widespread indicator, has 3 crashes a year on average, and I think they would be rare enough incidents for Wikipedia articles. Many of these did not incur fatalities, so if that many 747 incidents could be covered, why not an unexplained PA-31 incident? Macintosher (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirteen fatal PA-31 accidents in the last four years just in the United States doesnt sound that rare an occurance. MilborneOne (talk) 22:19, 21 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 I already speedy deleted it as G3 vandalism. No need to let obvious vandalism like this sit around for another week. --Jayron32 20:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan W. Preuninger[edit]
- Ryan W. Preuninger (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)
repeatedly recreated hoax article, speedy removed by IP WuhWuzDat 20:05, 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) 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Western Nostril[edit]
- The Western Nostril (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 cartoon WuhWuzDat 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no notability. raseaCtalk to me 20:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, only appears in one paper, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, I am a bit confused, how do you define notable? 2 books, 1 regular newspaper with a significant readership, an online readership around the world. My purpose was to ensure that my initial article was factually correct. There have been a number of other publications but I need verification before listing them. Based on world wide popularity, this subject is more notable than Microminiature sculptors for example, but that is my opinion, so rather give me some guidance as what exactly is required to reflect notability, more references, newspaper & magazine article citations. Thanks. JulianDicks (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Independent coverage is what is looked for. Not blogs, forums or press releases; not your own sites or aboutus or LinkedIn. Not the publication of your two books - independent review (by staff writers or known critics) in non-editable sources. The subject is possibly more notable than Microminiature sculptors, but they are probably better referenced. Give us evidence for your claims. Peridon (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i think it is rude to assume this is self promotional. So far it looks like the editors need a bit more training. I will do more research. So far no blogs/forums or press releases. JulianDicks (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I say self-promotional? I said not your site because that is obviously not neutral, and websites can be created for any old rubbish. In fact, I think your article is fairly neutral in tone, but it needs references from outside to establish notability. Failing them now, come back when you can produce. It's your job to find them, by the way. Peridon (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you implied it by saying "your two books". I'm going to ignore that as I'm pretty sure mistakes happen. Just to clarify, I am not the cartoonists. I'll endeavour this coming week to meet the guidelines outlined so far. JulianDicks (talk) 06:51, 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 Speedy delete, under criteria G7 (author requests deletion). Marasmusine (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FBL09[edit]
- FBL09 (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, not due to be released for almost a year. Violates WP:CRYSTAL WuhWuzDat 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it would be interesting to create this article because there are no floorball games out there. I also asked an FBL09 adminstrator for permission to write this article. Source: http://fbl-game.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1263572439. What do you mean with "non notable software"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymid (talk • contribs) 10:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What can I do to make the article notable and more interesting? Or is the problem that it is too far from release date? Can I put up the article again in september this year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymid (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can show how the game is notable, by telling us if any reliable publications have given it significant coverage (WP:GNG). Before the game is released, this might be interviews with the developers, or previews. As far as I can tell, this hasn't happened. Web search just gives an incomprehensible list of download/torrent sites. So I'm going to have to go with delete. Marasmusine (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to say: I completely agree with you. I think you mean that there is no external information about the game yet, that's because it has not been released yet. There are not many people who know this game, so it is better that I upload this article with more information when I know that there are more information, interviews and previews about the game, not only on the official site, but maybe like 30 external ones. I am going with delete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymid (talk • contribs)
- Comment, as Heymid has been the only substantial contributor to this article, and has now requested deletion above, I would suggest closing this as Speedy delete G7, Author request, with no prejudice towards recreating a future article for this subject if and when more information becomes available to prove its notability. WuhWuzDat 16:01, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaleb Schwade[edit]
- Kaleb Schwade (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)
Per this discussion at the BLP noticeboard, the article, as currently written, should be deleted per WP:BLP1E. The individual is known only in context of the possible crime committed against them. If notability for the event is established, then the article should be redirected to reflect the event as a whole.Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can think of very few instances where wikipedia should have an article about an infant; having an article whose purpose is to advertise an infant's abuse to the world is really beyond the pale, IMO. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unfortunately, this sort of thing is not infrequent--that this particular one had gotten Myspace attention does not make it notable. This is clear BLP violation, and I would call for a speedy deletion and oversight, under DO NO HARM. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete The 5 provided references don't support enough notability --Rirunmot 23:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Consider the parallels to the Terri Schiavo case. This is not BLP1E. This article from 2009 is not about a single incident, but about the boy's life, such as it is. This is about a volleyball tournament in Kansas named after the boy. There has been extensive coverage in reliable sources, not only of the incident, but of his life afterwards and related fundraising and of the proceedings leading up to a criminal trial, and with the cooperation of the boy's parents. This is not just a MySpace issue. This CD is part of the evidence of notability. And a good article about Kaleb Schwade may help prevent future instances of shaken baby syndrome by reminding people of the consequences of roughly shaking an infant. – Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps the article should be moved to Kaleb Schwade case. — Eastmain (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. --Tom (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I don't think this is speediable BLP (or I would have deleted it a long time ago; I don't believe it has been at risk of HARMing anybody for quite some time, since I have done my best to keep it neutral and sourced and since Rob has just confirmed that the childcare provider is still pending trial), but I've been watching this one for several years, and it has never risen above the level of marginally notable. This child is the victim of a crime, and per WP:BLP the article should be about the event. But the event may not clear general notability guidelines, tragic though it is. My only concern with deletion is that I think the subject is popular enough that recreation is likely...and the new article might not be so basic. It gets at least a few to up to a couple of dozen views a day (see [8]). When I brought up my concerns at BLPN, I mentioned that I would merge it somewhere if there was somewhere good to merge it. I just can't find anywhere. I think if a suitable home for a brief reference could be found, a redirect to it would be ideal. (At which point this would become a keep, with redirect.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not harming anyone? Do you really think that this article doesn't harm Kaleb Schwade? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I really do. Do you disagree, or is my language in some way confusing so you weren't sure if I was sincere? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since I've got other stuff going on today, I'm just going to presume that you disagree and will want to know why I think it can do him no harm. First, Kaleb — bless his heart — is beyond knowing or caring about this article, and evidently he always will be. To quote the November 2009 article:
- Yes, I really do. Do you disagree, or is my language in some way confusing so you weren't sure if I was sincere? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not harming anyone? Do you really think that this article doesn't harm Kaleb Schwade? Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Kaleb cannot return the kisses. He cannot see his grandmother. He cannot hear her soothing words. Kaleb is what many crudely call a vegetable. He is blind, deaf and has no control over his arms and legs. He cannot chew or swallow. He will be in a diaper for life. Doctors say he will never improve.
- This does not mean that I do not believe he should be treated with dignity and respect. Far from it. I'm the one who brought up the article at BLPN in the first place, and I've been watching the article for years in part because of that concern. The people at most risk for harm from this article are the child's parents (who have like many parents in such cases chosen to publicize the matter, see [9] and [10]; I'm sure I would, too, if he were my child and I hoped to get something positive about the tragedy), and the childcare provider, who has not yet been convicted in a court of law and may have done nothing wrong. (Rob's updates have made her less of an urgent concern for me, since she is evidently still pending trial and hasn't been quietly cleared.) This event has already been so widely publicized that it has a Snopes report ([11]). As Eastmain points out above, there are fundraisers in this child's name as well. Could this article be used to harm Kaleb in some intangible way? Surely, if it were used to belittle his experience in some way (I am reminded of the uproar a while back about the inclusion of a flippant nickname for Rachel Corrie), but this article is not belittling or even overly detailed. It is a straightforward recounting of previously published fact, more respectful of its subject even than this. I think it would be perfectly appropriate to mention him in a suitable article, with a redirect. I do think it's problematic under BLP, as his sole notability lies in his being a victim of a crime. But I do not think it is harming him, tangibly or intangibly. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, with redirect . I fully support Moon's position here, as a BLP there is an issue although imo there is no hurry to delete it, it has a value and it is going to attract a lot more attention in the near future, the next date for a trial is in a month, 23rd of Feb 2010, I do think a rename to perhaps some title with the trial in the name would perhaps work, the trial has dragged on for somewhere around three years and there has been many issues, like the arrest of the bailed suspect for a separate charge and the revoking of the bail, since the bail was revoked the accused has already spent a year in jail, also the way the prosecution has caused the trial to drag on for so long by refusing to give the defending lawyers necessary requested information, and it is not finished yet, after searching around for details regarding this crime I feel that although sadly this occurs to many children every year and although sad that fact is not notable but in the end the trial in itself may be notable. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Horrible story, but the kid is just not notable. Comparison to the Schiavo case is inappropriate on so many levels. Existence does not mean notable. Delete. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 22 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) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gravity set[edit]
- Gravity set (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 describes the mathematics and software for producing certain visual effects, which are described as fractals by the creator of this page, which is also the author of the software. There are a couple of problems here:
- The mathematics are not discussed in any independently published venue, which makes that part WP:OR. They appear to be a sort of simulation of an N-body problem, but then I'm engaging in my own original research...
- As software, I wasn't able to find sources discussing it either.
In its defense, these visual effects generated by this math are included in one third party (commercial) program that we don't have an article about: Visions Of Chaos gallery. This looks pretty cool, but I'm not convinced we should invoke WP:IAR based on that factor alone. Pcap ping 19:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNeutral. After reviewing David Eppstein's argument, I'm less convinced the (self-)publications quite make it. Apparently a published mathematical concepts (that happens to have been implemented in some software). Like math in general, approaches inherent notability (as long as it meets publication and 3rd party discussion requirements, as this one does). The nom seems to be a case of the free-roamong anti-software bias that has become prevalent on AfD, but particularly misguided here since it isn't even a software-concept per se. LotLE×talk 20:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. I'm willing to accept articles on very obscure mathematical subjects but they need to have some reliably published literature from more than one author or group of authors. I found nothing on this in Google scholar and nothing in Google books, which together should cover a large fraction of the scholarly mathematics research literature and the published popular mathematics literature. This article has been here for 6 1/2 years and in that time has managed only to find two self-published web pages as sources. This satisfies (barely) the "more than one author" part but not the reliably published part. It is also troubling that the softology link points back to the article here for more (any) information; we should not be doing such circular referencing. And both links just contain galleries of images with no description of the mathematics behind them, so effectively the entire article here is unsourced. Therefore, it is original research and should not be covered here. But I'd be willing to change my mind if the week-long AfD period can be more effective than the past years in turning up real references. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability can be established by third party coverage in reliable secondary sources. At present it isn't, and attempts to find such coverage have so far failed. Geometry guy 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per David Eppstein and Geometry guy. No reliable sources; no evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; lacks independent third-party reliable sources to establish notability. Fred Mitchell (mathematics) also seems to have similar problems. -- The Anome (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, or allow for incubation. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per David Eppstein. RayTalk 04:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, lack of third party reliable resources and notability. --FaceMash (talk) 17:39, 19 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) 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aurora Organic Dairy[edit]
- Aurora Organic Dairy (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, Appears to be WP:COATRACK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Serves little purpose but to disparage the company. Perhaps the company is notable enough to meet WP:CORP, but I think a complete rewrite from a neutral point of view would be necessary. Deli nk (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [12], [13], [14], [15], www.naturalnews.com/022133_organic_dairy_USDA_the_USDA.html [unreliable fringe source?], [16], [17], [18], [19], and more. Joe Chill (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep Not so much a coatrack as an attack piece bringing up valid issues in an extremely biased way. A quick Google search brings up multiple independent sources, including the Chicago Tribune, MSNBC, and Business Wire, so the subject appears to meet notability requirements. But the article can't stand as it is. At very least it should be reduced to a stub by excising all the Cornucopia Institute stuff, which is certainly not an independent source - they have an agenda as relates to this company. It could be used in a properly filled-out article, but only with great care to keep the article encyclopedic and NPOV. But if it's easier to simply delete the article (I'm not sure I feel like editing it down, after all, so why should anyone else), then I really don't see a problem with that either. Ipoellet (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notability clearly established through extensive coverage in national media. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Because spending a few brief moments clicking Google News at the top of the AFD, showed 490 hits of this company being mentioned in the news. Always search BEFORE you nominate. Dream Focus 03:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you jump to conclusions read the original inception of the page. It violated WP:COATRACK. Remember always review the article when it was nominated before chastising people.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see What to do about coatracks which explains that the appropriate corrective action is to trim the inappropriate material and that deletion nominations should be reserved for extreme cases when the underlying topic is not notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- point taken...It does however say that we are not required to try and even out the bias. I had considered it to need a complete rewrite. hence why I opened this thread. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. NPOV is achieved by editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The current version of the article is fair and neutral and worth keeping. - Eastmain (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Eastmain's comment. C628 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is clear. Current version is much improved over the version nominated for AfD, and does not seem excissively non-neutral to me. Furhte editing and improvement may be needed, but this isn't a case for deletion if it ever was -- stubifing would IMO have been better than an AfD now if the original editor did not wish to find, source and add enough info to make this truly neutral. DES (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although there has been controversy about the company, it is still notable. Readers will make their own judgments about whether the milk is properly called organic, or not, but Wikipedia can present a WP:NPOV account for those interested. The article does that. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:29, 20 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) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Demon's Boy[edit]
- The Demon's Boy (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)
An alternate reality/dark fantasy novella, by a non-notable author which seems to clearly fail the notability guideline. Given that a google search for the author and title turns up only [20] this article, it's hard to prove this book exists, much less that it meets any of the notability criteria. This was initially prodded, but was de-prodded without comment by UlTiMaTeSeCrEt2, the creator of this article. Bfigura (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete , hopefully by SNOW. Not even in Amazon, not in WorldCat, & the author has no other books in either . DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I couldn't find any trace of this book outside Wikipedia and its mirrors either. Fails WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Either a hoax or an unpublished work, but not demonstrably notable in any case.--ShelfSkewed Talk 06:35, 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 and salt. Delete because the arguments for delete are more convincing and mostly based on policies, guidelines, etc., while the keep arguments are more vague and less concretely grounded (however, this is not to disparage those who did cite policies and guidelines in their arguments). Salt because a fifth successful nomination for deletion is quite telling about the notability of the subject with respect to Wikipedia standards, and to force any future article depicting the subject to fulfill all concerns before recreation. --kurykh 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Nicholas Beale[edit]
- Nicholas Beale (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)
Several previous versions of this article have been created and brought to AFD, with a consistent balance of opinion in favour of deletion. I'd encourage editors to review the past discussions, but I would summarise the dominant view as being that while Nicholas Beale has collaborated with notable people (such as John Polkinghorne), neither his personal role in those projects nor his individual activity has received significant independent coverage.
In common with its predecessors, this version of the article relies heavily on the subject's own writing and promotional sources such as a foreword to his co-written book. The only developments apparent since it was last deleted (October 2009) are the publication of an article by Nicholas Beale in Think (which cannot yet have had much impact, if it is going to) and a mention in the Financial Times of a collaborative project.
Given the lack of change from its earlier incarnations, my suggestion is to delete this article. However, I admit that my view may be coloured by irritation at how this situation keeps recurring, and I'd like to see what editors with fresh eyes think of the article. As a compromise, I wouldn't object to converting Nicholas Beale into a redirect to Questions of Truth, the book with Polkinghorne that prompted most mentions of Nicholas Beale's name in the media, and including brief biographical information at that article. EALacey (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: if the article is deleted and not replaced with a redirect, I support the suggestions below to "salt" the page title. EALacey (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's worth adding that the repeated recreation of the article seems to have been prompted by Nicholas Beale himself complaining about the deletions on his blog, canvassing for support on Wikipedia, and even trying to change the No original research policy to make it easier for him to be used as a source in this article. [21] Discussion here. His has been the most aggressive campaign to have his own Wikipedia bio that I recall in the five years I've been editing. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not that's true, its irrelevant. Except that your comment suggests that your vote was made on an inappropriate basis, and therefore should be discounted accordingly.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutral. Over the course of the previous AfDs I went from keep, to weak keep, to delete, due to the continuing failure to clarify the rather borderline notability. The current version does not show it any better. It is still possible of course that he might become notable in the future, but I think given the history that this should be salted, and recreation should require approval at Deletion Review, reqiuiring a clerar showing of additional convincing evidence. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC) --on the basis of the various comments below, I simply cannot tell if he is notable, so I am back to undecided. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi DGG. I really respect your judgement as an editor. But can writing a notable book, being a featured speaker at meetings at the AAAS, the RS, the Ri, having a full page article in the FT featuring my work, going from <
102k to >100k ghits etc.. really make ‘’anyone’’, even me, ‘’less’’ notable? NBeale (talk) 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a paucity of third party sources for an indication of notability, which is the usual stumbling block. However, I would also strongly direct reviewers attention to the following pages; User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale and User:Jmt007/Nicholas Beale and most particularly the talkpages of both. In both the only correspondent is User:NBeale, the subject, with helpful advice. It should be noted that Epeefleche is a long established editor (while Jmt007's entire contribution history is the half dozen or so edits to the above linked page) who has been so far unable to bring the article to mainspace. It concerns me that within the last few weeks there appears to have been a concerted effort to bring forward an article upon a subject, very largely advanced by the efforts of the subject concerned. For the reason that the campaign to create an article that has never been able to indicate it can be sustained by sufficient reliable third party sources to its notability remains undiminished, I also suggest that it should be salted so that notabilty may be required to be proven before it again is created - and taken to AfD. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ps. I shall be notifying Epeefleche and Jmt007 of this discussion.[reply]
- I haven't (until LessHeard's friendly notice today, for which I thank him) ever made any edits to this article or any of its predecessors. But have now begun to do so. Clearly, the article needs fixing-up, a process I've begun.
- Second, just to clear up what I'm sure is an unintentional mischaracterization. When reviewers are "strongly direct[ed" in the above comment to look at User:Epeefleche/Nicholas Beale, the suggestion is made (unless I'm misconstruing the above) that NBeale created the page with my name on it, and did so as part of his concerted effort to bring forward an article on the subject. However, from what I can tell, NBeale was not the editor who created that page with my name on it. It was done so by another editor who I believe was seeking to be helpful, as -- seeing discussion on this topic -- I had asked on NBeale's talkpage (unsolicited) if I might see the best prior version of the article (and he, seeing that discussion and being a sysop with access to an earlier version, had chimed in that he would make one available). I had thought at the time that I might work on it. Although, as mentioned, I never in fact did so until a few hours ago (though I see that other editors -- including SlimVirgin -- did make edits to prior versions of that page).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The strong direct specifies the talkpages of both userfied variants - where NBeale offers assistance - and the general point that there have been 3 efforts in the last few weeks to place a BLP in mainspace, all of which are supported by the articles subject, which leads me to the suggestion of salting the article until as such time as notability is established. I regret if what I wrote reflected at all upon the editors who have hosted the material in good faith, that was not my intent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The variant with my name on it was placed there by another person (a sysop, offering assistance). I've not finished, but I've already completely rewritten the article, without having looked at any versions other than the one here. What I started on was lacking, but it already much better reflects notability (via mention of him and his work in various RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re LessHeard: This article was indefinitely salted in the past. I'm not sure how this was re-created; perhaps when I moved the page history to Epeefleche's userspace the original protection went there and this location became unprotected. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any move that requires sysop flags undoes the protection afforded an article, and salting is simply protection of a deleted article. A quick review of WP:Userfy does not contain any suggestion in handling this. I think this is simply an unforseen consequence... although one which was quickly exploited, seemingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re LessHeard: This article was indefinitely salted in the past. I'm not sure how this was re-created; perhaps when I moved the page history to Epeefleche's userspace the original protection went there and this location became unprotected. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The variant with my name on it was placed there by another person (a sysop, offering assistance). I've not finished, but I've already completely rewritten the article, without having looked at any versions other than the one here. What I started on was lacking, but it already much better reflects notability (via mention of him and his work in various RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The strong direct specifies the talkpages of both userfied variants - where NBeale offers assistance - and the general point that there have been 3 efforts in the last few weeks to place a BLP in mainspace, all of which are supported by the articles subject, which leads me to the suggestion of salting the article until as such time as notability is established. I regret if what I wrote reflected at all upon the editors who have hosted the material in good faith, that was not my intent. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have re-reviewed the AfD and the article. I am impressed by the efforts of Epeefleche and others into improving the article, and the quality and quantity of the references. I am still, however, not persuaded that there is sufficient third party sources that indicates that the subject, rather than some of his work and participation at various events, is notable. I continue to believe that the article should be deleted, although I would not think it inappropriate if some of the biography found itself used within the Questions of Truth article. I still believe the article should be salted, until a RS denoting notability of the subject is located. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Four previous articles have been deleted and the fifth is not an improvement. One quarter of the article shows standard information: subject has a job and a few interests. Another quarter deals with a 1991 report on British industry with no apparent impact. The remaining half shows that the subject co-wrote a book and has worked with various people, and frequently engages in discourse, and maintains two websites. These achievements do not satisfy WP:BIO. Even if, for example, the websites were shown to be notable, a person working on the websites is not notable unless verified by independent comment. Johnuniq (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep though of course I have to declare an interest as the subject of the article. But I genuinely cannot understand how, given that Questions of Truth is a notable book which has recieved multiple reviews in periodicals, the co-author does not qualify under WP:AUTHOR. It is also perhaps relevant to point out that the FT article in question was a full page article (very rare) that was largely about the work I am doing with my collaborators Dave Rand and Bob May. Is there any example of someone who has co-written a notable book, and had his work featured in a full-page article in the FT, and has c.
100k16k GHits being deleted from Wikipedia? NBeale (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. The FT article is 34 paragraphs long, of which two paragraphs are devoted to the work of David Rand and Nicholas Beale. The article does not indicate Nicholas Beale's personal role in this project, and although it also describes Lord May's work it does not assert that Nicholas Beale has collaborated with him. EALacey (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless it is the case. The best evidence on the web is Andy Haldane's paper Banking on the State which cites Beale, Rand, Arimpathy & May .. forthcoming. And he cites this work for providing the fundamental insight that diversification can make the system more fragile, which is the main policy conclusion cited. Bob May's papers and speeches on this also cite me. I agree this is not obvious from the FT article! NBeale (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is now a far different one than when the first voters opined; admittedly, the earlier version failed to reflect many RSs. Still more are out there, but I've worked on it enough now to vote. Multiple RS mentions of the subject and his work squarely demonstrate the article's notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. How do people interpret the secondary notability criteria? WP:AUTHOR: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This use lots of disjunctions, so it logically follows from the following statement "The person has played a major role in co-creating a well-known work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews." The latter is satisfied by Beale, so by implication he satisfies WP:AUTHOR. What else do you want? Significant coverage in reliable source, yeah, yeah, but what's the point of having secondary criteria then? Vesal (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's a fair question, and I've noticed a range of positions on what the secondary criteria should be for. My understanding is that subjects which meet them are likely to deserve inclusion but that (per Wikipedia:Notability (people)) this "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". With regard to the guideline you've quoted, I would say that if someone's contributions to a work can be described adequately at the article on the work, are not a major theme in commentary on the work, and have not resulted in coverage of that person's biography, we shouldn't have an individual biographical article, especially not if the rest of that article would have to rely heavily on primary sources.
In this case, Nicholas Beale's co-authorship of Questions of Truth can be covered at the book's own article; it should not be used as the basis for an article which attempts to describe his work as a management consultant, IT professional and philosopher with no significant independent commentary that would allow an appropriate assessment of his significance in those fields. EALacey (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment. Excellent point, Vesal. My reading is the same as yours--I think WP:AUTHOR is met. As to EALacey's points, he appears to read in new, non-existent criteria: a) suggesting we have to in greater particularity describe NB's specific contributions to his most notable/co-written book, as though "co-writer" status is insufficient; b) that those contributions have to be a major theme in the commentary; and c) the book must have led to more coverage of NB's biography than the coverage we see here. Those simply aren't part of the guideline. NB meets the guideline. As to my reflecting in the article elements of NB's career outside of his co-authored book, which are reported in a number of RSs, that's appropriate material for a bio. It's not necessary that each such aspect be itself notable enough to warrant an article. If the subject is notable, and has written additional books, or had his career as a consultant or writer covered in other RSs, or written other books, all of which are covered in RSs, that's perfectly appropriate for coverage in his article. In fact, its normal course on wp.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The relevant page states that "meeting one or more [secondary criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so it's reasonable to present other considerations that might weigh the balance against inclusion. Of course primary sources can be used to fill out the less notable parts of a biography, but when they account for nearly all content that isn't already included in another article, the page ceases to be an encyclopaedia article and becomes a CV. EALacey (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you, EALacey, for your thoughtful response, and thank you, Epeefleche, for your efforts to rescue this article! It would be very useful if a something like a consensus can emerge on this issue, so that Beale clearly understands the problem. (You can see his incredulous response to DGG above!) I have the feeling that this article will keep returning unless the reason for deletion is made crystal clear. There are contradictory statements on the extent to which Beale satisfies WP:AUTHOR as co-creator of Questions of Truth as well as his other collaborations, and there is disagreements on the deeper question of whether more is needed than co-authorship, especially since the coverage is focused on the book. Then, a very serious question is what to make of largely self-supplied biographical information published by independent parties like Debrett's, Faraday Institute, and Cambridge University Press. Vesal (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The relevant page states that "meeting one or more [secondary criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included", so it's reasonable to present other considerations that might weigh the balance against inclusion. Of course primary sources can be used to fill out the less notable parts of a biography, but when they account for nearly all content that isn't already included in another article, the page ceases to be an encyclopaedia article and becomes a CV. EALacey (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's a fair question, and I've noticed a range of positions on what the secondary criteria should be for. My understanding is that subjects which meet them are likely to deserve inclusion but that (per Wikipedia:Notability (people)) this "does not guarantee that a subject should be included". With regard to the guideline you've quoted, I would say that if someone's contributions to a work can be described adequately at the article on the work, are not a major theme in commentary on the work, and have not resulted in coverage of that person's biography, we shouldn't have an individual biographical article, especially not if the rest of that article would have to rely heavily on primary sources.
DeleteDelete and salt Recreation of previously deleted article without substantial improvement. Show me some notable newspaper or magazine articles about this guy and his work and that he has been widely cited and/or authored or co-authored something that has had significant coverage in the media, and where his contribution has been duly noted. -Duribald (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Until flagged revisions are implemented, all marginally notable BLPs must be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from a previously involved editor: I have no opinion yet on the other points raised, but this does not qualify as "recreation of a previously deleted article"—this one does look substantially different than the deleted versions. That doesn't mean it should be automatically be kept, but it does mean it should be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by the outcome of previous AfDs. I haven't read most of the previous AfDs enough to know if the subject has been judged to be categorically non-notable, so I have no opinion yet on notability. But AfDs that were only about re-creation of deleted content (specifically AfD #4) are not really relevant here, as this is a more or less new article. Issues of notability and COI apply, but issues of re-creation do not.
Also, in response to points raised by SlimVirgin and LessHeardvanU above: it is obvious that NBeale, while a helpful editor in other areas of the encyclopedia, is a single-minded COI editor when it comes to edits related to this article (as evidenced by edits to WP:NOR and discussion surrounding this article). But articles are not deleted based on the behavior of their subjects, they are deleted based on non-adherence to core policies, so NBeale's behavior around this article is not really relevant to this AfD. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The concerns expressed regarding NBeales behaviour is orientated more toward their apparent non-comprehension of the need for neutral third party, peer reviewed if possible, references to establish notability. These concerns are the same since the first AfD, and are seemingly disregarded in every article recreation and subsequent AfD since. This, and the uncertain editorial independence of a couple of authorities upon which the article depends for evidence in designating the subjects areas of competence, fosters an editing and discussion environment where every potential positive is heavily promoted and each contrary viewpoint is obfuscated and sometimes ignored. Under such circumstances, the editors efforts do not seem directed toward clarifying the basis by which notability is determined but rather in building circumstantial (and circular) arguments by which minor references by reliable sources to the material in question informs the reliability of the source. In every discussion, NBeale has failed to comprehend the consensus view that such references are only useful in supporting a independent, third party, reliable primary source of the subjects notability. Comment upon the subjects record in the creation, editing, (and deletion) of the article is vital in understanding why issues raised in the first or second AfD remain relevant - they remain unaddressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWFW NBeale thinks: The 1st & 2nd AfDs were before QoT was published, so notability was debatable. Even by the 3rd you could argue whether QoT had had "multiple periodical reviews". The 4th AfD was a travesty - closed in 2 hours with no attempt to engage with or improve the newbie editor's article. However it is now incontrovertable that N.B. co-created QoT (85k ghits for "Nicholas Beale" "Questions of Truth", take your pick) which has been the subject of multiple reviews in periodicals (often by notable reviewers) and special sessions at places like the RS, AAAS the Ri, Hay where N.B. was a featured speaker. It seems abundantly clear that this meets WP:AUTHOR, that none of this was true in the 1st & 2nd AfDs, and that, as Rjanag points out, above the arguments that "we should delete this article because we deleted the earlier ones" are both irrelevant in terms of WP:POLICY and blatantly unfair. If we wanted to run a fair process we would reframe the highly prejudicial lead-in, and if we are to have an honest process we should stick to the relevant points. NBeale (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghits for "Nicholas Beale" "Questions of Truth" is not really relevant, because it doesn't establish your notability as much as it establishes the book's notability. Basically, in that search the "Nicholas Beale" term is piggybacking off the hit count of the far more common "Questions of Truth" term, and judging by the snippets those results don't say much or anything about Nicholas Beale (many don't appear to say more than "by John Polkinghorne and Nicholas Beale"). And being the writer of a notable book does not in of itself make someone notable (more on this in my !vote below). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWFW NBeale thinks: The 1st & 2nd AfDs were before QoT was published, so notability was debatable. Even by the 3rd you could argue whether QoT had had "multiple periodical reviews". The 4th AfD was a travesty - closed in 2 hours with no attempt to engage with or improve the newbie editor's article. However it is now incontrovertable that N.B. co-created QoT (85k ghits for "Nicholas Beale" "Questions of Truth", take your pick) which has been the subject of multiple reviews in periodicals (often by notable reviewers) and special sessions at places like the RS, AAAS the Ri, Hay where N.B. was a featured speaker. It seems abundantly clear that this meets WP:AUTHOR, that none of this was true in the 1st & 2nd AfDs, and that, as Rjanag points out, above the arguments that "we should delete this article because we deleted the earlier ones" are both irrelevant in terms of WP:POLICY and blatantly unfair. If we wanted to run a fair process we would reframe the highly prejudicial lead-in, and if we are to have an honest process we should stick to the relevant points. NBeale (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The concerns expressed regarding NBeales behaviour is orientated more toward their apparent non-comprehension of the need for neutral third party, peer reviewed if possible, references to establish notability. These concerns are the same since the first AfD, and are seemingly disregarded in every article recreation and subsequent AfD since. This, and the uncertain editorial independence of a couple of authorities upon which the article depends for evidence in designating the subjects areas of competence, fosters an editing and discussion environment where every potential positive is heavily promoted and each contrary viewpoint is obfuscated and sometimes ignored. Under such circumstances, the editors efforts do not seem directed toward clarifying the basis by which notability is determined but rather in building circumstantial (and circular) arguments by which minor references by reliable sources to the material in question informs the reliability of the source. In every discussion, NBeale has failed to comprehend the consensus view that such references are only useful in supporting a independent, third party, reliable primary source of the subjects notability. Comment upon the subjects record in the creation, editing, (and deletion) of the article is vital in understanding why issues raised in the first or second AfD remain relevant - they remain unaddressed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree that the alleged behaviour of WP editor NBeale should have no bearing on the question of whether Nicholas Beale satisfies the criteria for an article. However, the more often, and the more stridently, the former argues the case for the latter, the more strongly it suggests that notability is in fact insufficient. If he was truly notable, he would not need to rely on having his case argued at every turn by his alter-ego. Many of the sources used in the article are borderline, in that they seem to be largely self-published and/or self-promotion, or at least, with a few exceptions, not independent sources. I am inclined towards the view that Beale may now be just notable enough – but the more NBeale pleads, the weaker the case looks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that you deleted from the article RS reviews of the book that NB wrote, including one criticizing the authors. The reviews from the New Humanist for "cherry-pick[ing] which bits of scripture and dogma are to be taken as symbolic, and which as literally true," and described the Royal Society's decision to allow its premises to be used for the launch of this "weak, casuistical and tendentious pamphlet" as a "scandal." [20] Julian Baggini wrote in the Financial Times that "despite the complexity of some of the scientific issues discussed", the book "is a commendably clear read".[21] Publishers Weekly wrote: "Many readers will welcome this accessible format, but some may find the blurring of science and theology confusing,"[22] the Library Journal described it as intriguing and thought-provoking",[23] and Physics World said it is “remarkably even-handed ... a valuable lesson".[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs)
- Not sure what the problem is here. I deleted that material simply because it was a wholesale duplication of stuff at Questions of Truth, which is where it belongs. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After reviewing the sources in this article, I have to agree that the notability of the subject is not demonstrated by reliable, independent sources. I did my best to categorize the sources, which I have pasted below—the ones in bold are the ones I think might qualify as useful significant coverage, but for the most part the sources are just either a) not independent, b) just passing mentions, or c) not about Beale specifically.
|
- One of the key questions here is if this individual is notable enough that so many people would be trying to write an article about him if he weren't canvassing people to do so (as evidenced by his blog activity, involvement with other editors wanting to write about him, and the massive effort that's been made to dig up even the most marginal references). Based on the lack of knock-down sources, I don't think he is. Simply having written a notable book does not make someone notable (see, for example, Harvard Girl: none of the authors are notable). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if the consensus of this debate is to delete, I believe that the indefinite create protection should be restored (it was only ever removed by my own accident, and AFAIK no one other than Nicholas Beale himself had objected to it.) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Rjanag. Thanks for taking the trouble to do this. Unfortunately there are some quite major mistakes in your list, which you might want to correct (eg 12 mentions of Beale where you say "without mentions"). A corrected list is below. I should also mention that each article about NB was created by a different person. NBeale (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NBeale's proposed corrected analysis of sources
|
---|
Hi User:Rjanag. Thank you for taking the trouble to do this, but I think you have made a few mis-classifications:
|
- Never did I ever, anywhere on this page, say "without mentions". I said some pages are just passing mention (i.e., they mention your name and don't stay anything substantial), so stop trying to misrepresent my comments by making up words I never said.
- And you can drop the act, there's no need to refer to yourself in the third person. We all know you are Nicholas Beale; just call yourself "me". rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 21:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, you might want to check and modify that statement - your category "Reviews or mentions of QoT without anything about Beale himself;" which contains the review by Grayling with 12 mentions of Beale.
- Yeah, I read that one already. Using your name 12 times (and not even your name, but "Beale-Polkinghorne") does not equal significant coverage. All those usages are not talking about you as a person, they're talking about you & Polkinghorne's analysis. It's quite common in academic writing (e.g., "Rizzi's (1997) proposal is that....."). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- er.."John Polkinghorne's former student Nicholas Beale runs a website on behalf of his mentor, on which.."?? Whether something is "significant coverage" is a matter of opinion, but whether it is "without anything" is a matter of fact. Similarly you claim (mistakenly and without any evidence) that I have worked at the Faraday Centre and Debretts. Please be reasonable. The relevant criterion per WP:AUTHOR is "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical ...reviews." Are you saying that this criterion is not met? NBeale (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that people who are actually notable aren't often people who are concerned too much about whether or not they're on Wikipedia. Whereas people who are just dying to get onto Wikipedia...well, you know. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So we agree that WP:AUTHOR is met. And that the analysis you kindly did needs amendment. Good. (BTW if any author has claimed they don't care if they have an article on Wikipedia they are almost certainly lying. And where in WP:POLICY is this "if you care you aren't notable" to be found?)NBeale (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said I believe WP:AUTHOR is met, I avoided responding to your question because my opinion should already be abundantly clear by now.
- And I most certainly do not think my analysis needs amendment; indeed, so far the only person who has complained about it is you. At least one editor below was perfectly happy with mine. Although I do appreciate the arrogance it takes to assume that your analysis is automatically the "correct" one and that you somehow have the right to tell other editors to amend their statements until they match with yours.
- As for policy...for someone who seems so interested in harping about what is and is not WP:POLICY, you seem to have conveniently forgotten that WP:AUTHOR (which you repeatedly cite in your defense) is not a policy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that the above amply shows some mistakes that you've made in your representations. It's a bit disconcerting that they go one way, as was the case that led to the matter that resulted the RFA concerning your contributions. I hope that your pointing to "the closing admin can decide" above isn't, yet again as in the matter brought before the arbitrators, an indication that one of the people you are closest to on wp will close out this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only people who have said they think I made mistakes are NBeale and you ("one of the people he is closest to on wp"). The fact that you disagree with my assessment of the sources doesn't make it a "mistake", it just makes you and NBeale bitter tendentious people who can't take a hint that the vast majority of editors here do not support your article. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think that the above amply shows some mistakes that you've made in your representations. It's a bit disconcerting that they go one way, as was the case that led to the matter that resulted the RFA concerning your contributions. I hope that your pointing to "the closing admin can decide" above isn't, yet again as in the matter brought before the arbitrators, an indication that one of the people you are closest to on wp will close out this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So we agree that WP:AUTHOR is met. And that the analysis you kindly did needs amendment. Good. (BTW if any author has claimed they don't care if they have an article on Wikipedia they are almost certainly lying. And where in WP:POLICY is this "if you care you aren't notable" to be found?)NBeale (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm saying that people who are actually notable aren't often people who are concerned too much about whether or not they're on Wikipedia. Whereas people who are just dying to get onto Wikipedia...well, you know. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- er.."John Polkinghorne's former student Nicholas Beale runs a website on behalf of his mentor, on which.."?? Whether something is "significant coverage" is a matter of opinion, but whether it is "without anything" is a matter of fact. Similarly you claim (mistakenly and without any evidence) that I have worked at the Faraday Centre and Debretts. Please be reasonable. The relevant criterion per WP:AUTHOR is "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of ...multiple independent periodical ...reviews." Are you saying that this criterion is not met? NBeale (talk) 05:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I read that one already. Using your name 12 times (and not even your name, but "Beale-Polkinghorne") does not equal significant coverage. All those usages are not talking about you as a person, they're talking about you & Polkinghorne's analysis. It's quite common in academic writing (e.g., "Rizzi's (1997) proposal is that....."). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, you might want to check and modify that statement - your category "Reviews or mentions of QoT without anything about Beale himself;" which contains the review by Grayling with 12 mentions of Beale.
- Weak Keep or userify -- The problem is that the main contributor is writing autobiography. He does have published work, which may be notable, but the present article appears closely to mirror the user pages for two of his identities. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per the lack of neutral, third-party reliable sources. The article is full of puffery; I looked at all the sources in the article and agree with Rjanag's analysis of them. None of the sources are suitable to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on the AfD, but something's fishy. See original creator's conributions.
This has happened before, with a possible sock creating it in somebody else's userspace....Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, Chiiners didn't create it in Epeefleche's userspace, it just looks like that because I moved the article history at the request of the Epeefleche/NBeale team. I don't think there was anything suspicious about the way Chiiners actually created it in mainspace (back in 2007). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright... and yet... seems weird someone dumps a complete article and then leaves, esp when there are 4 previous deletions listed... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably one of his blog readers...NBeale frequently does off-wiki canvassing to get people to come here and support him. Links have been provided in some of the previous AfDs (and I believe in the WT:NOR discussion or something like that). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't even yet looked at the version Rjanag helpfully created for me. But as I've made most of the edits to this article simply by letting google lead me to various sources, I doubt it resembles what we have now appreciably. But I'll take a look once I'm done mining google. As to Rjanag's comment as to the "team", that's inappropriate and misleading. All I ever did was ask to see the best prior version of the article, and that wasn't even supplied by NB -- but rather by Rjanag himself (as he well knows). And LessHeard notified me of this AfD, not NB. Until this AfD, though, I didn't even make one edit to this article in any version (userfied or otherwise). Rjanag's snide accusation here is uncalled for, and reminiscent of troubling past comments by him in he played loose with the truth in a manner that could be expected to mislead others. I would appreciate a retraction.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not make a retraction, but I will also not create drama and unnecessary distraction from the point at hand by going into an off-topic discussion here. If you want to ask about why I refer to you as a team you are welcome to do it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not, you've supplied no evidence to support your antagonistic and baseless assertion which can only be intended to disrupt this AfD with misinformation, and I view that as a personal attack. As with your incivility in the past upon which various arbitrators have commented, I'm disturbed by your inappropriate behavior, and would ask that you desist.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will not make a retraction, but I will also not create drama and unnecessary distraction from the point at hand by going into an off-topic discussion here. If you want to ask about why I refer to you as a team you are welcome to do it elsewhere. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't even yet looked at the version Rjanag helpfully created for me. But as I've made most of the edits to this article simply by letting google lead me to various sources, I doubt it resembles what we have now appreciably. But I'll take a look once I'm done mining google. As to Rjanag's comment as to the "team", that's inappropriate and misleading. All I ever did was ask to see the best prior version of the article, and that wasn't even supplied by NB -- but rather by Rjanag himself (as he well knows). And LessHeard notified me of this AfD, not NB. Until this AfD, though, I didn't even make one edit to this article in any version (userfied or otherwise). Rjanag's snide accusation here is uncalled for, and reminiscent of troubling past comments by him in he played loose with the truth in a manner that could be expected to mislead others. I would appreciate a retraction.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably one of his blog readers...NBeale frequently does off-wiki canvassing to get people to come here and support him. Links have been provided in some of the previous AfDs (and I believe in the WT:NOR discussion or something like that). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 06:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright... and yet... seems weird someone dumps a complete article and then leaves, esp when there are 4 previous deletions listed... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Chiiners didn't create it in Epeefleche's userspace, it just looks like that because I moved the article history at the request of the Epeefleche/NBeale team. I don't think there was anything suspicious about the way Chiiners actually created it in mainspace (back in 2007). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 05:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. I am amazed, flabbergasted, I have never seen anything like this - the pomposity, the puffery, the lengths to which the subject of the article is going to defend "his" own article. Oh no, wait - I have seen it before: [22], [23]. I commend Epeefleche for his/her efforts to research the subject, and to track down worthwhile sources, but I'm sorry, I think all of us are being conned here. Wikipedia is being used as a platform for self-aggrandisement, as an extension to the subject's blog and/or his resumé. This is gross misuse of the WP project. Delete, salt, move on. GNUSMAS : TALK 08:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if people tell blatant untruths to try to trash your reputation, and you respond to them (politely) you are attacked for conning, pomposity etc.. No-one can deny that this article meets WP:AUTHOR and the only policy that I'm aware of that is relevant to your post is WP:NPA. NBeale (talk) 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See... there are two possibilities: A) you are not who our username claims you are and thus there is no personal attack or B) -- you are the article's subject and thus shouldn't have any say in this AfD per WP:COI. Please step back and let others decide. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. You know, I pop in to do some editing and AfD look-overs, and on a lark I enter Mr. Beale's name into the search function...and the article is up again, and facing deletion again. Frankly, after a certain number of successful deletion arguments the onus needs to be on those wanting to put Mr. Beale into Wikipedia to say why he's notable rather than on those wishing to remove him, or on him achieving clear notability in addition to what he's already said to have achieved. I leaned towards salting in the third discussion; I'm more convinced of the need for it now, given that this article has been deleted twice and speedily deleted once. I'm tagging this one to watch now...if it isn't salted, I think we can all safely say that it'll be back soon.Tyrenon (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear self-professed proud deletionist: I don't know what it looked like at prior AfDs, but since I've edited this article (after it was put up for AfD) it barely resembles the prior version. I think the current RSs, including FT articles, etc., may not have been in earlier drafts, and this bears a closer examination. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Epeefleche, I read the article over (again at your request). While it is improved over my recollection of previous versions (and you do deserve thanks for your efforts in this area), I'm still not convinced that Mr. Beale is himself notable. I would respectfully say that the amount of apparent self-promotion (most importantly the fact that Mr. Beale can't seem to stay out of the debate on his own article) brings into question some of the arguments on behalf of the article, but even then I'm not knocking your work. You did improve the article, I just don't think that it meets with the criteria for inclusion here. I'd also like to note that I do support the redirect proposal mentioned above.Tyrenon (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Beale co-created a major book, which is well known in science and religion on both sides of Atlantic. Has also done other important work. Plenty of reliable sources for these facts. --sofsonline signed for user by Plumbago (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep -- As indicated by the recent article in the Financial Times, I collaborate with Nicholas Beale, and so I can offer validation of his statements regarding the notability of his work. In addition to co-authoring Questions of Truth, Nicholas is the driving force behind the research on financial stability discussed in the Financial Times, which is of great significance and has attracted the interest of many very high level scientists and policy-makers. And I found that "Nicholas Beale" on its own generates 16k ghits... User Drand14850 10:17, 18 January 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.196.7 (talk) — 209.6.196.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - As a colleague of the subject's, then, perhaps you can help. I'm afraid it's not sufficient to "offer validation" anonymously. What we require are independent reliable sources that indicate the "interest of many very high level scientists and policy-makers" that you refer to. Can you point us in the right direction? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 15:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Excellent, you could perhaps point us to some of this work for starters. Ideally from the literature so that we can perhaps gauge its notability. At the moment, too many references point back to a handful of weak sources. --PLUMBAGO 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Our work is not yet published, but has been publicly cited here [24] by Andy Haldane, the Executive Director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England, and described in some depth in a peer reviewed publication by one of the founders of mathematical biology Lord Robert May available at [25]. An excerpt: "There is a question about the relationship between systemic risk and homogeneity within the banking system. N. Beale & D. Rand have brought this issue into sharp focus with a model whose essence can be illustrated as follows... In short, in this illustrative example of Beale and Rand’s more general analysis, situation A puts each individual bank at much greater risk than situation B, but conversely the entire banking system is at much greater risk in situation B than in situation A. The interest of individual banks is to move to the homogenizing limit of B (and arguably the Basel Accords prompted and/or facilitated this), but systemic risk is thereby greatly increased, to the detriment of the wider community. We have, in effect, what evolutionary biologists would call the Prisoner’s Dilemma or ecologists the Tragedy of the Commons." User:Drand14850 20:25, 18 January 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.7.130 (talk)
- Comment - Thanks for clarifying this point. I look forwards to seeing the finished work in print (especially because of the link with TotC), but as with some other work alluded to in the article, it's not yet published. So we can't really judge it. Furthermore, even when it is published, the "judgement of history" is not in. It may turn out to be revolutionary, or it may languish unloved and uncited, or even attract opposing analyses. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that unpublished work, while interesting, cannot help much with notability. Even if it is used in a Bank of England speech (doesn't that break the embargo restrictions some journals place on work?). --PLUMBAGO 10:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, this is excellent. Here we have a party other than NB referring to NB's work with May (something we were struggling to get good sourcing for). That's just the sort of thing we need to reflect notability. I've reflected in the article as refs, though the second should likely be moved to text.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thanks for clarifying this point. I look forwards to seeing the finished work in print (especially because of the link with TotC), but as with some other work alluded to in the article, it's not yet published. So we can't really judge it. Furthermore, even when it is published, the "judgement of history" is not in. It may turn out to be revolutionary, or it may languish unloved and uncited, or even attract opposing analyses. Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that unpublished work, while interesting, cannot help much with notability. Even if it is used in a Bank of England speech (doesn't that break the embargo restrictions some journals place on work?). --PLUMBAGO 10:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Our work is not yet published, but has been publicly cited here [24] by Andy Haldane, the Executive Director of Financial Stability at the Bank of England, and described in some depth in a peer reviewed publication by one of the founders of mathematical biology Lord Robert May available at [25]. An excerpt: "There is a question about the relationship between systemic risk and homogeneity within the banking system. N. Beale & D. Rand have brought this issue into sharp focus with a model whose essence can be illustrated as follows... In short, in this illustrative example of Beale and Rand’s more general analysis, situation A puts each individual bank at much greater risk than situation B, but conversely the entire banking system is at much greater risk in situation B than in situation A. The interest of individual banks is to move to the homogenizing limit of B (and arguably the Basel Accords prompted and/or facilitated this), but systemic risk is thereby greatly increased, to the detriment of the wider community. We have, in effect, what evolutionary biologists would call the Prisoner’s Dilemma or ecologists the Tragedy of the Commons." User:Drand14850 20:25, 18 January 2010 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.7.130 (talk)
- Comment - Excellent, you could perhaps point us to some of this work for starters. Ideally from the literature so that we can perhaps gauge its notability. At the moment, too many references point back to a handful of weak sources. --PLUMBAGO 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having followed this... "discussion" for a while, I go for delete. Most of the arguments against a deletion are either unverifiable personal opinions or border "wikilawyering" (including some borderline-trolling on user talkpages). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are editors seeking the deletion of this article acting because they consider it non-notable, or because they dislike it? We're required to be objective. If we should finally accept that QoT and Beale are both notable, then shouldn't this also be a place for recording the existence of far from complimentary opinions of it, such as AC Grayling's rather scathing Humanist review? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Establishing notability, or otherwise, is what's required here. You may be confused in part because editors are occasionally referring to previously deleted iterations of this article. This current iteration has been significantly improved since it was originally resurrected a few days ago, but its content is still largely secondary to the central issue of notability. --PLUMBAGO 17:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep As before (Afd3), I find myself intensely disliking the amount of equine battery going on here (Die Dobbin, Die!) and in no hurry to read QoT, which I think I'd detest. I'm also far from clear on just how important Beale's contribution is to his teacher / mentor / colleague's book is - It's seemingly not enough to justify alphabetical ordering on the dustjacket. That said though, I can't see how he can fail to mee WP:AUTHOR. The book exists and is reviewed, and he's mentioned by name through those reviews. He's also increasingly citable in financial circles (Haldane et al). Doesn't mean I like it, but I can't see good cause to delete this. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-
- (Comment - cf. flogging a dead horse. --PLUMBAGO 08:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep co-created a significant work discussed in major scientific venues, collaborations with Bob May and Martin Nowak are quite important and he's reasonably well-known for other reasons. I think that people interested in science and religion will feel that his collaboration with Polkinghorne is sufficiently noteworthy that they may want to find out something about the author.Bernard.silverman (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Bernard.silverman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - I notice that User:Bernard.silverman's contributions [26] seem to be the article about himself Bernard Silverman, adding a link to the article from another article, and (after over a fortnight's non-editing) this AFD. The person that started the Bernard Silverman article? None other than User:NBeale! [27]. So I can only believe that Mr. Beale is asking his friends to vote for keeping this article. Surely that's not the Wikipedia way. So could the closing admin be aware of this when analysing the keep votes. Rapido (talk) 14:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep While Nicholas is not a professor, and rather is more of a business person, he puts much time and effort in tacking questions of importance and get professors to work with him on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.172.86.38 (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — 93.172.86.38 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- redirect to Questions of Truth for the moment, and develop into a full article when/if some of the work he is apparently engaged in emerges from the shadows and is referred to in significant sources. At present, the article is based too much on weak (and apparently self-generated) sources, and too much on alleged collaboration with notable people, and it reads far too much like an inflated, self-indulgent and self-promotional WP:PUFF . For the moment, Beale is mainly (solely?) notable for his co-authorship of the book, and much of the material in this article is in fact about that book (see discussion on the talk page about duplication of material), so a redirect would be appropriate. I can see a full and worthwhile article emerging in due course - but not quite yet. And (I'm sorry, but I must say this) User:NBeale must learn to keep his hands off it. He would be better employed reading and understanding WP:COI than constantly trying to promote this article. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three comments. 1) There are now many sources in the article as it now stands that are not self-generated (including three FT articles, for starters). 2) As I wrote much of it, and am not NB and have never met NB, it is not self-indulgent/self-promotional; more to the point, it accurately reflects the sources, so is not the stuff of which puffery is made. 3) As we already discussed, there are under 20 words in the article -- other than quotes -- that relate to the co-authored book, the reference to the book is summary as compared to the wp book article, and the two major quotes here specifically refer to Beale -- your continued effort to squeeze mention of the book out of this article is not supported by any policy, and is inconsistent with wp articles on authors generally.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) I didn't say it has no other sources but that it relies too much on self-generated sources. (2) I didn't say it is self-promotional etc, but that it "reads far too much like ...", which it does, regardless of who actually wrote the article. (3) There are not 20 words, but three paragraphs, that largely duplicate Questions of Truth and should be cut - but that discussion is for another place. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) as long as there is sufficient RS, which I believe is evident, it matters not whether there is in addition self-generated sourcing material. 2) Much of what has been pointed to as self-generated is material such as that from Cambridge University Press and Cambridge University itself; there has been no evidence it is self-generate, and NB has said it is not (and Slim has warned in the past about not believing people who have blps). 3) All I did was reflect what was in the RSs. Some of that is positive. Most is factual. And some is clearly negative (eg, some reviews). That the RSs provide info you find positive is not the stuff of which puffery is made -- puffery is made form inflating what positive sources say, or hiding the negative info from sources. That's not take place here. 4) All the material other than quotes (one of which does not appear in the book article) is under 20 words. And the quotes focus for the most part on Beale, mentioning him by name. Not sure why you would want to hide that info from readers of his bio.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) I didn't say it has no other sources but that it relies too much on self-generated sources. (2) I didn't say it is self-promotional etc, but that it "reads far too much like ...", which it does, regardless of who actually wrote the article. (3) There are not 20 words, but three paragraphs, that largely duplicate Questions of Truth and should be cut - but that discussion is for another place. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that WP:PUFF is ever any reason to delete an article, or to delete this one. Copyedit it mercilessly, because I would agree with your WP:PUFF comment, but I can't see how any degree of puffery on a notable or non-notable topic moves it from being one to the other. It makes it harder to see, certainly, but the crux of WP:N is what the external sources state about it, not what the content on our page claims. Painting that with purple prose doesn't change the 3rd parties. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (add salt to taste) - As per EALacey, DGG and LessHeard vanU. I still don't see how the subject satisfies WP:BIO, or WP:AUTHOR specifically. Among other things, the discussion of collaboration is hindered by the fact that much of this has yet (apparently) to bear fruit. And even then, it's still collaboration and not, so far anyway, of great quantity. I think the subject falls somewhere between academic and businessperson: nowhere near enough publications for the former, and not especially distinguished for the latter (at least so far as I can tell). That said, the subject has a lot of irons in the fire, and may yet become notable, so I'd be reluctant to salt the article. But since it keeps floating up repeatedly (and seemingly arbitrarily), perhaps this strategy would ensure that subsequent resurrection attempts are more serious. --PLUMBAGO 09:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly how many publications does one need to become an academic? This sounds like a horribly subjective place to start counting. WP:AUTHOR permits "a (i.e. single) significant or well-known work", which is seemingly qualified by the number of reviews it garners. Now if QoT is agreed to be notable (I don't hear that it isn't), and QoT has collected reviews from FT & Grayling, then it would seem to be a "significant" work. Now I don't personally see Beale as terribly important in the grand scheme of things, and very much the junior partner in his co-authorship, but to deny him notability on that basis would require us to start making some very subjective judgements of his contribution as being too minor - by the objective interpretation of WP:N, he seems (IMHO) to pass. I see introducing that sort of subjective consideration as a bad thing for the encyclopedia as a whole, far worse than suffering a borderline article to live. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment - Yes, this is somewhat subjective, but my reading of item #3 of WP:AUTHOR is that a demonstrably "significant or well-known" work has not been (co-)created here. QoT has garnered reviews, as many books do, but is it "well-known"? Depends who you ask. Is it "significant"? It's far too early to say (ask again in 2-3 years). As I say above, I definitely would not rule out the subject becoming notable, but I do not interpret either WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR as supporting current notability. Sticking with QoT, I would probably judge it as "significant" if (on it's own; the subject may yet write more books) it were to make a lasting impact in relevant circles. As it aims to fill out aspects of science, religion and philosophy (judging from the blurb on Amazon), I might expect to see treatments of it there (academic or popular), for instance (perhaps, cf. TGD, someone will write a riposte?). --PLUMBAGO 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just on the QoT point -- Keep in mind that for a book to be notable, it need not be famous. It is notable if "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." It was reviewed in the Financial Times, New Humanist, Library Journal, Physics World, Episcopal Life, Publishers Weekly Science News, and DigitalJournal. The Financial Times listed the book on their "FT critics’ hottest holiday reading" list in July 2009, and Episcopal Life also put it on its rec list. It was at one point the # 1 seller in a couple of amazon categories. That's way more than is needed for notability under the most stringent of tests--we don't limit notability to seasoned books that have had at least 2-3 years on the market, or bestsellers, or the most famous books of the decade. QoT book has just the sort of RS coverage that easily enable books to passes notability tests at AfDs on books ... not even a close call.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were to publish a book tomorrow, the FT wouldn't choose to review it. They did choose to review QoT, so someone at the FT, who I suspect is something of a WP:RS on such matters, considered it worth their newsprint. Now I've worked in magazines before, I know what pressure and inducements are placed by publishers to gain such reviews, but the luxury of being the stature of the FT (or Grayling) is that you do get to stay largely above such things. If it weren't for QoT I would probably be inclined to delete here, but gaining that level of review interest, and from the bodies that chose to review it, swings it IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you co-wrote a book with an eminent person, perhaps they would review it. Nobody doubts the notability of QoT, but there seems considerable doubt about the notability of its junior author. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any objective, policy-based and verifiable way in which I can claim that Beale's role in authorship was too minor to count for notability. Any judgement I might make in that direction would seem (AFAICS) to be subjective and thus inapplicable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, its just possible that Polkinghorne might not choose to co-write a book with Andy, for reasons that bear on what Andy has to offer to the process (no criticism of Andy intended).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes, but this is merely a possibility. Something more tangible is preferable. Despite your (Epeefleche's) sterling efforts to improve the article (and it really has improved since it was resurrected), I remain unconvinced that the subject limbos the WP:BIO bar. The (still) excessive reliance on a single FT article that references the subject among a number of others still smacks of desperation. Similarly the cite of the foreword from QoT - would we really expect anything other than glowing praise here? There's even a cite to an unpublished paper - hardly a WP:RS. Anyway, that these still appear in spite of herculean efforts is not a good sign. --PLUMBAGO 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should fear my mighty Erdos number, for it is quite embarassingly low for anyone who's not a genuine mathematician (I'm thick, but I worked with smart people). I confess that I have previously co-authored like a slut, just for the geek points. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, its just possible that Polkinghorne might not choose to co-write a book with Andy, for reasons that bear on what Andy has to offer to the process (no criticism of Andy intended).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any objective, policy-based and verifiable way in which I can claim that Beale's role in authorship was too minor to count for notability. Any judgement I might make in that direction would seem (AFAICS) to be subjective and thus inapplicable. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But if you co-wrote a book with an eminent person, perhaps they would review it. Nobody doubts the notability of QoT, but there seems considerable doubt about the notability of its junior author. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were to publish a book tomorrow, the FT wouldn't choose to review it. They did choose to review QoT, so someone at the FT, who I suspect is something of a WP:RS on such matters, considered it worth their newsprint. Now I've worked in magazines before, I know what pressure and inducements are placed by publishers to gain such reviews, but the luxury of being the stature of the FT (or Grayling) is that you do get to stay largely above such things. If it weren't for QoT I would probably be inclined to delete here, but gaining that level of review interest, and from the bodies that chose to review it, swings it IMHO. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Clearly notable as co-author of Questions of Truth and significant additional coverage/publications in FT, Harvard Business Review, Think etc.. StylesES (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — StylesES (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete and salt. Still fails WP:BIO. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Does not meet BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 22:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I said I was withdrawing from this conversation, but I want to again point out something about Questions of Truth for Andy Dingley and some of the other participants. Contrary to what people are saying above, being involved in a notable book does not automatically make someone notable; I already gave the example of Harvard Girl, a book that is unquestionably more notable than QoT (seriously, there is absolutely no measure by which QoT even compares) and yet none of its authors are notable.
Also, people above seem to be taking it as a priori that Questions of Truth is notable, but in fact even that is questionable. The person who created and has made more edits to it than any other editor (twice as many as the 2nd-place editor, and 1/3 of all edits to the article) is NBeale himself. It's not like this guy wrote the Bible or something; he wrote a book that is marginally notable at best, and even then he only played a junior role in it (as someone pointed out above, a role not even big enough to justify alphabetical ordering of the authors). So in short, harping about Questions of Truth is simply not a useful way to prove notability. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a red herring. And a severely flawed one at that. The book as Rja well knows is notable if it has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles ... and reviews." That's clearly the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Insufficient independent coverage of the the subject to satisfy notability requirements. wjematherbigissue 08:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - WP:BIO states that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject. I can't see a single source in the article that meets this criterion. I also agree with other users that co-authoring a book with a more notable person does not make one automatically notable, as relationships do not confer notability. Gatoclass (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- QoT is not only the subject of reviews that meet notability according to WP:AUTHOR (would you disagree?), but those reviews also mention Beale's part in authoring it, to a level that I consider meets WP:AUTHOR for him personally (some are far from complimentary). This isn't inheritance (I agree, inheritance wouldn't be enough), it's independent coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but he's not the subject of such reviews. Of course, he is likely to get at least a passing mention in these reviews, but the subject of a book review is the book itself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's true. His work (I believe the sources show he wrote most of that book) is the subject of the reviews -- though some clearly mention him by name as well, so they appear to be aware of his existence. If you deleted from bios every coverage of the person's acts, you would be left with their place and date of birth, and little else. It is the person's acts (including books they write) that make them notable, and there are plenty of substantial reviews of that book.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like sophistry IMHO. You're correct in that he's not the literal subject of the review (if we assume "subject" to be a single-valued property) but that's surely in excess of anything WP:AUTHOR implied by its use of the word "subject". These are not reviews that review the book, list the authors and no more, they review the book, and do also discuss Beale's role within it. I would see that as being adequately "the subject" for the purposes of WP:AUTHOR. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- that's surely in excess of anything WP:AUTHOR implied by its use of the word "subject".
- Okay, I guess you're entitled to that interpretation, but it's not mine. I read it as principal subject, and I think as a minimum any BIO should be able to demonstrate that. If a person is really notable, it shouldn't be a problem to find an article or two in reliable sources dealing with the subject as the principal or sole topic. If there are no such sources, chances are that the notability of the individual concerned is at best iffy. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On reflection, I think the above is something of an overstatement, although as a general rule of thumb (for BIOs of living persons at least) I think it's a good one. My basic point is that the individual in question should have been written about by reliable sources as a subject of interest in his own right, and that is not the case here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I could show you a number of newspaper/magazine interviews with me specifically. I'm not notable at all. If this guy has been duly noted for his accomplishments, why aren't there any interviews with him or articles specifically about him and his work in general, in relevant publications? -Duribald (talk) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many academics that satisfy WP:PROF without a doubt, but have not been subject of such media coverage. The example from the last AfD was David Eppstein; can you find a single source in that article that would satisfy SlimVirgin's standard? Hence, whether Beale satisfies WP:AUTHOR is an important consideration. As it seems clear what the majority of established editors here think, it would be good to amend the guideline to reflect current practice, please see Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#WP:AUTHOR #3 is unclear. Regards, Vesal (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Authors are notable because of the books they write, not the details of the personal life. The author of important books is notable , and the books are shown to be notable by being the subject of independent publication, normally reviews is RSs. The question is whether he is indeed the principal author of the works reviewed. He just might be, and I have thus changed my !vote above to Neutral. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but he's not the subject of such reviews. Of course, he is likely to get at least a passing mention in these reviews, but the subject of a book review is the book itself. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One concern is that Beale is presenting sources as independent when in fact he wrote the material himself, or supplied the words. For example, he cites as a source for his being a "social philosopher" the blurb accompanying an article he wrote for Think. I said on talk that he probably supplied those words himself, because he is not a philosopher and no one but him would call him that. He replied: "I'm almost sure that the person who wrote 'Social Philosopher' for Think was the Editor (a professional philosopher at the U of London), it is a journal published by the Royal Institute of Philosophy and he is a professional philosopher."[28]
I wrote to the people who publish Think to ask who would have written that. They replied, "authors are always asked to provide their own descriptions of themselves to accompany articles, and that is what is then used. The self-descriptions authors provide are not checked." (This is quoted with their permission; will forward to the closing admin on request.) I believe NBeale would have known this when he implied otherwise. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 04:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not conduct we'd encourage in an editor, but I still don't see that it alone would break WP:N. If sources exist that are independent and support WP:N, then those on their own are enough. If he adds puffery too, that doesn't invalidate the first sources. I believe we do have those sources (FT, Grayling for a couple). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Grayling article is not about Beale. It's about the book and its launch, and is highly critical in some of the same terms as we're discussing this AfD, in fact. The FT ref is just a mention; it's not about him. The rest are things he has written himself, or descriptions of himself he has supplied. Giving the impression that those sources were independent was very misleading, and it speaks to the issue of notability in that someone who was notable would not need to do any of this. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But are they highly critical of him? WP:N can be adverse too. I'm not looking for compliments or recommendation here, just significant mention. Personally (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong), I consider that these are. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree w/Dingley. Furthermore, wasn't there once a core policy entitled "Wikipedia:No original research", as well as a policy entitled "Wikipedia:No personal attacks"?
- But are they highly critical of him? WP:N can be adverse too. I'm not looking for compliments or recommendation here, just significant mention. Personally (and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong), I consider that these are. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Grayling article is not about Beale. It's about the book and its launch, and is highly critical in some of the same terms as we're discussing this AfD, in fact. The FT ref is just a mention; it's not about him. The rest are things he has written himself, or descriptions of himself he has supplied. Giving the impression that those sources were independent was very misleading, and it speaks to the issue of notability in that someone who was notable would not need to do any of this. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this especially peculiar is that just last month Slim argued vociferously that a writer (whose AfD Slim waas supporting) should have information reflected in his article that was only reflected on his homepage. And that no book publisher, magazine publisher, or other third party had reflected themselves. Slim wrote: "I think you need to be very careful here. This is a living person whose livelihood depends on his honesty. It's perfectly standard to source a person's education to their own website, or to information they've given about themselves to their publisher. Yet here you are questioning it, without any grounds."[29], and "Just a heads-up about BLP. Regarding your comments about Cook's qualifications being sourced only to his website, you're coming close to calling him dishonest. I know that's not your intention, but some of your comments are giving that impression. Per BLP and common sense, there's no reason at all to suspect that Cook's education is not exactly what he says it is. It's quite standard to source a BLP's qualifications to their own statements about it, for obvious reasons. We have no reason to behave differently in this case."[30], and: "I wrote that part of the policy, and it is certainly not intended to be used to make people look like liars, which is what is being done here. Enough, please.[31]
--Epeefleche (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop the misleading comparisons. I was talking only about that person's education, just as here I haven't questioned whether Beale studied maths. What I question is his notability, and the independence of the sources he claims are independent. That is the key difference, that he presented sources as independent when they weren't. I'm not going to reply again, Epeefleche, because this is just repetitive, and you seem to be twisting what people say, so there's no point. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 19:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt fails bio.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT - based on what everyone else has said already: to summarise: fails WP:BIO, fails WP:AUTHOR, fails WP:RS, possibly other guidelines or policies, apart from being vanity and puffery. I cannot believe that the subject of the article gave a keep vote, and questioning almost every other delete vote! I thought such behaviour was a breach of WP:COI? It should be noted that many of the keep votes are from new accounts or IP addresses - looking at the contributions, they are people who have done little or no Wikipedia editing - is the subject drumming up support for keeping this article? Rapido (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am a Mathematics postdoc at Harvard, working with Martin Nowak and Dave Rand in evolutionary dynamics. I am also working with Nicholas Beale on the financial stability project (although my involvement is recent and hence I am not a co-author on the paper with Rand and May). As Dave Rand also said, Nicholas has been the driving force behind this project. The work has already been presented to many people in the field and has garnered interest and received praise from economists at the Fed and the Bank of England. Even though this work is not yet published, the involvement of famous scientists as May and Nowak and the praise of experts as Andy Haldane should guarantee in some sense for its value. I think Nicholas deserves a mention on Wikipedia anyway because of co-authoring Questions of the Truth; all I want to point out is that, besides co-authoring this book, he also has a very active scientific involvement which very soon could (and most likely will) have a very serious impact on the financial world.CTarnita (talk) 14:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So you say that it's not yet published but that the praise should guarantee its value. And very soon could (and most likely will) have a very serious impact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:CRYSTAL. Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote? [32] Rapido (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm saying that in my opinion he deserves a mention anyway because of his book, which has been subject to multiple reviews and has given rise to important discussions. I would think that this is enough of a reason. Nobel Laureate Tony Hewish, in the preface to Questions of the Truth, praises Nicholas for "an outstanding reputation" and recognizes how this book is great because of the dialogue between Beale and Polkinghorne, two people coming from different backgrounds and having different perspectives. So I think the co-authorship of this book alone should entitle Nicholas Beale to a mention on Wikipedia (at least because people who have read the book might want to know more about NB). But from the discussions so far I understood that his scientific activity is also under debate and I thought I should offer an honest account of this part, which I am more familiar with. It is a bit unfortunate that at the time of this debate the work is not yet published and I understand Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. My post was not intended as "Keep because of forthcoming work" but "Keep because of the book (which I thought was obvious) and because he does seem to have an outstanding reputation, even scientifically, since he gets to work with giants like May and Nowak and his work gets to be praised in the FT by experts like Andy Haldane". Not many people can claim this. As for your question - "Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote?" - I'm not sure I understand it. My only contribution to what? CTarnita (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By contributions I am referring to edits to Wikipedia. As you don't appear to be a previous editor to Wikipedia, I am curious about where you heard about this Article For Deletion nomination? Rapido (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well, I thought the answer was obvious, since I said that I work with both Nicholas Beale and Dave Rand (who posted recently on the same thread).CTarnita (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rapido: Why, he was recruited by Beale himself to vote here, of course. Beale has never hesitated before to do off-wiki canvassing. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it's actually Ms Corina Tarniţă, she and Beale are featured in a photo here [33]. But yes, as I suspected Mr Beale is canvassing his friends and colleagues for support (stealth canvassing according to WP:CANVASS). He seems to have done this in previous AFDs on this article too, judging by old blog posts [34], [35] where he actually accuses the AFD nominations and delete votes as being part of a conspiracy by Dawkins Defenders! Rapido (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I apologize if I broke any Wiki rules - I thought I was allowed to state an honest opinion about a subject I am familiar with. I did not do it to bias the votes - from what I understand, in this discussion, it is not the number of votes that counts, but the quality of arguments. I go to Wiki often for pretty much any question I have and I appreciate the quality of the articles. By no means would I want to alter that; but I do not understand why, for instance, it is more relevant and important to read about what Paris Hilton thinks of one night stands (see wiki article on paris hilton) than about Nicholas Beale's contribution to religion and/or science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTarnita (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are right that it's not the number of votes that count. And I don't think that you should apologise for stating your opinion, however Beale is canvassing for support from people he knows, in order to campaign for the article to be kept. He should apologise for this behaviour as it is against Wikipedia rules. If he is as notable as he claims he is, then surely he has no reason to ask his friends to lobby here for the article to be kept? Rapido (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Comment. No rule broken, and no apology needed! I think many of us would indeed agree that Nicholas Beale's contribution to the world is in all probability more important than Paris Hilton's. The trouble is that Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and works strictly according to rules such as verifiability, relying solely on reliable sources. At present, in the judgement of most contributors to this discussion, the importance of Beale's contribution is not yet sufficiently recognised and commented on in such sources to merit inclusion in this encyclopaedia. And it is not sufficient that several people, albeit with the best of intentions, come along to vouch for the significance of his work. Such unpublished opinions are just hearsay - and the reason for treating such contributors (SPAs, in Wikipedia jargon) with suspicion is that it strongly suggests that Beale is canvassing for support - and that in turn suggests that he in fact recognises that he does not pass the notability test, and therefore hopes to rely on the support of friends and colleagues. But thanks for your comments. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 17:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I apologize if I broke any Wiki rules - I thought I was allowed to state an honest opinion about a subject I am familiar with. I did not do it to bias the votes - from what I understand, in this discussion, it is not the number of votes that counts, but the quality of arguments. I go to Wiki often for pretty much any question I have and I appreciate the quality of the articles. By no means would I want to alter that; but I do not understand why, for instance, it is more relevant and important to read about what Paris Hilton thinks of one night stands (see wiki article on paris hilton) than about Nicholas Beale's contribution to religion and/or science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTarnita (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think it's actually Ms Corina Tarniţă, she and Beale are featured in a photo here [33]. But yes, as I suspected Mr Beale is canvassing his friends and colleagues for support (stealth canvassing according to WP:CANVASS). He seems to have done this in previous AFDs on this article too, judging by old blog posts [34], [35] where he actually accuses the AFD nominations and delete votes as being part of a conspiracy by Dawkins Defenders! Rapido (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - By contributions I am referring to edits to Wikipedia. As you don't appear to be a previous editor to Wikipedia, I am curious about where you heard about this Article For Deletion nomination? Rapido (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm saying that in my opinion he deserves a mention anyway because of his book, which has been subject to multiple reviews and has given rise to important discussions. I would think that this is enough of a reason. Nobel Laureate Tony Hewish, in the preface to Questions of the Truth, praises Nicholas for "an outstanding reputation" and recognizes how this book is great because of the dialogue between Beale and Polkinghorne, two people coming from different backgrounds and having different perspectives. So I think the co-authorship of this book alone should entitle Nicholas Beale to a mention on Wikipedia (at least because people who have read the book might want to know more about NB). But from the discussions so far I understood that his scientific activity is also under debate and I thought I should offer an honest account of this part, which I am more familiar with. It is a bit unfortunate that at the time of this debate the work is not yet published and I understand Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. My post was not intended as "Keep because of forthcoming work" but "Keep because of the book (which I thought was obvious) and because he does seem to have an outstanding reputation, even scientifically, since he gets to work with giants like May and Nowak and his work gets to be praised in the FT by experts like Andy Haldane". Not many people can claim this. As for your question - "Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote?" - I'm not sure I understand it. My only contribution to what? CTarnita (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So you say that it's not yet published but that the praise should guarantee its value. And very soon could (and most likely will) have a very serious impact. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:CRYSTAL. Plus you say you work with Mr. Beale, and your only contribution is this AFD vote? [32] Rapido (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - good article on someone who is most likely notable.--Oneiros (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to explain why you think the subject is "most likely notable", instead of just making a vague wave? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with redirect to QoT The more SPAs that appear, the more inclined I am to !vote. Having read AC Grayling's review (which I confess I enjoyed - reviews like that are getting rarer these days), I'm having doubts about the notability of the book itself - apart from that conferred on it by the review... I see little else in the article to make me want to keep it. Sometimes getting an article on Wikipedia can be double edged - I recall one chap desperate to have an article, and then when he realised that other people could edit it - and do quite good research - he was desperate to have it deleted. (It still survives...) If sufficient reliable sources - indisputably reliable - then maybe re-create. But not as it stands. Is there a sort of half-salt procedure (lo-sodium?)? Peridon (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt, obscure author, no independent sources that discuss Beale as their subject, which are needed to establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I wonder if the deletes have read WP:AUTHOR. He seems to meet the suggested guidelines for inclusion. "3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Not sure if Google scholar results count or not. [36] The Journal of Cosmology does have an oversight review board before things are published in it, so his work published there [37] adds to his notibility. "2.The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." Dream Focus 18:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that books such as "Constructive Engagement: Directors and Investors in Action" are either significant or well-known is the place where your argument falls on its face. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of published work in recognised journals. Any genuine philosopher would have at least a handful of these.Editor with a background in philosophy (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: This AfD is set to end not before 18:36 (UTC) today, 22 January...for the sake of process, please no one close it anytime earlier than that. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:40, 22 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) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
José Rodrigo Arango Suaza[edit]
- José Rodrigo Arango Suaza (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)
Very difficult to know what to make of this. The author claims albums and tours by other artists (particularly Miley Cyrus) as being the subject of the article's own. I've tried going through the article to pick fact from fiction but I've simply given up. It too difficult to know what is true, what is exaggeration and what is simply false.
Example: "On October 11, 2008, he released his third record named Breakout where he sahre credits with Miley Cyrus ..." Breakout is a Miley Cyrus album.
Such claims - and in particularly so many of them - make it difficult to know what to do with this article except delete it and start again. In any even the subject fails WP:MUSICBIO anyway. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adds: Note too that there is also a Category:Jose Rodrigo Arango albums. And that an IP has begun to revert the XfD tags from these pages.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find nothing in reliable sources to support any of the article's claims. I can't find any significant coverage for this person. Not sure if this is some kind of hoax; if not, still fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow Talk 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of third-party RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a teenage boy's wet-dream hoax. Miley Cyrus indeed! Eddie.willers (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bizarre, wishful thinking, but not technically vandalism. Delete. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:GNG & WP:MUSIC. That's even if I take this article seriously. It's pretty much a 'fanboysplosion'. + npervez ☂ 17:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I make a promise to write more info about this article and José Rodrigo Arango Suaza--200.118.54.28 (talk) 16:36, 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) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The End (single)[edit]
- The End (single) (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 "single" isn't even recorded yet and I cannot find reference to it on the artists website. No other references. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. I can find nothing to suggest this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gongshow Talk 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 21:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of third-party RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Worlds best skylines[edit]
- List of Worlds best skylines (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 reproduction of emporis's page, which is itself a nonnotable ranking. Louiedog (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a copyright violation. Even without that, the definition of the "best" skyline is utterly arbitrary. I42 (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It probably is a copyvio, and if it isn't, it should be called "Emporis.com ranking of skylines" or something like it. The definition in the article isn't really arbitrary or subjective, although I think that most people would judge a skyline by something other than what this does-- basically, a point system where they add up the number of stories on the tall buildings, regardless of whether there's a convenient vantage point from which you can have a view of the buildings on the horizon, which is what a skyline is. I'm reminded of a quote from a European architect about New York's skyscrapers-- "a bunch of ugly fingers jutting out of the ground". It's interesting, whether it's interesting enough to have been noticed in the press is another matter entirely. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: obvious rip-off. If we delete the infringing material, nothing intelligible would be left. Alexius08 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several list in wikipedia,like worlds tallest buildings,worlds tallest residential buildings,worlds tallest hotels,these ranking are also based on emporis,so it that not a copy right violations,i havent done any copy paste here.
I know there are alot of ranking on various websites, and all of them looks skyline rankings in their own perspective, but as i consider emporis the most reliable source so thats why keeping in view of emporis ranking i have created the list.the ranking crireria is also to some extent an arbitrary one,even to this extent we you cant delete this article,wikipeida needs the ranking of skyline,as it isnt mentioned any where in wikipedia,what i am saying is that to keep this article and try to improve it,by adding criteria of skyline rankings, of some other websites. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 15:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All those lists are based on one very simple objective criterion: height, as measured in meters. None of them are the reporting of some third-party's arbitrary point-awarding system. There can be no encyclopedic discussion of the "best skylines" any more than there can be one of "most beautiful paintings".--Louiedog (talk) 21:34, 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) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vrieling[edit]
- Vrieling (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)
There is nothing that points to any relevance of this family. The "sources" don't say anything at all Mvdleeuw (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 'sources' contain nothing but statistical and genealogical data. Vrieling is an ordinary Dutch family name, not at all special (and not one family). There is no Vrieling coat of arms, this is a Jansma invention. Jansma's contributions are just pretentious nonsense. Glatisant (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 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) 00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James Wilson (footballer born 1993)[edit]
- James Wilson (footballer born 1993) (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)
Youth football (soccer) player who does not meet notability criteria at WP:BIO or WP:ATH. Only mention I can find of a person named James Wilson who may fit the biographical information given in the article is [38], which mentions him in passing. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm unable to find any evidence of this kid playing professionally. (He also doesn't have a player profile in the first team section of Lincoln's website.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 10:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable U-18_youth footballer who has not yet made it. Fails WP:ATHLETE having not yet played a senior professional league game, no significant coverage. Recreate if and when..--ClubOranjeT 01:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - never played for a professional club, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO Steve-Ho (talk) 12:56, 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, nomination withdrawn -SpacemanSpiff 21:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kelepathar[edit]
- Kelepathar (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)
Very little meaningful content, unsuitable style, unsourced. If it didn't have possible notability as an existent village I would tag it under CSD.--Microcell (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that it's been moved to the correct Latin character spelling of "Kalapathar", Keep. I think the nom was a bit hasty in nominating a town stub within 8 hours of its creation. [39] It took me a 5 second g-map search to learn the correct spelling and that its an actual village.[40]. When an editor thinks an article topic has "possible notability", they should follow WP:BEFORE and do minimal research before putting it up for AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - valid village stub.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, given that the entry has been improved and cleaned up - I withdraw the nomination as its initiator.--Microcell (talk) 20:16, 19 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) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronan Edwards[edit]
- Ronan Edwards (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 per WP:NSPORT, unreferenced, heavily promotional tone per WP:PROMO, possible WP:Autobiography, can find no evidence online that he ever played for this football club. MuffledThud (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 10:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence he did anything notable at St Patricks (in fact no evidence he ever played for them) most of the content added by creator of Heath high school soccer (also under deletion discussion) seems to be an effort to cross promote. Promotional, unverifiable article on non-notable athlete--ClubOranjeT 21:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:ATHLETE, not notable under WP:GNG, seems promotional, lacks almost all relevent biographical information. Very clear cut deletion, in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:30, 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 delete. NJA (t/c) 13:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How to modify a nerf nite finder[edit]
- How to modify a nerf nite finder (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)
Subject fails WP:NOTMANUAL Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 15:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably also original research. Polarpanda (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obviously. How-to guide. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTHOWTO pretty much says it all. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wp:NOTHOWTO, pure and simple. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 05:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insomniac's Dream[edit]
- Insomniac's Dream (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)
uncharted ep without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 17:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's sufficient coverage (e.g. MTV, Billboard, and Blender) for this EP to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gongshow. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn per Gongshow. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:05, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jill Tuck-Kramer[edit]
- Jill Tuck-Kramer (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)
Fancruft. Not enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 09:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: I say it can be re-written to avoid an in-universe style and gather more sources/interviews. If not then redirect to List of Saw characters#Jill Tuck-Kramer. I see you're going to have a long road of AfD's in your future. ;-) —Mike Allen 20:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect:Yeah I can agree theres nothing here that cant be easily put on the characters page. However, her place as a major character in the series and the info that could be added does warrant an article of her own. The article should be redirected to the characters page and have a user subpage working on a full article on par with the other character pages which can be published as soon as it has more info and multiple reliable sources. GroundZ3R0 002 01:25, 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, GedUK 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as it has suficient content & an external references Since the work itself is a RS for most of the information, it has sufficient RSs--and the insufficiency of them was the only reason given for deletion. Alternatively, merge adequately including the illustration to the list of characters; one brief paragraph is not adequate, seeing that she is a recurring character who appears in most of the series--the illustration is essential as the character can not be understood in a video without knowing their external appearance. The existing article (or the merged sub-article) does needs some editing, as it contains unsourced opinion, but it should be possible to find sources for most of it. IUt ultimately makes very little difference if merged or kept as long as the content is adequate. The best way to ensure this in the current Wikipedia is to keep separate articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 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) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Untouched: Lost Tracks EP[edit]
- Untouched: Lost Tracks EP (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)
uncharted download ep without significant coverage in independent reliable sources duffbeerforme (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 17:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find in-depth coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 21:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately I cannot find any information about this EP, other than a track list and cover art, in any reliable sources independent of the artist or iTunes. Meets none of the criteria of WP:NALBUMS. J04n(talk page) 10:50, 19 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) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Caraccioli[edit]
- Luke Caraccioli (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 notability shown outside Adema. other band shows no indication of being notable. lacks coverage outside Adema. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete for now but close to a keep. There are stories that are more about Caraccioli than they are about Adema, [41] [42]. Would like to see more though. I am removing a WP:BLP violation from the page. J04n(talk page) 23:04, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deem Bristow[edit]
- Deem Bristow (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 actor, I can't find anything at Google that's not a Wikipedia mirror, or a trivial listing of roles. No substantive text about him seems to exist. Google News also turns up almost nothing as well. Can't even find an obit or anything else. Jayron32 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo talk 17:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete being a voice in multiple video games is not notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:32, 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skynet (Fallout)[edit]
- Skynet (Fallout) (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 gaming element. Appears in one game in the series and does not have any significant coverage Teancum (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fallout 2, nothing in this is sourced anyways, so not much worth merging. Straight redirect would work fine. --Jayron32 15:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Implausible redirect so no point in leaving it. Better to place a link on the disambiguation page Skynet. Polargeo (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced and no assertion of notability. Dab text makes it an unlikely search term; no need for redireclutter. --EEMIV (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of notability asserted as well as that it looks horribly game guide-ish. A redirect wouldn't make any sense here. –MuZemike 05:20, 20 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 I really didn't want this to be the result, but there are so many different arguments to keep/delete/merge this article, most of which have some merit to them. No one position seems to have more support either in numbers or policy than any other, so we're left with no consensus as the result. I strongly suggest a merge or re-organization discussion be pursued as a follow-up to this process in the hopes of avoiding a third go round here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of environmental organisations topics[edit]
- List of environmental organisations topics (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. There was no consensus on the previous Afd and it was suggested by the closing admin that it should be relisted if the issues were not resolved - so here it is again! The list is a broad range of links to topics of which some stray far from the brief of environmental organisation. Some of the more relevant stuff should be turned into prose and placed in the environmental organisation article, which is a stub at present (another reason to not have this list). The article name is not a search string that would ever be used so it should be deleted rather than redirected. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Months have passed since the nominator was specifically advised against voting in their own AfD and the nominator giving an apology and a correction, and yet, to paraphrase the nominator, "here it is again". Anarchangel (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making a misrepresentation to build a case against me. This is very bad form. In the last nomination a premature save of an edit and the use of the wrong word was correct. It has no bearing on this Afd. And so what if I said "here it is again"? You can read what you like into that phrase but it has no bearing on this discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Months have passed since the nominator was specifically advised against voting in their own AfD and the nominator giving an apology and a correction, and yet, to paraphrase the nominator, "here it is again". Anarchangel (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of environmental issues There is a rationale for 'organizations' in this title, which is that it encompasses issues which are thought of as 'green' by experts in that field, that are largely unknown as such to the public at large. However, as it flies in the face of common knowledge knowledge on the subject, it will continue to be a source of contention. While it is a shame for the few articles which deserve a listing to be left out, it would be a greater shame for the entire list to disappear completely. The great strength of this article has always been that it is superior in depth of coverage to List of environmental issues, and now that it has gained its text format and links, it is superior altogether. I have trimmed it considerably already to remove issues that were overreaching, and so I know where the remaining weak points are. I have also compared it to "..issues" numerous times, and will be glad of the additional listings that that article has, which fill in gaps in "...topics". I am confident that I can merge material in a way that will be satisfactory to most readers and WP editors, other than the obvious one. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMinutes before this AFD, I placed this on the List of environmental issues talk page. Both the original comment and the reply are relevant.
I think I have figured out what exactly makes this article inferior to List of environmental organisations topics, which was turned into a redirect to Environmental organization, against AFD protocol (a no consensus vote, which defaults to Keep), by Liefting. It does not have a single positive issue. Not one. Under Energy alone, the L.o.e.o.t. has
- Alternative fuels
- Biomass
- Energy conservation
- Energy efficiency
- Fossil fuels
- Fuel cells
- Geothermal energy
- Hydroelectric energy
- Nuclear energy
- Solar energy
- Wind energy
Over 250 articles in all. Twice as many as this article. But what really makes the difference is that environmentalism is about more than pointing out problems, it is also about finding solutions. This article shows no solutions. Anarchangel (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Correction: 234 articles, including the 29 articles linked to by the section headings. List of environmental issues only has 127; the threadbare state of that article was quite clearly pointed out in the last AFD, four months ago, but nothing has been done about it.Anarchangel (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Creating the redirect has absolutely nothing to do with the afd "protocol". The article was not deleted and you are quite free to revert my edit if you do not agree with it. As for the content of this article versus List of environmental organizations topics would you not agree that they are quite separate topics? This article is about environmental issues - ie. the effect of humans on the environment. The List of environmental organizations topics is a list of sustainability topics, environmental issues, a small collection of science disciplines and a bunch of other stuff that is far too broad to be of use. Also, note that the number of links is not a criteria to judge an article merit. Usefulness and coherence are a couple of criteria that I can think of as a way of evaluating articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Liefting is sort of hard to pin down, when it comes to doing something that user does not like to do. Liefting started an AFD, I fought it tooth and nail, and got it closed no consensus, which defaults to keep. Liefting turned the article into a redirect. Months later, I find the article, which was supposed to have been kept, has been a redirect for months. I called Liefting on it, that user feigned disinterest and claimed to welcome the article's return. I restored it. Now Liefting wants to pretend that the article is trespassing on Wikipedia ("here it is again"), when in fact the article was nowhere in mainspace for months, and the redirect was trespassing on the article's rights, and that the 'issues were not resolved', when in fact the article was in mainspace to be worked on for no more than ten minutes. Liefting had this AFD up before I was able to make this edit to remove redlinks. Anarchangel (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true Anarch. Can I use your first name? I find the use of first names so much more friendly than last names. Using my last name makes it sound like your are pissed off with me. You are not pissed off with me are you? But seriously, can you please focus on the merits, if any, of the article. You have made a lot of assumptions about my behaviour towards the article which has absolutely no bearing on the deletion discussion. For fear of being called a hypocrite I will address your comments. The page is on my watchlist which shows that I have an interest in it. The fact that I put it up for deletion after you removed my rediect shows that I have a strong interest in it. By the way, you did not "call me", I was alerted by my watchlist. You say that I am pretending that it is "trespassing on Wikipedia". You are trying to paint an inaccurate picture of me by using this sort of language. You say "trespassing on the article's rights". This is odd language. No article has "rights". WP is fluid. Any editor can do what they like with an article and the existence of an article is decided by consensus. The article is an orphan so it will not get any attention for the community and no one bothered to address the shortcomings after the last Afd. The solution is deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim only that it "stray[s] far from the brief of environmental organisation[s]" as a shortcoming. I have listed two merits (comprehensiveness and inclusion of positive issues). I have pointed out some of your multiple, significant, and chronic procedural misdeeds and subversions of the process, the ones that are relevant to this article. The article is fine. The solution is a topic ban for you. Perhaps then you will learn that it is not true that "Any editor can do what they like with an article". Anarchangel (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't make threats based on your perception of my behaviour. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim only that it "stray[s] far from the brief of environmental organisation[s]" as a shortcoming. I have listed two merits (comprehensiveness and inclusion of positive issues). I have pointed out some of your multiple, significant, and chronic procedural misdeeds and subversions of the process, the ones that are relevant to this article. The article is fine. The solution is a topic ban for you. Perhaps then you will learn that it is not true that "Any editor can do what they like with an article". Anarchangel (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not true Anarch. Can I use your first name? I find the use of first names so much more friendly than last names. Using my last name makes it sound like your are pissed off with me. You are not pissed off with me are you? But seriously, can you please focus on the merits, if any, of the article. You have made a lot of assumptions about my behaviour towards the article which has absolutely no bearing on the deletion discussion. For fear of being called a hypocrite I will address your comments. The page is on my watchlist which shows that I have an interest in it. The fact that I put it up for deletion after you removed my rediect shows that I have a strong interest in it. By the way, you did not "call me", I was alerted by my watchlist. You say that I am pretending that it is "trespassing on Wikipedia". You are trying to paint an inaccurate picture of me by using this sort of language. You say "trespassing on the article's rights". This is odd language. No article has "rights". WP is fluid. Any editor can do what they like with an article and the existence of an article is decided by consensus. The article is an orphan so it will not get any attention for the community and no one bothered to address the shortcomings after the last Afd. The solution is deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and of course, if the list is not appropriate to Environmental organizations, why is that where Liefting redirected it? Anarchangel (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, do not understand. "Why not", as in, if a breezy, dismissive, patronizing attitude works for you, why not use it, or "why not", as in, you are so far removed from moral reality that you not cannot even see how calling it inappropriate yet using it yourself is hypocritical? Anarchangel (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How about being civil and answer the question rather than making assumptions about my attitude. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Liefting is sort of hard to pin down, when it comes to doing something that user does not like to do. Liefting started an AFD, I fought it tooth and nail, and got it closed no consensus, which defaults to keep. Liefting turned the article into a redirect. Months later, I find the article, which was supposed to have been kept, has been a redirect for months. I called Liefting on it, that user feigned disinterest and claimed to welcome the article's return. I restored it. Now Liefting wants to pretend that the article is trespassing on Wikipedia ("here it is again"), when in fact the article was nowhere in mainspace for months, and the redirect was trespassing on the article's rights, and that the 'issues were not resolved', when in fact the article was in mainspace to be worked on for no more than ten minutes. Liefting had this AFD up before I was able to make this edit to remove redlinks. Anarchangel (talk) 10:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since any environmental issue is a de facto subject for any given environ. org. to work on, this seems entirely redundant to any and all lists of environmental topics. also, any org. can choose to work on any issue as they define themselves. a group which works on environmental issues may also focus on environmental racism, and have a project promoting a wide range of services to a minority community. I see a problem with too broad an area to have objective inclusion criteria. I would prefer to see a list of environmental organizations with a summary of their primary foci as reflected in their articles. for this current list to work, each individual item on the list would have to show in their article that a number of environmental organizations are working on them. to me, simply listing in each environ issue all the orgs which have touched on it is nonnotable. my example of why that is nonnotable: mad magazine parodies probably 1/4 or more of all mainstream movies. being parodied by mad is not notable, though its well documented. we dont include a mad parody in every movie article, its simply not relevant (unless it has garnered some greater attention). it would be notable if a major environmental issue was NOT addressed by any major organization, though we could not do the research on it ourselves. sierra club doesnt need a section in their article listing all the subjects they have ever worked on. their specific projects that garner attention are notable. my solution: just have articles on various orgs be categorized by the various areas they focus on, and have environmental issue articles mention major orgs that work on them. this is much more work, but it follows WP guidelines. I choose to not address the procedural issues, as to me the lists problems say it all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First you say that we "would have to show that" orgs are concerned with these issues, to be notable, then you say "it would be notable if a major environmental issue was NOT addressed by any major organization". Which is it? Either or both, as long as it sounds negative? Anarchangel (talk) 09:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge We have a List of environmental organizations but that doesn't say what they do. We also have a List of environmental issues but that doesn't link them to the organisations. It would be sensible to merge all three lists together to form a sortable list of issues and the relevant organisations. This seems to be much the same thinking as User:Mercurywoodrose. His conclusion that we should therefore delete is incorrect because it is our editing policy to improve articles in mainspace rather then to delete them and their history and start again with nothing. Colonel Warden (talk) 02:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In order to link the articles you mention you asking for some sort of searchable database. The List of environmental organizations is an extremely small subset of the total set. I have now marked it as and incomplete list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge with environmentalism. Handschuh-talk to me 08:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Turning some of the content into prose and adding it to environmentalism has some merit but that sort of info would also belong at environemntal organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has anyone considered turning this article into an outline? The title could be something like Outline of environmental issues or Outline of environmental policy. ThemFromSpace 04:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good writer could. WP is not safe for writers, who are empowered with no processes and only one policy page (Wikipedia:Deletion policy), while deletionists are empowered by a handful of processes, of which AFD is only the most well known, and innumerable policy pages.
- More of interest to our discussion here, articles which deserve to be listed stand a good chance of being left out of such an article, and the list does not contain all the articles that would be required for an outline. Anarchangel (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not true that WP is not safe for writers. 3,000,000 articles in nine years surely means that it is a haven for writers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuff left out of an article is not an argument for retaining an article. The shortcomings of an article can be addressed by editors and is quite separate to deletion discussions. Deletion discussions are for the merits of whether an article should exist or not. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already an environmental issues article and an environmental policy article. There is also a Index of environmental articles, Category:Environment and Category:Environmental issues. I don't think there is room for the articles you mention. Also, outlines are set up as a hierarchy. Since environmental articles cross many areas of human knowledge it makes it difficult to place them in a neat hierarchy. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:26, 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, GedUK 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I protest the relisting of this article for what amounts to a fourth time. Once in the previous AfD, this AfD, and now a second time within this AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it has only been relisted twice but this deletion discussion is remaining open because of the difficulty in getting a consensus. It seems perfectly reasonable to be to keep it open to get a wide enough discussion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet list criteria WP:SALAT this is what we have categories for. Too broad in scope. Also a real problem to pin inclusion criteria down particularly with reliable sources. Polargeo (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. The problem with the article is the additional distinction of organizations, therefore that it is too specific, not that it is too diffuse. Inclusion criteria is always a mystery to editors ignorant of a subject, I suppose, or when it is convenient. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You completely fail to address my arguments and in citing vaguewave you do exactly what you are incorrectly accusing me of doing. Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, we already have a List of environmental issues. This current list is a poor unnecessary WP:content fork. Far too similar inclusion criteria to the point that it could easily be dealt with in the better named list already in existance. There is no point leaving a redirect from this terrible title and there is nothing sourced worth merging. Polargeo (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You completely fail to address my arguments and in citing vaguewave you do exactly what you are incorrectly accusing me of doing. Polargeo (talk) 07:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete due to the bizarre specificism to organisations. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Either this is basically intended to cover every single attribute of the environment (in which case the "organizations" part is totally useless) or it is intended to list issues basically in parallel with the extant list of environmental issues. As I doubt many organizations can deal with totally non-man-related issues <g>, it appears that this list is of remarkably little value (especially since "organizations" are not even relevant to the issues listed.) Practice in the past has been that only reasonably defined and limited lists belong on WP, so it is that standard which should be applied here. As the list is not limited in any way, and the use of "organization" appears to have no special relevance to the list, it fails. Collect (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does its comprehensiveness make it inapplicable to organizations, what are these 'totally non-man-related issues', and please show how the list cannot be maintained in a 'reasonably defined and limited' manner. I also note that none of the arguments take not of and therefore preclude a merge. Anarchangel (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The inclusion of particular items on a list is dealt with by editing, not deleting the list--no types of articles , lists included, are expected to be perfect. It seems rather obvious that environmental organizations are related to environmental issues,but are not the same as them, so two lists makes perfect sense to me. Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. There must be some real concrete objection to the list, but I cannot see it. DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a List of environmental issues. So we have two lists already. WP:content fork. Polargeo (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the inclusinog criteria for list by covering very notable subject matter. I would like to see the title improved and the article content fleshed out a bit, but this list if worthwhile and encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If by title improvement you mean something like rewriting it as List of environmental issues then it looks like this has been done. Polargeo (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging the two lists seems like an okay idea to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some topics lend themselves to list and some to prose. WP seems to get a number of lists that are better off as prose (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Prose&limit=500). This page should be prose - not a list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is it is a list, and a poorly named one at that, which content forks other lists at best and it has no prose in it worth merging or moving anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was prose as part of environmental organisation rather than retaining this list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trouble is it is a list, and a poorly named one at that, which content forks other lists at best and it has no prose in it worth merging or moving anywhere. Polargeo (talk) 12:05, 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 delete. NW (Talk) 02:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joel Rust[edit]
- Joel Rust (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 evidence of notability. Only claim to fame is winning a competition for young composers, which doesn't count under WP:COMPOSER. Only references cited are BBC and the Guardian, who were the joint promoters of the competition. Previous AfD nomination was survived per WP:HEY but no significant improvement has been made in nearly two years. Deskford (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Deskford (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly at present the only coverage is to do with winning a junior competition, although good it fails to meet the usual standards of WP:COMPOSER as stated by nom. Polargeo (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep—according to the BBC source, the competition's winner received a commission to compose a work which would be performed at a BBC Prom. I think that this constitutes a "notable composition" as per WP:COMPOSER. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding some sources and material now. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think this qualifies as a notable composition. The winner of a junior music composer award gets the prize of having a composition of theirs played at the BBC prom does not meet the guidelines at all. However, I will hold full judgement on this until I have seen the additions you are making. Polargeo (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) He's also had compositions played at the Tate Modern, has been reviewed by the renowned journal Tempo, had his work performed by the prestigious Britten Sinfonia in front of a veritable audience of Cambridge University music-students (none of these concerts are directly linked to his winning of the competition, they didn't form part of the reward or anything)... I feel sure that he "has credit for writing a notable composition" and thus satisfies WP:COMPOSER. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have done some good work adding these sources to the article but I have looked through them all and they do not show evidence to me of any sufficient coverage of the individual or suggest that he has written any notable compositions that would pass the notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that (as far as I can tell) notability of compositions – as opposed to composers – isn't defined, could you perhaps explain why you consider each of the following points to be non-notable? (1)—winners' reward piece played at a BBC Prom. (2)—piece played in the Tate Modern gallery. (3)—glowing review from a respected academic journal. (4)—piece played by a renowned ensemble to a distinguished audience, together with glowing comments from the orchestra's PR department. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have done some good work adding these sources to the article but I have looked through them all and they do not show evidence to me of any sufficient coverage of the individual or suggest that he has written any notable compositions that would pass the notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) He's also had compositions played at the Tate Modern, has been reviewed by the renowned journal Tempo, had his work performed by the prestigious Britten Sinfonia in front of a veritable audience of Cambridge University music-students (none of these concerts are directly linked to his winning of the competition, they didn't form part of the reward or anything)... I feel sure that he "has credit for writing a notable composition" and thus satisfies WP:COMPOSER. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The performance was not part of the main Proms season, but an additional event branded "Proms Young Composers Winners' Day": see Proms Plus coverage. --Deskford (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't think this qualifies as a notable composition. The winner of a junior music composer award gets the prize of having a composition of theirs played at the BBC prom does not meet the guidelines at all. However, I will hold full judgement on this until I have seen the additions you are making. Polargeo (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding some sources and material now. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I think that this may be one of those rare cases where it's worth looking over the two disclaimers here (original emphasis): "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included," and "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." And I think that he does qualify under that standard. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course people can qualify under general notability even if they don't quite meet the specific guidelines but I think the most "significant" coverage for him is for the single event of winning the young composer award. Further coverage of him as a composer is not that impressive or significant yet. I think more significant coverage of him is needed to push this case over the margin. Polargeo (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with Polargeo. While I believe this young gentleman will go far, he is not yet notable. The sources provide trivial mentions at best, and fail the very basic of notability guidelines at WP:N. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Since this article managed to survive a previous AfD (though only by the skin of its teeth), it would seem appropriate to go through each of the points in WP:MUSIC that tell against it.
- Main Criteria for composers and lyricists
- Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. - not established in either article or sources (Bilingual and Justianian I are not shown to be notable. Paraprosdokia will be discussed shortly.)
- Has written musical theatre of some sort (includes musicals, operas, etc) that was performed in a notable theatre that had a reasonable run as such things are judged in their particular situation and time. - not applicable (not an opera composer etc)
- Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria. - not established in either article or sources
- Has written a song or composition which has won (or in some cases been given a second or other place) in a major music competition not established expressly for newcomers. - not established in either article or sources (Paraprosdokia was explicitly judged in a competition "established expressly for newcomers" for that is precisely what the BBC PROMS/Guardian Young Composer Competition is.)
- Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria. - not established in either article or sources
- Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music. - not established in either article or sources (the Tempo article seems to have either vanished or been mis-cited; tubagility is hardly "standard"; musicmanifesto is a campaign designed for young musicians; the Britten Sinfonia site merely recounts one of their workshops which performed some of his works; and, indeed, neither of the other sources (BBC website, Guardian) are exactly "standard reference books on his or her genre of music", though they are maintained by reliable editors often involved in reviewing music and orchestral works, but rather they are news sources relating his success at the Proms/Guardian competition—and in fact, both are far too close to the source for obvious reasons.)
- This leaves us with the Others
- Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. - not established in either article or sources
- Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list. - not established in either article or sources
- Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre. - not established in either article or sources
- Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre. - not established in either article or sources
- Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. - not established in either article or sources
- WP:HEY was cited in the previous AfD as the main reason for the !keep result. However, the article has still not been brought up to standard and, it would appear, cannot be, so this argument cannot be used again, IMO.
- The standard disclaimer was cited above (failure to meet standards is not proof of NN etc), but that is not a "standard", merely a warning that the person really might be notable despite all apperances to the contrary, which is fair enough. However, no one is saying the "article must be deleted", just that it probably should be. Must needs copyvio or personal details or hate-content etc. Should needs more thought. I say the article should be deleted because the composer is not established as notable in any reliable sources I can find nor can all the claims in the article be verified at present.
- Sorry for the long explanation: I spent about 4 hours on this AfD trying to establish notability and verify all the info because the previous AfD failure seemed to suggest there was far more to this young composer. Perhaps more had been written about him since 2008? However, I could not find it. It is also notable that the Britten Sinfonia were cited enbloc as claiming great things for him and that Peter Wiegold has no article. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - The precise quote from the Britten Sinfonia website is: "...some of the most talented young composers we've heard in a long while - all names to watch out for in the coming years!" In other words, he is not singled out by the editor of this website but rather included in a polite mention of several composers whose work was played at the Cambridge University Composers' Workshop which happened to involve members of the sinfonia. Kate Whitley, Jonathan Coffer, Tom Kimber and Frances Balmer were all included in the acclaim as well. Note the redness... --Jubilee♫clipman 22:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further Addendum - interestingly, User:Whitley.kate who may or may not be the same Kate Whitley found above created this article. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:42, 22 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. The only delete !votes seem to be from single purpose accounts (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 05:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joggling[edit]
- Joggling (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, probably a hoax. Late-edition OED defines "joggling" only as a shaky motion. Google search for "joggle" turns up thousands of results, but they are mainly games, products, and software projects by that name: scores of which, by the google metric, are more important than this (supposed) sport. Egnalebd (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - did you check the external links on the article itself? You'll find a lot of discussion about the activity by actual human beings. It has plenty of participation, despite the OED. Perhaps you think it should be turned into a disambiguation page, and this be turned into, say Joggling (sport)? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 03:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a few private web pages, nothing satisfying WP:N. In any case, I'd prefer it if we reserved the word sport for activities that men do. Egnalebd (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Obviously an erroneous deletion rationale. Polargeo (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely not a hoax, I searched for ("owen morse" joggling) and found a Sports Illustrated article about it and the guy in the picture, an article in The Australian and this one in the Montreal Gazette mentioning Morse and his record-breaking exploits. I have to admit, the balls in the pic do look like a lousy Photoshop job. Holly25 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage in "News of the Weird" does not merit something an entry in an encyclopedia. Egnalebd (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is coverage in three countries, including an article in the world's biggest sports publication, and recognition by the Guinness World Records. Weirdness isn't a valid reason for deletion. Holly25 (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of notability is, however. Quadricode (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Holly25. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just a bunch of esoteric nonsense nobody cares about. This article sounds like I prank I'd do when I was 14. CESSMASTER (talk) 16:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete The rationale is sound. Aside from miscellaneous uses of the word "joggling", an encyclopaedic entry is not merited. In addition, "joggle" is a word recognized by the Random House and American Heritage dictionaries defined as "shaking, jolting", along with its noun form used in construction and carpentry. Quadricode (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Quadricode (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CESSMASTER (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Also, having the nominator and these two defender accounts turn up on their only AfD all within 15 minutes of one another, after 5 "keeps"? What are the odds? Holly25 (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I am constantly bothered by people attacking articles and making comments on something they don't know about on these AFDs as if their knowledge is what decides what is important. OK, running is my area of expertise. Joggling is an element within the sport. There are competitors and competitions within our events. Its been around for years. Lots more can be built upon the information available. It certainly merits an article.Trackinfo (talk) 19:29, 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. WP:SNOW close (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 05:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cerberus FTP Server[edit]
- Cerberus FTP Server (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 recreated by SPA after deletion. SPA has never provided sources for this article. It does not appear to be notable. Miami33139 (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Using gnews I can find a couple of sources [43], [44] and there are perhaps more [45]. I don't know about their reliability. --Cyclopiatalk 14:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
There are plenty of sources. Check out Tucows, CNet, or Snapfiles. The history description comes directly from the author. [46] [47] [48]
- Keep: Per [49], [50], and [51]. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two are entirely insignificant. The first two are ok, but I wouldn't base the entire notability of an article on just those two. Miami33139 (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by Joe Chill. --Cyclopiatalk 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Well known product by anyone with relevant technical background. These feverish automatic AfD noms on software are so out of hand. LotLE×talk 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is one of those rare instances where there is actually sufficient sources for a software product listed on AFD. Wow, it really can happen! JBsupreme (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While most of the references provided here are download page, it is covered in tutorial style in two books: [53] [54]. It is also mentioned in a few other books by itself (i.e. not in a list of similar products): [55] [56], [57] [58], and in a number of academic papers: [59], [60], [61], [62] (you can easily find more in google scholar), has articles announcing new versions in well-known magazines, e.g. these three in c't, which means this is one of the notable Windows FTP servers. The company itself is also notable, some of the links provided by others above are false positives because of that (they discuss other products by this company like their Cerberus Internet Scanner/NTInfoscan now Typhon (see [63] for that). Pcap ping 10:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news has 29 results, and Google book search has 9. Dream Focus 12:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep failure to bother with WP:BEFORE, apparently on the basis of assumptions; odd that when refs were produced, the nom. admitted that two were substantial, but continued the afd. Snow Keep is probably appropriate DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 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) 00:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Albania[edit]
- Operation Albania (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)
Hard to confirm this event ever happened (or under that name). Dubious sourcing TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The article cited Google video and Wikipedia... On the other hand, military options are hard to verify by their nature, so I'm not expressing opinion. Blodance (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. wp:v "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies", "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." duffbeerforme (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—"Operation Albania" throws up no relevant results on Google Search, News, Books or Scholar (though it does appear to be the codename of some of Pinochet's activities...!) ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 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 Nomination withdrawn; article redirected (Non-admin closure). Intelligentsium 20:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
End-diastolic dimension[edit]
- End-diastolic dimension (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per WP:NOTDICDEF this seems to be just a definition of a medical term, or terms, which says nothing about the subject other than the definition. A Google search doesn't turn up anything to suggest otherwise - various uses but no good references. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 12:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to diastole. Polarpanda (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Had almost forgotten about this article. I (original author) have moved this to be a new section of Ventricle (heart) along with redirects. There is also "end-systolic dimension" which could go there as well, but it is not as commonly used. Also added a ref for its definition. Diastole could have a ref to the new location if desired. Facts707 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- withdraw can someone who knows how to do it close this AfD as it's been dealt with by a merge & redirect which seems the best option, and if any editor has issues with it they can fix it in the articles. --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:37, 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 delete. when its released and there are proper sources then we c<an host an article. but not yet.... Spartaz Humbug! 09:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Life As I Know It[edit]
- Life As I Know It (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 per WP:GNG and WP:Notability (fiction), local TV show not yet released, some WP:Conflict of interest by at least one editor, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, only WP:Primary sources given as references. Prod contested by WP:Single-purpose account. MuffledThud (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no secondary sources listed in either refs or External links. These are just publicity websites of the directly involved parties. Racepacket (talk) 11:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- article of interest, have heard much about this show through word of mouth and want to find out more. Needs more information and better sources, but content of value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.20.129 (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this show. Joe Chill (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have also heard a lot about this series as it has been filming in and around Manchester and I actually whitnessed filming at Deansgate Libary today and I am looking forward to seeing it. The actors told me that there will be artictles in local newspapers over the next couple of weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.65 (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. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Horasis[edit]
- Horasis (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, spammy article, if notable it had to be rewritten almost from scratch, only self-references provided. Anna Lincoln 10:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe now the organization is notable, but as my nomination has already been done, I will let this run. Anna Lincoln 10:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam --I'm with Coco (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - saw one reference to China meeting but not to Horasis as a whole. Racepacket (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not pure spam, but not notable either, per WP:CORP, WP:RS, WP:V. This is not a degree-granting institution, and no reliable sources are given. There are literally zero news and zero scholar Ghits for this group. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 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 keep per the snowball clause. –MuZemike 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rydberg matter[edit]
- Rydberg matter (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 article looks nice - well written, pictured, and cited to peer-reviewed articles, but, there are several worrying issues which I bring to your consideration:
- The article is apparently written by Prof. Holmlid and is almost exclusively sited to his work. It is also used as an extension of the personal homepage of Prof. Holmlid.
- Google books search for "Rydberg matter" returns a few entries, again coupled to papers by Holmlid.
- Seach on Web of Science reveals that Prof. Holmlid has published 158 articles (
none in major journals) with 2154 citations, 1863 of which are self-citations. With all do respect to the author, this does not go along with basic WP policies, such as WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, etc. Materialscientist (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. None of the issues above are such that cannot be solved with editing, and for deletion policy this means the article can be kept. Yes, there are COI issues and it looks more like the work of a single research group, yet it doesn't make it non-notable, nor it seems fringe research, given the sheer amont of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. Also it seems Prof.Holmlid is not the only one to acknowledge the thing -see a search of "rydberg matter" -holmlid on Gscholar. For sure the article needs help, but AfD is not the way to go -better to bring it to the attention of Wikiproject Physics, if it hasn't already been done, for example. --Cyclopiatalk 14:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep there are many cites to other people than Holmid, & some of Holmid's papers are in first rate journals, such as MNRAS. COI is not reason to delete, but to edit--probably a few too many references to his own group are given. DGG ( talk ) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's nothing wrong with citing yourself, if you're a famous professor. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, references clearly show notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The statement by Materialscientist that none of my 186 publications is in major journals is wrong. I have published in Phys. Rev. Lett, Phys. Rev. A, J. Chem. Phys., J. Phys. B, PCCP, MNRAS, ApJ, Langmuir, J. Catal. etc. etc. all with high impact factors. Why use such erroneous information? Holmlid (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I was thinking about that your references on Rydberg matter do not originate from those journals. Materialscientist (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep even if significant rewrite is necessary to fix the COI and neutrality issues. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A cursory examination of the 44 references indicates that the topic has been discussed in secondary sources. The alleged neutrality issues stemming from WP:COI can be solved by editing. Did anyone notice it's WP:SNOWing in here? Pcap ping 11:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but I would note one thing and appreciate feedback on that. There are several comments here that there is a COI issue and it can be resolved by editing, but there is no advice on how exactly this can be done and who will do that. The issue was raised at WP:PHYS and found no solution. It is not trivial to find substitute sources for this rare topic. Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use WP:SECONDARY sources, like review papers written by someone else. This appears to be one. Pcap ping 15:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt, secondary sources would be great (see the 2nd nomination comment though), but the one you mentioned is devoted to isolated Rydberg atom, isn't it? Materialscientist (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Use WP:SECONDARY sources, like review papers written by someone else. This appears to be one. Pcap ping 15:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but I would note one thing and appreciate feedback on that. There are several comments here that there is a COI issue and it can be resolved by editing, but there is no advice on how exactly this can be done and who will do that. The issue was raised at WP:PHYS and found no solution. It is not trivial to find substitute sources for this rare topic. Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the solid experimental material shows that the topic is a real matter independently who obtained it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.254.207 (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stubbify. The snow that has fallen is not yet deep enough to cover the concerns that this article arouses in its present state, despite the arguments advanced above. The topic of Rydberg matter, rather like cold fusion, is, in my judgement, the preserve of a band of enthusiasts but has yet to achieve mainstream acceptance. Most of the references in the article are to original research literature and the article reads like a paper of original research pushing the particular POV that Rydberg matter does actually exist. Because of the approach taken by the article, an innocent reader could be misled into thinking that the subject has more mainstream acceptance than it does. This leads me to conclude that because the topic is on the fringe it is not suitable for a full encyclopaedic treatment at this stage. I suggest that it be stubbified to a few lines, its speculative and non-mainstream nature made clearly manifest and its references cut down proportionally. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep and SNOW close Doc Quintana (talk) 06:49, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dharma Mittra[edit]
- Dharma Mittra (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 religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 05:28, 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) 00:43, 6 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) 01:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding quite a few third-party references to him and his work, as well as many yoga studios across the US that follow his style or whatever. He may not be of huge notability outside the field of yoga, but within that field he appears quite notable. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to be notable. There'a an article about him here--Gaura79 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Note
Relisted after vandalism by IP [64]. Also, warned the IP. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep "Non-notable religious leader" (?), he's a yoga teacher, and notable. Mentioned in "Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, Volume 3" [65] and therefore per def notable. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:59, 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 redirect to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. Redirecting all to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. Content can be merged at editor discretion Spartaz Humbug! 10:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zepar[edit]
- Zepar (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 a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for identical reasons:
- Amdusias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Amon (demon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andrealphus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andromalius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Zagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Decarabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sabnock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Shax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Saleos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without Prejudice to Merge Anything notable should go to the main lesser key article. Clear content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either keep or merge without removing content (i.e., just paste them into the same page). Google search reveals a ton of results for just one of these; I know the google test is not super-reliable, but 3 million hits leaves plenty of wiggle room. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Like I've said on some similar pages, I've been meaning to get to it but I'm a horrible procrastinator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- merge all of these to the main work. The specific demons in this particular body of literature are not of sufficient encyclopedic significance. DGG ( talk ) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thost G-hits probably all point to either amateur goetic websites or to the same 1-2 primary sources that reference these demons originally. Simonm223 (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon - The article The Lesser Key of Solomon contains no suitable location to which the contents of these articles could be merged. Dumping 11 paragraphs of detailed descriptions of 11 demons (out of 72) would bring great imbalance to the article and set the stage for having similar paragraphs added for the other 61 demons. If there is consensus is to preserve this content on Wikipedia, then the place for it would be Ars Goetia (currently a redirect) or List of demons in the Ars Goetia. –Black Falcon (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of demons in the Ars Goetia created. Ash (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice! Merge all to the list. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of demons in the Ars Goetia created. Ash (talk) 10:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. Together, they may be encyclopedic, but individually are far from notable. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 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 redirect to List of demons in the Ars Goetia. redirecting but history still there so feel free to merge as required Spartaz Humbug! 09:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stolas[edit]
- Stolas (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 a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without Prejudice to Merge Anything notable should go to the main lesser key article. Clear content fork. Simonm223 (talk) 22:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Meaning to, but a procrastinator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Let the page stay. Where else can we keep the info about him and his descriptions. Rtkat3 (talk) 8:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon. It could be that many or all 72 demons, which all appear to have their own articles, should be merged as well. This could be cumbersome in the main Lesser Key article; perhaps a new article or list such as Demons of Ars Goetia could be created for this purpose. Wine Guy Talk 07:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zepar. Briefly: The article The Lesser Key of Solomon contains no suitable location to which the contents of these articles could be merged. If there is consensus is to preserve this content on Wikipedia, then the place for it would be Ars Goetia (currently a redirect) or similar (as suggested by Wine Guy). –Black Falcon (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the newly-created List of demons in the Ars Goetia. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no showing of notability. Articles like this must give a lot more context, rather than a vague reference to demonology. Racepacket (talk) 12:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are correct that an article such as this must provide some real-world context, but the requirements for a section within a list (List of demons in the Ars Goetia) are surely even lower, are they not? In other words, do you oppose merging as well? Thanks, –Black Falcon (talk) 16:59, 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 Merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China to Sino-American relations - Delete 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan . Considering the comments on the previous AfD for Barack Obama’s visit, the existing merge tag and comments on the talkpage alongside the comments on this AfD, there is an actionable consensus to merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China into Sino-American relations. Such a merge would need to be done with care as there is too much material in 2009 Barack Obama visit to China to merge wholesale into Sino-American relations. Consideration of what material to be kept should bear Wikipedia:Notability (events) and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. I note that all the references in the article are from November 2009, and that much of the content is worded in terms of events that are about to happen – a successful merge would include a source summing up the impact of the visit, as that is unclear from the material in the article as it currently stands, and would cut out the speculation and the future tense (example: “Obama is expected to raise the issue of the Renminbi in his talks with Hu Jintao”). The consensus for 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan is to delete it, and I will go with consensus, though if somebody wishes to make a mention of the visit in Australia–Japan relations and would like to view the content to make such a merge I would be willing to userfy the content for them. I will comment that it is unhelpful to list two unrelated articles in the same AfD, though I will not comment on the possible motives for this as I as sume good faith on the part of the nominator. SilkTork *YES! 20:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2009 Barack Obama visit to China and 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan[edit]
- 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 Barack Obama visit to China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I see two articles that are similar and of questionable notability. I can't say 100% that it is a keep so a AFD is noted. (The converse is that I can't say it's a 100% delete either). Both articles are very much like news. One editor said that the Rudd visit was merely a stop. There are reliable sources that say the Obama visit was a stop, too, after the Asia Pacific Summit. There were serious issues and a publicity point (whaling issue) for the Rudd visit but it was short. The Obama trip was a little longer but little was accomplished. It could have been notable if Obama publically demanded that the PRC force North Korea to act or demanded that the PRC buy American cars or shame them on human rights but it was an uneventful, non-notable trip. Both border on news but both also have multiple news sources (newspapers report the news, not necessarily notable on an encyclopedic level). The Obama visit was covered in several countries, the Rudd visit covered in at least Australia, Japan, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Singapore, United States. So there is no clear answer to this except that both are very similar articles. JB50000 (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 50.01% but keep 49.99%. Several people are for delete. I spent a whole lot of time to write the Rudd article but I don't know. I do know it is similar to the Obama article but written better and a tiny bit more notable because of the whaling kowtow and now Rudd trying to bring up the fight again after looking weak before. JB50000 (talk) 07:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On 2nd thought, maybe merge with 21st century visits of Western politicians to the Far East??? JB50000 (talk) 07:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close Once again, a WP:POINT-let's-lump-it-nomination by the same editor who tried it before. Besides, this is nominating for deletion and then saying "maybe not"... so which one is it? Delete? Yea? Nay? *sigh* Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close Per Seb_az86556. I agree, this is a clear WP:POINT violation (see: Talk:2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. I'd close it myself, but I'm on the record as writing that the Rudd article should be deleted, so I'm not uninvolved. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close.(See my vote below) Unfortunately, I've tried to point out WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:POINT to JB50k on multiple occasions. He doesn't seem to want to hear it... — Hunter Kahn 14:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment This AFD caught my eye because there are 3 consecutive speedy comments, which one can see very easily even if one is scrolling the page at a very high rate of speed. Furthermore, the AFD covers a new Wikipedia guideline that I participated in discussion. The speedy comments may be well intentioned but speedy may violating WP:NOTCSD reason 7.
- Mandsford's merger (below) comments and recentism comments are sensible. This is a difficult question since both articles are about subjects that probably have no historical significance but do meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability based on reliable sources.
- Recently, I participated in helping some re-writing of WP:EVENT, a new Wikipedia guideline for event notability (full credit should be given to User:The Wordsmith, I basically posed discussion questions and copy edited but did not author the guideline). Both articles meet the guidelines per WP:GEOSCOPE. Whether the guidelines needs to be re-written is certainly a valid point. I have discussed even after the guidelines were approved that the guidelines should be more specific in order to be a good roadmap.
- Based on the notability (events) guidelines, both articles are a
Keep. However, I would be more happy if the authors could discuss it among themselves and come up with a merge decision. - Based on the tone of the discussion, the involved parties should attempt to work together because I sense a lack of comraderie that is nice to have. I plan to discuss this AFD with the lead author of the notability guideline or other editors before making additional recommendations, if any. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SuomiFinland, I have no problem whatsoever with your vote. However, I want to point out that I have made attempts to work together with this user, and will continue to do so. I reached out to him after the Hawaii deletion here, and I actually thought we made some progress because it led to the creation of Barack Obama assassination threats, a stronger page that had the backing of consensus. I also made an attempt to reach out to him here, after he started making what I perceived as threats against the China article if his Rudd article were to be deleted. I tried to inform him about WP:ONEEVENT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which other users have also informed him of. So there have been attempts, by me and by others... — Hunter Kahn 17:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand WP:EVENT. Passing WP:GEOSCOPE does not give a free pass to an event; all of the criteria need to be considered. Fences&Windows 23:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for pointing this out which will lead to a discussion about the guideline. As far as this AFD, these two articles seem to lack historical significance but there is a possibility that the Rudd visit may mark a turning point on the whaling issue, but this is a very speculative now. As far as the actual practice of Wikipedia, both articles qualify. The problem seems to be that the guidelines are a bit too vague which I will be looking into in the near future. Since there is no consensus just within me (there are conflicting policies, guidelines, and actual practice) I will work to help reduce the problem systemwide but this will take more time than the AFD allows. For the time being, a no censensus is a default to keep, which isn't bad because these two articles are not the worst of tabloid news but are a little on the news-y side. My new vote is personally no censensus (I'm talking about me) so it is a keep with suggestions to have the authors strongly consider merging. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After study of the Notability (events) guideline, there is a significant flaw that I am discussing with others who edit that talk page. As a result, I cannot reference that guideline to offer a valid opinion. According to part of the guideline, both articles pass but according to another conflicting part, both articles fail. My goal is to ignore this AFD and let it run to whatever course it runs and spend the next few days fixing the guideline so that it doesn't contradict itself. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would prefer to see articles of this type be about a world leader's entire tour, rather than about the about part of the visit. I'm afraid that the way that the nomination was phrased, it doesn't sound like a request for deletion, and this does seem to be a case of "and while we're at it..." Needless to say, Wikipedia is so heavy on recentism that anything that Barack Obama does is going to inspire someone to be the first kid on the block to say something about it. If the man catches a cold, someone will probably write an article called "2010 Barack Obama use of Kleenex". I think that JB50000 is entirely right in getting us to consider how we treat current events. Mandsford (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, it's difficult to take his AFD seriously given his history. When one of his articles are challenged, he responds by trying to delete articles of a similar nature to make a point: see this, this and this. Further, when the Rudd article started coming under fire, he had started making threats, or at the very least alluding to the fact that he would eventually do this: see this, this and this. Plus, putting aside the fact that this China article has already gone through a recent AFD, there was also an ongoing merger discussion on the talk page. Although nobody had yet voiced any strong support for a merge, a proposal like the one you voiced above about combining it with Obama's entire tour (which I actually think is a good idea) could have, and should have, been discussed there... — Hunter Kahn 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge both into appropriate articles on the foreign policy or foreign visits by both people. The both seem to run into problems with WP:EVENT in that the coverage doesn't seem to have much duration and isn't likely to have lasting notability. For an example of a visit to a foreign country that meets these criteria, see 1972 Nixon visit to China. Individual speeches by heads of state (except perhaps certain annual speeches, like State of the Union, or historically notable ones) should be merged, and the same goes for visits to foreign countries that have no persistent coverage. The nomination may be somewhat POINTy, but there's still a reason to merge both. The WordsmithCommunicate 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are clearly notable events that generated plenty of press coverage, and I wish we could just consider the issue settled. Everyking (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, with all due deference to all those who have commented above. I think some people are very, very confused about the difference between an encyclopedia and a news site such as (whatsitscalled) Wikinews or whatever. I must say that the majority of respectable news agencies would have been ashamed to inflict upon us something like this. Really, "A black man, wearing a black coat, in a dark night, holding a black umbrella, walks into a black country". Wow. And it has apparently become an Internet catch phrase!!! Yes, really! Wikipedia says so, so it must be true!!! Oh yes, it's sourced, to be sure. I'm not quarreling with that. But does it deserve a place in an encyclopedia? Well, for that matter, does it deserve any mention at all, anywhere, except in these so-called "blogs"??? -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subjects? Everyking (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the very question, "what level of press coverage ... would be sufficient to demonstrate notability" is wrong. I think people are so much focused on the notion of "coverage in reliable sources" that they forget what this project is ultimately about -- not building an archive of news stories (however well-sourced), but building an encyclopedia. Please mark the difference. Wikipedia articles should be sourced from reliable sources, yes. But that doesn't mean that everything that can be sourced automatically gets a place in the encyclopedia! That is not the meaning of the term "encyclopedia". The subjects covered here should have real, long-term importance. So it does not matter if 2, or 20, or 200 papers report about some news event -- if it does not have real, long-term significance, it has no place in this encyclopedia. That's the crux of the matter. If you disagree, with all respect I think you should be editing Wikinews instdead. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you feel that no amount of attention from the external world would warrant the inclusion of these articles? Everyking (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No; I think that the mere question of "amount of attention from the external world" has nothing do to with being entitled to inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of subjects that would never be covered in popular press -- various advanced scientific topics -- that definitely need a coverage in an encyclopedia. Likewise, there are a lot of extremely popular topics (such as speculations about popular singers' sex life, breast size, or whatever) that should never, never have an encyclopedic article (however much is written/blogged/tweeted/whatever about that). So, the mere fact of "attention from the external world", or absence of same, doesn't mean much as far as building a reliable encyclopedia is concerned. Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think there's some particular amount of attention from the "external world" beyond which we should automatically have an article about the subject. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, the answer is "yes"—you feel that the subjects would not be notable even if ten stacks of books were written about them. Well, needless to say, I think it's preposterous to say that a subject cannot be notable no matter how much attention it receives. In order to have some reasonable inclusion standards, we need to be able to identify some level of attention at which we consider an event notable, even if some individual editors think it's a silly or inconsequential topic. Let's determine what is notable, not what should be notable. Everyking (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're twisting his words quite well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I don't think that inclusion in an encyclopedia [I hate the word "notability"] is measured in the number of stacks of books written about the subject. I think that whether it's 1, or 10, or 100, or 1000 stacks of books written about the subject, is not the real question. As I have said above, some subjects definitely need to be covered in this encyclopedia, even if they are not well-represened in the popular media; but, conversely, some subjects that are represented in the popular literature do not really deserve encyclopedic articles. That is the main danger of what is called "Recentism"... I must say though that this is getting rather far away from the original question. I should say that I don't think either Obama's 2009 visit to China, or Mr. Rudd's 2009 visit to Japan, are worthy of their own articles, for the simple reason that they are not important enough to be included in a general-purpose encyclopedia. Don't confuse Wikipedia with an archive of past news stories! But then, of course, as I must freely confess, I'm not doing political science; it's quite possible that future generations will really need the information about these events; so there's no harm done in retaining them here. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 08:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're twisting his words quite well. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, the answer is "yes"—you feel that the subjects would not be notable even if ten stacks of books were written about them. Well, needless to say, I think it's preposterous to say that a subject cannot be notable no matter how much attention it receives. In order to have some reasonable inclusion standards, we need to be able to identify some level of attention at which we consider an event notable, even if some individual editors think it's a silly or inconsequential topic. Let's determine what is notable, not what should be notable. Everyking (talk) 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No; I think that the mere question of "amount of attention from the external world" has nothing do to with being entitled to inclusion in an encyclopedia. There are plenty of subjects that would never be covered in popular press -- various advanced scientific topics -- that definitely need a coverage in an encyclopedia. Likewise, there are a lot of extremely popular topics (such as speculations about popular singers' sex life, breast size, or whatever) that should never, never have an encyclopedic article (however much is written/blogged/tweeted/whatever about that). So, the mere fact of "attention from the external world", or absence of same, doesn't mean much as far as building a reliable encyclopedia is concerned. Anyway, to answer your question, I don't think there's some particular amount of attention from the "external world" beyond which we should automatically have an article about the subject. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, you feel that no amount of attention from the external world would warrant the inclusion of these articles? Everyking (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the very question, "what level of press coverage ... would be sufficient to demonstrate notability" is wrong. I think people are so much focused on the notion of "coverage in reliable sources" that they forget what this project is ultimately about -- not building an archive of news stories (however well-sourced), but building an encyclopedia. Please mark the difference. Wikipedia articles should be sourced from reliable sources, yes. But that doesn't mean that everything that can be sourced automatically gets a place in the encyclopedia! That is not the meaning of the term "encyclopedia". The subjects covered here should have real, long-term importance. So it does not matter if 2, or 20, or 200 papers report about some news event -- if it does not have real, long-term significance, it has no place in this encyclopedia. That's the crux of the matter. If you disagree, with all respect I think you should be editing Wikinews instdead. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What level of press coverage, if any, do you feel would be sufficient to demonstrate the notability of the subjects? Everyking (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the Speedy Close is obviously not happening, Delete Rudd, Keep Obama to allow merge discussion to continue. I had been in favor of keeping the Rudd decision because I thought JB50k was doing a pretty decent job of improving the article, and that he planned to continue. However, since he is now actually the one nominating it for deletion, that is obviously not the case, so I vote delete. As for Obama, there was already a merge discussion ongoing before this AFD was brought forward, and that, combined with the fact the POINTy-ness and the fact that its already gone through an AFD pretty recently, is why I feel the Obama article shouldn't have been nominated for deletion at all. Let the merge discussion that was already ongoing continue... — Hunter Kahn 06:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will continue to improve the article if the community decides to keep this article. This addresses the fear of Hunter Kahn. JB50000 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The other "fear" would be that you will continue to pull similar stunts as all the previous AfDs you've launched. Can you address that fear? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will continue to improve the article if the community decides to keep this article. This addresses the fear of Hunter Kahn. JB50000 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge 2009 Barack Obama visit to China and delete 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan. Re the first article: The Obama visit was four days and had some substance, and the article has a (weak) "reactions" section, so an argument for keeping it could be made. In view of the "no consensus" close a month ago, I would not object to a "keep", but I fully acknowledge that it would be absurd to have an article on every state visit by a head of state. Re the second article: Reference #3 ("Rudd to visit Japan en route to Denmark") is a rehash of a press release that essentially says: "Mr Rudd will stop over in Tokyo on Tuesday on his way to the United Nations conference on climate change. In Japan, [he] will meet Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama and address a senior business audience on the Australian economy." Such a brief encounter ("stop over") with no discernible outcome means the article fails WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (both). One of the votes seems to be a personal quarrel because that person was for and then ran into some conflict and is now against. Both articles are just obscure articles with some online newspaper articles as references. Goldamania (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a two-part recommendation. These articles should both be deleted, in my view. However, each may have a bit of notable content (reliably-sourced, of course), that could be valuable in the parent articles. As such, the second part of my recommendation is scour the articles for a bit of content that might beIt is becoming more and more clear to me that this is a POINT-y nomination from an editor that is simply angry that the Rudd article is going to be deleted. As such, I'm changing my recommendation to delete Rudd, merge Obama. Wikipedia is not WikiNews, and as such, not every trip (not even the major ones) that a political leader takes needs an article. UnitAnode 06:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]mergeableusable.- You can't vote to merge and delete. You can vote to merge and redirect, but not to merge and delete. Everyking (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm recommending is that before the articles are deleted, any useful content should be scraped into a parent article. As the second part of my recommendation, I think the articles should be deleted. My terminology seems like it was perhaps incorrect, so I've fixed that in my recommendation. UnitAnode 14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same as "merge and delete". It loses the history. Everyking (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that -- for the Rudd article particularly -- there's absolutely no net detriment to losing the history of the article. It shouldn't have been written to begin with. And in all honesty, these should be two separate AFDs, as my views on the merits of the Obama article are a bit less strongly-held. But my view remains that what little content might be usable should be simply placed into a parent article. These pages aren't even really all that useful as redirects. UnitAnode 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that they should be two separate AFDs. I'm not sure, but is it possible that the administrator who closes this could actually decide, if there is no consensus, that they could be split and two separate AFDs could start over? — Hunter Kahn 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the closing admin has the option to close the discussion as "delete X, but merge Y" or even "delete X, restart AFD on Y", if they're particularly convinced by the arguments against one article, but not the other. At that point, the AFD could be restarted for the one, if the latter was the decision. UnitAnode 21:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that they should be two separate AFDs. I'm not sure, but is it possible that the administrator who closes this could actually decide, if there is no consensus, that they could be split and two separate AFDs could start over? — Hunter Kahn 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redoing or relisting the AFD will only prolong drama. As far as the notability guidelines, there's currently a serious contradiction so there is a problem of using that guideline to determine the fate of the articles. Despite the editors' conflicts just before this AFD was started (including one editor that wants to delete only the Rudd article), I can see that the points for or against both articles are similar so there is some logic to having a joint AFD. The basic question, keep, merge, or delete boils down to notability (and the notability guidelines are flawed, being repaired, but won't be done in time). Under the initial part of the guidelines, both have some qualities that start to be notable but fail several important criteria and are, therefore, non-notable. That points to "Delete both". As far as keep, only the loosest interpretation of the latter part of the notability (events) guideline can explain a keep decision and, in that case, both should be kept. Preliminary assessment of the forming consensus of the notability (events) guidelines is that most or all criteria must be satisfied, so this is a delete both. Some references may be preserved so the deciding administrator should keep a copy of the article for a few days and ask the authoring editors to help merge some facts. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that -- for the Rudd article particularly -- there's absolutely no net detriment to losing the history of the article. It shouldn't have been written to begin with. And in all honesty, these should be two separate AFDs, as my views on the merits of the Obama article are a bit less strongly-held. But my view remains that what little content might be usable should be simply placed into a parent article. These pages aren't even really all that useful as redirects. UnitAnode 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same as "merge and delete". It loses the history. Everyking (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm recommending is that before the articles are deleted, any useful content should be scraped into a parent article. As the second part of my recommendation, I think the articles should be deleted. My terminology seems like it was perhaps incorrect, so I've fixed that in my recommendation. UnitAnode 14:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't vote to merge and delete. You can vote to merge and redirect, but not to merge and delete. Everyking (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is deleted, any merging of the content is out of the question. It's against policy. Content can only be merged if the article histories are preserved. Everyking (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly think that's what the policy was designed to do. Taken to its extreme, if I started Harry Reid's statements about Obama's race, no one could then include any of the relevant information in the Reid article. That seems rather much. Certainly any notable content (however small) could be scraped into the main Ruud article, while deleting the completely pointless trip article. Otherwise, what's to keep a POINT-y editor from taking your overly strict reading of policy to its extreme? UnitAnode 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is deleted, any merging of the content is out of the question. It's against policy. Content can only be merged if the article histories are preserved. Everyking (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 2009 Barack Obama visit to China based on great impact and ongoing importance. Move/Merge 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan into Australia-Japan relations based on relative importance. Bearian (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great impact of Obama trip to China. That is laughable. The Rudd trip made more impact because of the high profile whaling issue and nuclear report. Unequal treatment of the two is really bad, particularly keeping the least notable (Obama) trip. If people want to merge some information, I can see. But to have a really non-notable trip (Obama) and a slightly more notable trip (Rudd) killed is a very political move by Wikipedia. JB50000 (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It sounds like you are saying if there is an article about the Obama trip, there should be an article about the Rudd trip as well. — Hunter Kahn 17:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I am saying that neither article meets the criteria for notability but that the Obama article fails it stronger. I am fair because I edited both articles and most of the editing for the Rudd article is mine. JB50000 (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you only edited the Obama article twice, but you edited the Rudd one 37 times, which you started and are the primary author for, so that's hardly a balance. Between that, combined with the fact that multiple editors have warned you against lumped together AFDs like this, I'm sure you can probably at least understand why it's hard to assume good faith, right? — Hunter Kahn 14:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great impact of Obama trip to China. That is laughable. The Rudd trip made more impact because of the high profile whaling issue and nuclear report. Unequal treatment of the two is really bad, particularly keeping the least notable (Obama) trip. If people want to merge some information, I can see. But to have a really non-notable trip (Obama) and a slightly more notable trip (Rudd) killed is a very political move by Wikipedia. JB50000 (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep for the Obama article and Delete for the Rudd one. Presidential visits, especially US presidents' visit to China, is almost automatically notable, and it gets extensive media coverage. Comparing the Rudd article with it is quite POINTy. Blodance (talk) 14:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The world is more than just the US. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, but given the nature of Sino-American relations, this is not anywhere near a "non-notable event". Blodance (talk) 18:27, 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) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ridwan amir[edit]
- Ridwan amir (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)
Autobio by a person that hasn't established notability for inclusion. NJA (t/c) 09:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per A7. Blodance (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 17:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ignoring the article's failing to meet MOS, his one unreleased film does not give him notability. Maybe in a few years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:35, 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. if there are no sources we can't host this content Spartaz Humbug! 08:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaila Yu[edit]
- Kaila Yu (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)
There's nothing notable about this girl, the novelty wore off five years ago. She released an album that never even made it to the Top 200 music albums, and besides her appearances in some little-known men and racing magazines, she doesn't fully establish notability. Also, the majority of editors (her fanbase, most likely) kept adding that her fame stems from "pornos", "an album that flopped", and "started porn as a minor". That says enough: are we really going to put an article about Kaila Yu here? That's not notability. If anyone has an opposing opinion, feel free to explain. ★Dasani★ 08:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really see how this is grounds for deleting the article. If we are following your argument, then Paris Hilton should be deleted as well. - J3ff (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the nominator was a frequent and substaintial contributor to the article over time. This is all very puzzling. There was a much longer list that was cut back. I don't know enough about the area to make a recommendation, but there is a lot more here than meets the surface. Racepacket (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not sure I understand the nominator's rationale. It sounds to me like the issues are that she is no longer active, and that people have been adding questionable material to the article. Neither of these by themselves is a valid rationale for deletion. For my part, I haven't been able to assess notability due to the potential for NSFW content, which is why I haven't provided a !vote yet. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She's not known for much, except maybe scantily clad appearances in movies and magazines. Also, she has since deleted her MySpace and official website. Basically, it seems to me she's trying to put herself out of business. Looking around, I can't find one good article of her that's a reliable source, including celebrity websites. ★Dasani★ 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Granted there's a absence of sources, but a quick read through shows a decent sized filmography and what appears to be a couple of CDs released. Granted, they may not have gone too far, but I do think it all adds up to notability. Tabercil (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see anything that indicates notability per WP:MUSICBIO or even WP:GNG. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Playboy Model with a studio album? Sounds notable to me. Str8cash (talk) 04:00, 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) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kelvin Wright[edit]
- Kelvin Wright (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 meet the core policy of verifiability. The article makes a couple of claims for notability. The first claim is as a race car driver. The second claim as a professional hockey player. Neither claim is backed up by reliable sources in the article. My own searches were unable to find any information to corroborate these claims.
Looking at him as a race car driver, I can find no coverage about his entry in an international rally in New Zealand that asserts had coverage in multiple media. Not am I able to find any other information about his racing career in the United States.
Looking at his hockey career, I again can find no mention of professional hockey player by the name of Kelvin Wright. The Internet Hockey Database [66] has no record of him. Whpq (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm very confused. There is a Kelvin Wright from New Zealand who is a rugby star. There is also a Kelvin Wright from New Zealand who was involved in rally driving but the articles about him are from the 1990's, when this man had apparently moved to America to pursue hockey. There doesn't seem to be any notability as the article stands. However, if I could be assured the two Kelvin Wrights were the same I'd change the article and update my vote to keep. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:02, 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) 08:29, 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) 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inneractive Recordings[edit]
- Inneractive Recordings (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 record label Rapido (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:46, 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) 08:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks coverage by reliable sources. ~DC Talk To Me 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 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) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Divine plugin[edit]
- Divine plugin (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 photoshop plugin. Disputed prod. Only references are to the projects own website. noq (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam --I'm with Coco (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - spam. Also little context - I have no idea what this product is claimed to do (and I speak HTML!). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me. Thank you for your comments. Please, could you advise me what external references will be ok to place them in my article? The issue is that Divine plugin is a new product, but it's really useful for web developers and designers. So, what resources could write about it that I could use them in the article. I'd like to work out all the problems to have my article in Wikipedia. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeveloper84 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not for promoting new products. In order for the article to remain, you must establish notability with verifiable reliable sources. The fact that the product is new may make this harder. noq (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me. I don't want to promote a new product. I want to share it with the people concerned. Please could you tell what sources could be reliable sources for my article (for this kind of web product)? As there are many web sites where Divine plugin is discussed and its work is explained (not by its developers). Your reply will be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webdeveloper84 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By article creator's own description, this is a new product. It may someday become notable, but the mere fact it exists is not notability. Moreover, the article reads enough like a promo or tutorial to add extra question of the encyclopedic value of the article. LotLE×talk 23:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No Google Books nor Google Scholar links. Note that this program is “free-beer” but not open-source software. Samboy (talk) 15:04, 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) 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Rokks[edit]
- Steve Rokks (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 "producer, musician, and mixer" who has "worked on various albums to-date." A previous speedy was declined because, as an old revision will show you, the article formerly claims he was "commonly known for his work with Ryan Edgar, Bob Schneider and Kari Jobe." He has one news mention in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, in which his job is given as "sound engineer." I can't find anything else that could amount to significant coverage or otherwise meet WP:MUSICBIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 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 Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xián Jiaotong Liverpool University School of Business, Economics and Management[edit]
- Xián Jiaotong Liverpool University School of Business, Economics and Management (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, Self promotional. At most merge it with a appropriate article but this is a spamfest circlejerk. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete – copyright violation. ttonyb (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - cut and paste from website.Merge with Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. Too short and insignificant for a separate stub. Racepacket (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. I stubbed the article to eliminate the copyvio. (This is often the best course of action when an article at AfD is discovered to be a copyvio.) The article is no longer promotional. - Eastmain (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the clean-up, but why can't this be a section in Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University? Racepacket (talk) 06:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University which needs more content and this department is not shown to be separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Xi'an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and get rid of anything that violates WP:Copyvio. Simonm223 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University. How is this department so "notable" that it needs its own wiki entry?! TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:03, 20 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 source = deletion until sources are available. I have userfied the page at User:Ceceliadid/Global Interoperability Program Spartaz Humbug! 10:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global Interoperability Program[edit]
- Global Interoperability Program (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, Seems self promotional and notability isn't clear. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as far as Google is concerned, it doesn't exist. 28 regular Google hits, and some of those are for a different Bluetooth thing. Abductive (reasoning) 07:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a legit, $3M yr/program, it's just new. Sorry if this is the wrong way to comment. Cdid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceceliadid (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Okay, I think - I hope - it's looking better. I'm trying to start to document the major software infrastructure projects in the climate and weather domain. I expect the people on specific projects to help finish that process, and reorganize/recategorize as they see fit. Some new categories would be useful - I feel like putting some of these infrastructure projects in a model category is going to be misleading - so I will look into that next. This new GIP program connects a lot of them, so its a useful organizational mechanism. --Ceceliadid (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Topics that have no secondary sources should not have articles. Abductive (reasoning) 00:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Looks to be a notable program by a major scientific government agency. Well cited to government sources. LotLE×talk 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not the consensus definition of notability on Wikipedia. Being sponsored by a government has no bearing on notability. Abductive (reasoning) 00:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 23:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Right now it read like a NOAA press release. Gov't programs of this (money) size draw attention... if they fail, but not otherwise. Given that there are 7 orgs involved, it doesn't look considerably more important than the average grant. Pcap ping 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure it makes a lot of difference, but I added 3 additional funded organizations: NCEP, NCAR, and UCAR Unidata. More institutions are implied under Participants>Development Projects - the collaboration with metafor brings in a whole slew of European centers (who can't be funded directly). Maybe the table helps it not look so much like a press release? Any other ideas for how to make it less press-release-y would be welcome. --Ceceliadid (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Reviewed secondary source criteria, and added two references (can do more) that discuss and cite the need for this sort of program at length (see the abstract for the AMS article). Though GIP is not mentioned by name, its constituent projects are, e.g. I know ESMF is mentioned in the Strategic Plan for the CCSP. --Ceceliadid (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: since the (premature) nomination, substantial new sources have been added, and article structure and writing have been improved. This should not have been nominated at all so quickly after its creation, and while the {newpage} template was informatively placed on it. LotLE×talk 09:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where was the new page tag? [[67]]Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness to HiaB, I put it on right after the nomination for deletion, at which point I went back and read the "so this is your first posting etc." --Ceceliadid (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The article currently has five references about it from notable government sources. The article has been cleaned up and notability has been established. Also, an article should not be nominated for deletion one minute after the article has been created and its author hasn’t even had a chance to put in references and establish notability. Samboy (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userify. Despite the efforts of multiple editors, I see no secondary coverage about this new program; the "secondary" refs are from stakeholders that say they need something like this. "Keepers" above argue that this program in inherently notable. $3M may sound like a lot of money compared to google summer of code, but it comes down to less than $500K per organization, which is not exceptional at all for a government grant that has software deliverables. Even the NSF gives that kind of grants, never mind DOE, DOD etc. I don't know if this is an exceptional grant by NOAA standards, but this is too much of a special pleading. Pcap ping 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sort of mid-range for a grant, but I'm not sure that's relevant. What is unusual about this is its scope-the inclusion of five modeling agencies NSF, NASA, NOAA, DOE and DoD as partners, plus there is a close relationship with the European modeling centers. That rarely happens, except in UN-organized efforts like IPCC. It could also be argued on grounds of uniqueness, which searches will show, and importance, which I can only show by citing a bunch of reports that say that it [the topic] is. But if it comes down to whether there are secondary sources or not, which I respect, I can come back with the article in a few months, post-press-release, when it shouldn't be an issue. --Ceceliadid (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Since the idea seems to be to come to a consensus, is it agreeable to all that this article be userified until sufficient secondary sources develop? --Ceceliadid (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Was just reading about incubation. It would be preferable to userification if that enables others to collaborate on content more easily. I'd like to get other people started working on the table and on adding additional sources. Have been hesitant to let the various projects involved know about the article with the delete notice on it. --Ceceliadid (talk) 15:31, 21 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. I interpret the nominator's comment below, "further deletion requests, even if they follow Wikipedia guidelines for AfD (as this AfD did not)" as indicating that he accepts this AfD is unnecessary and can be closed (as indeed is the consensus among other editors). Individual points brought up here can be followed up on the article's talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seiyū[edit]
- Seiyū (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 Seiyū talk page has a discussion asking the purpose of the article. Essentially many people question the necessity of "Seiyū" and other articles like it, where article writers name articles using a Japanese word that has NOT entered into the English language lexicon, versus naming it for what it really is. In the case of "Seiyū", it means "voice actor" in Japanese, however the word "Seiyū" is not a word that English-speaking people use at all. Specific quotes of interest include:
- "I still don't understand why 'seiyu' must be used on all pages. While voice acting might be a bigger deal in Japan than America, isn't the term ultimately referring to the same exact thing? A Voice Actor? Should we rename every single thing that is more popular in another other foreign language by any degree to their language, even if they mean THE SAME DAMN THING??"
- "I had no idea what a seiyu is and its use seems entirely arbitrary on pages other than the seiyu page as it encapsulates the exact same meaning as voice actor."
- "...should this page even be called "seiyu"? Why not "Voice acting in Japan", much in the same way it's Professional baseball in Japan and not "Dai-nippon Tōkyō Yakyū Kurabu" (or however the Japanese themselves refer to their own baseball league)?"
And it goes on. Others feel that this article should be renamed. I thought so to, but after reading some of the other comments that criticize more than the necessity of the article, such as the actual article title "Seiyū" goes against proper formatting for Japanese words on Wikipedia and that it has numerous unsourced statements, I think it would be best to simply delete the article outright.
Now based on the criteria listed on the Wikipedia deletion policy, I think the article violates:
- Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
- Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
- Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
It also doesn't pass the "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" bit, seeing as "Seiyū" is a word that the article is attempting to define, seeing as the word "Seiyū" is not a word that has entered into the English lexicon. Again, that's where some people think it should be at least renamed to "Voice acting in Japan" (although other instances of "Seiyū" in other articles should be replaced). And if I really wanted to be vindictive, I could also say that this article doesn't pass the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" bit as well, because I could argue that there are way too many anime fans here who feel Japanese words, concepts, and other such things have greater importance than other similar things from other cultures/languages, to the point where they have to write articles promoting them. I mean, why do we have an article about Japanese voice actors while none for specifically German, French, and Spanish voice actors?
Now if anyone decides to vote "KEEP" for this article, answer yourself this: how is Japanese voice acting any MORE important than voice actors of other country that they not only deserve their own article, but that the article title MUST be the Japanese word for "voice actor" versus "Voice Acting in Japan"? Nick15 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep for failing to provide a valid ground of nomination. Inappropriate title is absolutely not a ground for deletion - a move can be proposed on the article's talk page, or even create a page named "Voice acting in Japan" and redirect here. Whether moved or not, I'm indifferent, but delete, I think no. For other reason mentioned:
- I tried searching on Japanese Google with "Seiyu Lekishi" (Japanese, "Voice actor"+"History") and the result is beyond satisfactory (You can really imagine...), so I don't think either the "No RS" claim or the "not notable" claim can stand. (If articles about voice acting in other country do not exist, it is simply because there is yet to be someone working on them, and not that they should not exist.)
- The article essentially describes "voice acting in Japan" and has far more content than lexicographic description, thus "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" does not apply at all. Blodance (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong or speedy keep. The 'unsure about the name' argument is right out. Personally, since seiyu is not an English word in the same way sushi and tsunami are (evidenced by the fact that it can be spelled either "seiyu" or "seiyuu"), the article should remain at seiyū. But AFD is not requested moves. As for "why this, but not French, etc.", good question. But I look at this, and see how seiyu have fan clubs, are well-known, etc. In the United States, the only way anyone knows a voice actor's name is if he's independently famous, or on The Simpsons. It's a foreign concept, and one worth exploring. --Golbez (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thing is, there is no English term for sushi or tsunami, as well as samurai and ninja, all of which have entered into the English language lexicon to denote a very specific thing. However seiyu is translated as "voice acting", even by those who speak Japanese, just like "neko(?)" is translated into "cat". Yes, sushi, tsunami, samurai and ninja are Japanese words, but when you use speak those words to an English-speaking person, they know what you mean. When you say "Seiyu", unless you are an anime fan (or happen to visit Wikipedia and saw it), you won't know what that means. - Nick15 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given that there are several Japanese magazines that exclusively cover the subject, such as Voice Animage and Seiyū Grand Prix. The article does need a lot of work, but AfD is not cleanup. Discussions about the articles name should be done through a move request and not through AfD. —Farix (t | c) 11:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - WP:POINTy nom, made to "force someone's hand," according to the article talk page. 1) AfD is not cleanup, 2) WP:TLDR. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep There is no question that Seiyū/Voice acting in Japan deserves an article. The nominator's question here is what to call it. Threatening to delete the article because one disagrees with the current title is a classic case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Someone might want to link this as an example at that page... Otis Criblecoblis (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:POINT, and possible snow keep. I do however notice the article is in need of cleanup, some work needs to be done to avoid another possible AfD in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination as the nominator's comments on the article talk page clearly show. Edward321 (talk) 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No reason to delete the article. I agree the nominator started this AFD for the wrong reasons [68]. Dream Focus 17:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't realize about Wikipedia:POINT and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kinda figured there would be some protocal to prevent something like this from happening, so I accept any consequences that comes from that. HOWEVER, the now obviously questionable reasons/actions I took for requesting a delete should not negate most of the opinions already listed on the Seiyu talk page, which I can assure you I had nothing to do with (save for one or two). In fact, it seems like most of the "Speedy Keep" votes here seem to only be because of my questionable actions and less about the actual article itself. Therefore, if this article does not get deleted for my reasons, SOMETHING needs to be done given many of the valid points brought up on the talk page, unless someone can give a good reason to counter EVERY point brought up on the talk page. - Nick15 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To which, I take it any discussion for the legitimacy of the article should be done on the actual Talk page versus here? That is, discussion here is only about whether or not the page should be deleted, yes? - Nick15 (talk) 17:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, discussion at Articles for deletion is just for whether deletion is appropriate, not renaming or restructuring articles. The fact that the 'speedy keep' !votes focus on your actions and not the article is because that's what speedy keep means: if there were a genuine debate about the article's need to be deleted, a speedy keep would be inappropriate. Given that you now know this, would you object to this AfD being closed and discussion proceeding on the talk page as you say? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can bare with me for a second, if I have arguments against individual Speedy Keep posts (such as the Google hits fallacy I posted above), can these kinds of discussions be brought into the actual Talk page, or do they have to be argued here and now on this page? Also, just because it gets voted "Speedy Keep" NOW, does it mean that the article is absolved of any further deletion requests, even if they follow Wikipedia guidelines for AfD (as this AfD did not)? - Nick15 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you genuinely and in good faith believe that the article needs to be deleted, then the AfD could remain for you to argue that case - but given the overwhelming level of opposition an admin may well close it as a WP:SNOW keep anyway. If however your concerns with the article are about its content and name and not its title and you don't believe an AfD is necessary - which I took your comments on the talk page to indicate - then we should close this and you can reply to individual points which were raised here on the article's talk. Closing this AfD as speedy keep will not prejudice any future deletion dominations if you, or anyone else, decides it actually does need deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can accept that this AfD has failed due to the fact that I didn't jump through the right hoops, and as long as I can argue the individual points from here on the articles talk page and be allowed to--assuming good faith--bring this article back to AfD later, then I'm content with this AfD being closed. Thank you for your patience with me as I learn a little bit more about the Wikipedian system. - Nick15 (talk) 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment to nominator Article for deletion means Articles actually nominated for deletion, or merge/transwiki/userfy that would amount to deletion, not moving. A page move should be discussed on the talk page of the article, not AfD here. That's why people !vote Speedy Keep. If you think the article meets certain criteria for deletion, feel free nominate it for deletion again, although it's better to wait a reasonable time before nominating an article for deletion again. But, in this particular case, I think even if you nominate it again it would be closed as snowball keep. And yes, you can respond to others' comment here, before this AfD discussion is closed. Hope this solve your problem. :) Blodance (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I don't plan on bringing this up until I get a bit more under my belt. I realized I jumped the gun by bringing this article to AfD, but I did learn a lot, thanks to everyone here. I certainly have learned a lot. I still think this article needs to be deleted, but next time I'll come prepared. Though hopefully by then the questions about the article will be addressed by then and it won't require deletion. Thanks again, y'all! - Nick15 (talk) 18:15, 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 Speedy delete per CSD G3 - this is a clear hoax Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Manly Cup[edit]
- The Manly Cup (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 appears to be about a insignificant social pool game and verges on being a hoax. Grahame (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax, or patent nonsense if you like. Links to the website for a game. No internet mentions for "manly cup" (other than the provided link), or for any of the people mentioned in the article. No references provided whatsoever. Although the linked game is a hockey simulator, the article seems to describe a billiards competition. Ivanvector (talk) 06:58, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance[edit]
- Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance (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)
There's been a fair amount of process here. A previous article titled with the name of the biographical subject was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. This article was created later, and deleted as WP:CSD#G4, recreation of deleted content. That deletion was reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6, where the consensus was to list at a new AfD. The principal questions here are whether the article violates the one event clause, the not news clause, and the not a memorial clause. This is a neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL - also fails WP:1E and WP:BLP1E 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, take time to reed this article and the references, it is completely new, with a new text, and new references improved by the french WP . It's a translation of the new french text, which has been improved for you with a few references in english to help you to undestand.
- It's not not WP:1E|the one event clause, it's a diplomatic, historic and criminal case which has consequences on the European Union. It has been an intervention of the French President and on the National Assembly. For the same reasons it's not WP:NOTMEMORIAL and not WP:BIO1E, it doen's speak of the student wich is finally not important here but only of her disappeaarance in an other country of the EU, the local investigation and the diplomatic consequences, violating the Treaty of Lisbon)
- It's not WP:BLP1E because everything concerns the death of Ophélie bretnacher( nothing about Ophélie alive) only the explanations of the circumstances of the drama.
- It's not WP:NOTNEWS|not news clause because it's an encyclopedic case which lasts for over a year since mobilizarion for the truth has set for the 2nd consecutive year, as the case of the disappearance of Eva Rhodes, which lasted over 7 years. Indeed for Eva Rhodes, Hungary has been convicted for the beating and that of a woman by police at the European Court of Justice and his daughter believe that her disappearance and murder in 2008 in its consequences.
- The 2 families (English and French) Bretnacher Ophelie and Eva Rhodes have joined forces to send a joint claim with the European Union.
- Keep for all the raisons for all the reasons outlined above --Raymondnivet (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is a tragic case but unfortunately it is not uncommon that a person disappears and is found dead in unclear circumstances. It was convincingly rejected at the first AfD; retitling means that WP:BIO1E no longer applies, but rewording and adding more references have not overcome the other objections. I am not convinced by the attempt to give it political significance.
- It was claimed at the DRV that this should be included because of the sheer number of sources cited - that under the WP:GNG a sufficient number of reliable sources is alone enough to make anything acceptable, over-riding other considerations. This claim is not supported by policy: the actual wording of the GNG is:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. (my emphasis)
- but it goes on to say:
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (my emphasis, again)
- I think JohnCD said is right on this point: This page should not be kept by the large number of his references.
- But I think he should read and watch (films) carefully all sources especially in French and secondary sources to see not the number but the quality of the references and recognize how this case has international consequences.--Raymondnivet (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. It's clearly not a WP:BLP1E for the simple reason that it is not a biography, it is a summary of a case, and a pretty interestingly ramified one. BLP1E policy says: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. -But this is the event article already, so problem solved. WP:NOTMEMORIAL has no relevance here -the case is cleary notable for several good news sources and it is not WP:NOTNEWS given the long time range of the coverage. I see no other WP:NOT concerns here (to answer JohnCD above). Also, the fact that "it is not uncommon that a person disappears and is found dead in unclear circumstances" is completely irrelevant: we do not judge if something is unusual or not, we judge if it is verifiable, notable and appropriate for the encyclopedia. This article seems to satisfy all these requirements without problems. --Cyclopiatalk 14:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Its not the greatest article I've ever seen, but it seems to move past WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTNEWS by demonstrating that it's become a fairly wide reaching story, involving potential diplomacy issues between two countries. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep,, this has passed deletion review on the French Pedia. Since the original inception Raymond has worked tirelessly to get it included here, Maybe the notability would be that much more if we understood French but there is enough sources showing this is a notable death that has effected EU politics. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'd never heard of this case before, but was approached because I read French. The article needs better English wording, but the foundations are adequate. I checked out the sources, which include respectable French newspapers, and they back up what is said above, re international ramifications. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to have improved a lot since its original conception, article seems to have an informative value for a reader, also agree with the comments from Cyclopia. Off2riorob (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The deletion rationale includes WP:NOTMEMORIAL but it's totally unlike the usual memorial articles: it's details of the investigation and political significance rather than a description of her life sourced by the usual news articles that tend to appear after tragic deaths. As for WP:NOTNEWS, it covers not a single news story but an investigation that raises diplomatic questions, sparked intervention at the highest levels of government and is even used by politicians in a third country (UK) to criticize each other for not pursuing a separate case in the same way the French did. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply because it's not a bio, which I suspect is what the original (deleted) article was. Holly25 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Received significant coverage in press. Keep in mind that just because you don't read European newspapers, it doesn't mean that the events covered by them aren't notable. (As a European, I wouldn't know about Elizabeth Smart or Laci Peterson, if it wasn't for Wikipedia.) – Alensha talk 21:06, 21 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) 03:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intelligent Europe[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate. If you feel that a debate is ignoring your voice, remain civil, seek comments from other Wikipedians, or pursue dispute resolution. These are well-tested processes, designed to avoid the problem of exchanging bias in one direction for bias in another. |
- Intelligent Europe (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)
Like I said when I prodded this, "empty words about a neologism". It does sound far more like a policy memo than an encyclopedia article, and indeed is partly lifted from here (complete with unformatted bullet points). And outside a few possible mentions in EU documents (ie not independent sources, ie in breach of WP:GNG), no one seems to have heard of this "Intelligent Europe" concept. There is apparently something called "Energy Intelligent Europe", but to the extent that needs coverage, Energy policy of the European Union can do the job. And there's also something called i2010 (an article that's nearly as bad), where I suppose one might look to do some expansion. But the bottom line on this one is that no independent sources actually confirm the existence of this concept, which is presented here in decidedly bureaucratic tones. - Biruitorul Talk 06:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article is copypaste/vio from websites such as [69]. Topic isn't notable. Abductive (reasoning) 07:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the topic may or may not be notable, article itself is copy-pasted from various PDF's - and is practically unreadable. Also, the creator of the article removed AfD tag [70]; judging from the edit summary "Lacking in knowledge or information may urge your to deletion, analyze it", he or she may not understand English and uses automated translation, therefore not understanding the issue with the article. --Sander Säde 10:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO and WP:COPYVIO. Joe Chill (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it but with necessary changes. The topic is very significant for the Future Europe 2010-2020. What and how to improve: 1) remove from the article the part on FP7, which Sander might consider as copy/paste from EU pdfs, which is a public site; 2) change the title to KNOWLEDGE-BASED EUROPE, or KNOWLEDGE EUROPE, which refers to Lisbon strategy, thus it is not a neologism. 3) The achievement of Lisbon strategy for knowledge-based development of Europe and making EU the most advanced knowledge economy globally is necessary to sustain. Among others, intelligent ecosystems (smart cities, intelligent cities, Living Labs), intelligent infrastructure like intelligent energy Europe and smart cities for clean energy ([71]), and the action plan for the internet of things ([72]), which altogether shape the concept of INTELLIGENT EUROPE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — 83.168.44.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. EU policy memos don't belong here unless there's significant independent coverage about them. I see none of that here. Pcap ping 18:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it, Intelligent Europe is a concept covering all EU initiaves sustaining knowledge and innovation with broadband networks, digital evnironments, and collaborative IT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.155.180 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — 94.68.155.180 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep it, I agree with user 94.68.155.180. This article could be a reference for all relevant EU initiatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsar (talk • contribs) 12:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Patsar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep it. Indeed, the concept of Intelligent Europe, Knowledge Europe or Knowledge-based Europe, is most critical for the Future Europe Strategy 2010-2020 to be considered on the EU heads of state summit. Most EC papers are marked by bureaucratic jargon and administrative tones, nothing could be done here. Whatever, the article is an encyclopedic entry, based on official documents, giving a comprehensive survey for the general public. Again, the Intelligent Europe removal will badly downgrade the Wikipedia status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Technologist9 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — [reply]
- I see nothing lost here but a heap of EU gobbledygook. Even the lead is unintelligible. If you can find some WP:SECONDARY sources to rewrite in plain English, please do so. Pcap ping 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most interesting for the validity of Wikipedia: In this voting Wikipedia editors (Biruitorul, Pohta ce-am pohtit,Joe Chill) vote "kill the entry". However, their profiles do not show any competence in EU affairs. Do you have any? or just easy talk about gobbledygook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.155.180 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because those you disagree with are not "experts" on the subject doesn't mean that their commentary are any less valid. Also mind that this is not a vote, but a discussion and a measure of consensus from within the Wikipedia community. With that said, a closing administrator may, on his/her prerogative, give less weight to those who were canvassed here off-wiki. –MuZemike 19:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most interesting for the validity of Wikipedia: In this voting Wikipedia editors (Biruitorul, Pohta ce-am pohtit,Joe Chill) vote "kill the entry". However, their profiles do not show any competence in EU affairs. Do you have any? or just easy talk about gobbledygook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.155.180 (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing lost here but a heap of EU gobbledygook. Even the lead is unintelligible. If you can find some WP:SECONDARY sources to rewrite in plain English, please do so. Pcap ping 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it. The article requires more in depth analysis, though with the support from different people can end up to be a useful guideline for policy makers (at least in Europe), for the general public to see what is happening and finally but not the least important for the enterprises what opportunities exist in E.U. I can’t recognize reasons to delete it at this moment! Wikipedia supposed to be a global democratic collaborative result or it isn't so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Do Iris So (talk • contribs) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Do Iris So (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Seems a mash-up of several EU related papers without cohesion. Jarkeld (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, quick search doesn't reveal notability. Whilst this topic/concept may become important and significant in the future, it is policy to not include it in Wikipedia till that point (See WP:SCRABBLE). Additionally, this article seems to just be a collection of indiscriminate information listing presently, and isn't really very encyclopedic. --Taelus (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I literally cannot decpiher any actual content, and it is not remotely encyclopaedic. It makes me sad to think my taxes paid for this. ninety:one 23:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Ninetyone. These new voters should add some secondary sources and try explaining the article in clear English rather than bureaucratspeak, and go beyond just asserting how wonderfully important this concept is. You're not persuading any of us! Is this related to the Seventh Framework Programme[73] or is it something else entirely? Fences&Windows 23:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is not a democracy...
Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting." [[74]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it. These arguments are correct: The issue is not democracy but truth. Does the subject 'intelligent Europe" exist? The reply is yes. See the following quote [75]: "The EU plans to showcase its efforts in environmental protection, energy conservation, transportation and product safety under the theme of "Intelligent Europe," said Serge Abou, the EU's ambassador to China and the EU's commissioner general to the Expo." Thus, it is not a fiction as indicated on the top of the article. However, it needs better writing, making clear how different EU policies (energy, living labs, CIP, transpot) converge on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.178.167.33 (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — 109.178.167.33 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Verifiability, not truth. –MuZemike 19:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Abductive. Questionable notability, serious copyvio issues. GlassCobra 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi GlassCobra. Notability is a new issue in this discussion; till now is about "empty words about a neologism". Bytheway how notable are some of your entries in Wikipedia, i.e. "Bloodwrath" (a mental condition characteristic of badgers in the Redwall series); "Acme Tackle Company" (an American fishing supplies store); "Jay Bezel" (a Philadelphia-born rapper); Abdul Sallam (a Philadelphia-born Muslim rapper)? A revised version can deal with Copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greystone51 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Greystone51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you read WP:NEO, you'll see that notability has always been at the root of this discussion. Also, this discussion is concerning Intelligent Europe only, not any other articles. —DoRD (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take some numbers about notability: Google "intelligent energy Europe" = 87,500 results. Google "intelligent transport systems Europe" = 31,200 results. Both are parts of intelligent europe + intelligent environment Europe and other concepts of the same ontology. User: Greystone51 —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- (e/c) Yes, and "Intelligent+Europe" yields 14,500. In any case, Google hits is not an acceptable measure of notability. —DoRD (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For information, I have gone through this page and checked every comment, and without exception, every keep vote is either from a brand new SPA (with surprisingly similar grammar and sentence construction) or makes utterly invalid points/just waffles. Needs closing soon before it gets totally covered in SPAm. ninety:one 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take some numbers about notability: Google "intelligent energy Europe" = 87,500 results. Google "intelligent transport systems Europe" = 31,200 results. Both are parts of intelligent europe + intelligent environment Europe and other concepts of the same ontology. User: Greystone51 —Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Dear Ninetyone. What a wonderful SP(am)Y theory: every "keep" vote is a SPA with similar grammar and sentence construction! Great conclusion, like another "Bertrand Russell's Inductivist Turkey". Keep going. User: Greystone51 —Preceding undated comment added 00:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- If you read WP:NEO, you'll see that notability has always been at the root of this discussion. Also, this discussion is concerning Intelligent Europe only, not any other articles. —DoRD (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This EU "Policy Paper", for lack of a better term, is unencyclopedic and lacks notability in and of itself. —DoRD (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it for your good, to be well-informed about the EC policies and programs in wasteful spending the public money, not to be in the dark why the EC is missing all the key Knowledge Europe strategies. Don't allow to make Wikipedia a collection of "lies, damned lies and Wikipedia articles", where "All Wikipedia editors ask themselves the following questions when deciding whether or not to revert the edits: Was it written by a friend of mine? Did they link to an article I previously wrote? Am I in a good mood? If not, is it a means of winding up someone? If unable to answer positively to all of these questions, edits must be reverted, with smug comments posted on the talk page of the offending user." [[76]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.168.44.233 (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC) — 83.168.44.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Good action DoRD. Delete any view that doesn’t agree with yours. Censorship fits in with Editor's power. Greystone51 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)— Greystone51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- To the above, I removed the strikethrough.
- Delete per WP:NEO WP:COPYVIO WP:GNG WP:ESSAY and the observation that most keep votes are acting as WP:MEAT NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 02:55, 21 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. Long-term unreferenced bio, no objections. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Norzie Pak Wan Chek[edit]
- Norzie Pak Wan Chek (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:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. simply being a journalist for a major station does not mean automatic notability. gnews search. LibStar (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 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 merge to XFM London. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Q102 (Pirate Station)[edit]
- Q102 (Pirate Station) (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 pirate radio station; totally unsourced Rapido (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources were found by searching for "xfm q102". It's notable because it was the forerunner to radio station XFM ("voted one of Britain's top 10 coolest brands") and was the first UK indie rock station, unusual enough that according to one of the sources it "attracted the interest of The Cure's singer, Robert Smith, and manager, Chris Parry, who were frustrated at the lack of anything resembling the college radio that they admired in America". Holly25 (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - It only seems notable for XFM (and the references you added pertain to XFM, not Q102 - and typically only mention Q102 once), therefore the information can be competently covered in the XFM article. It does not seem a notable pirate radio station in itself. Rapido (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to XFM London Holly25 (talk) 03:12, 22 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) 05:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Xfm; the references discuss this particular station quite briefly. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 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) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RKCR/Y&R[edit]
- RKCR/Y&R (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 WP:ORG. Any factual well sourced corporate details could be easily merged into the main article WPP Group (at the moment this sub-company does not appear to be mentioned). The article has been tagged for reliable sources for over 25 months with no sign of notability being addressed. I find one match in Google News about winning a contract but nothing that addresses specific notability to establish this sub-company as needing its own article. I note the list of campaigns they have contributed to but a number of companies would be involved in such campaigns supplying varied services and do not all become notable in an encyclopaedic sense as a consequence. Ash (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 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) 05:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of significant coverage in RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 05:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to WPP Group. If kept, Rename to Rainy Kelly Campbell Roalfe/Young & Rubicam. In WP we do not like abbreviations. I thought this was going to be some abolished railway comapny until I looked at the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. The number of major adverts they have contributed to certainly counts in their favour. It might be possible to form an encyclopaedic article, but there's so many WP:NPOV and WP:ADVERT problems you'd have a hell of ajob salvaging any of this. However, I'd be quite happy to give fresh consideration to a better-written article on the same subject. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:42, 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) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Versie Phillip Segers[edit]
- Versie Phillip Segers (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 evidence of notability but just enough to pass A7, I think. A google search for the name in quote marks brings up only one result (this article) , the only reference is to this person's autobiography (no title, ISBN etc...). HJMitchell You rang? 16:15, 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) 05:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no acceptable references of any description. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete he's non-notable, no sources. ~DC Talk To Me 10:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
McDonalds: N*SYNC & Britney Spears[edit]
- McDonalds: N*SYNC & Britney Spears (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)
Nominated for deletion per WP:NALBUMS. Specifically, Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. This article is about a promotional CD of songs that had already been released (the article erroneously states that three tracks were previously unreleased), that was sold only at McDonald's locations for a short time. Little, if any, attention was paid to this "album" by third-party sources. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 05:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSIC per nom. ~DC Talk To Me 10:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 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) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiout[edit]
- Wikiout (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 about a website which fails WP:N and WP:WEB as it hasn't recieved significant attention in reliable, third-party sources. Actually, there really isn't an assertion of notability at all within the article, so I'm rather suprised that the A7 tag was removed. ThemFromSpace 04:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there appears to be no coverage in third-party RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 05:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have, however, added the website to mw:Sites using MediaWiki/en. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete But open to WP:Heymann keep if notability and sources appear. Likely this is simply too new to get much traction. -- Banjeboi 22:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 20 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:NOTAGAIN. (non-admin closure) Blodance (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cyber-Ark[edit]
- Cyber-Ark (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)
Declined speedy, but there's a lot of spam here. Orange Mike | Talk 04:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the last AFD, closed yesterday found sufficient sources to show notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources demonstrate notability. I'll concede the article is spammy, but it could be cleaned up. Ivanvector (talk) 05:41, 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) 00:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quickquote[edit]
- Quickquote (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 spammy and appears to fail WP:N as I haven't been able to find any significant discussion of "Quickquote" in reliable, third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 03:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam --I'm with Coco (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is being built out. This technology is now being used by a half a dozen companies and has been used by several since 2000. I can add a current list of users of this technology. Hunterp46 (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - nothing but spam. Definitely not notable. Wizard191 (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this is spam. It is a technology used in today's rapid prototyping market. If there are pages for 3D CAD technology, why wouldn't there be pages for systems that now utilize the technology? Hunterp46 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No news coverage -- significant, "being built out" or anything else -- that I can find, just press release distributions. If you have questions, please review WP:N and WP:V. Flowanda | Talk 11:22, 19 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Schmidt (DJ)[edit]
- Eric Schmidt (DJ) (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 ex-DJ turned stockbroker Orange Mike | Talk 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete spam --I'm with Coco (talk) 10:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the claim that he was Billboard Magazine's adult alternative DJ of the year could make him notable, I just can't find any sources to verify it. ~DC Talk To Me 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Annual awards, let alone any format's "DJ of the year" awards, let alone their significance, are not mentioned in Billboard Magazine, FWIW.
--Jerzy•t 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Annual awards, let alone any format's "DJ of the year" awards, let alone their significance, are not mentioned in Billboard Magazine, FWIW.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Del. I reiterate what i said in ProD'g it:
- Appears terminally non-notable. More content has been removed than added since the originator's edits 2 years ago, the substantive additions are one unsourced sentence each from two one-day IP contributors in suburbs of St. Louis, and there's still not a proper lead sentence.
- Since then, a single IP editor has added abt 330 bytes (disregarding the since deleted "ref" to a WP clone!) consisting of 3 refs. Of them,
- says "The free-agent fallout from BONNEVILLE Rhythmic AC WMVN (MOViN 101.1)/ST. LOUIS' future flip to Sports on JANUARY 1st continues. Morning-teamer STEPH DURAN and afternoon personality ERIC SCHMIDT have left the building." Period.
- makes no mention of him.
- verifies his (non-notable) current job with name, phone, address, & e-mail lk.
- They were added by a new IP, from the same pop'n-4,373 town as one of the previous 2, who edited their 1st 2 articles in the 24 hrs after my ProD, but was absent until performing 9 edits to the nom'd article in an hour, finishing 6 days, 23 hours, 56 minutes after my ProD edit.
--Jerzy•t 05:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as shown on the allaccess link for being in St. Louis as claimed. Also listed on the former personalities list on KTBZ page. The #2 reference does reference the change made at the radio station and adds to verification for #1 teatmouse•talk 22:49 17 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did not mean to suggest that inclusion of a reference that verifies nothing about the topic was reason for deletion. I reiterate that we have no verification of a potentially notable occupation beyond "[former] afternoon personality ERIC SCHMIDT", no verification of anything in 5 of the 7 sentences, and nothing suggesting notability beyond one colleagues' opinion (above) that an apparently unverifiable [emphasis added by Jerzy] "claim ... could make him notable". No verifiable info supporting notability, and too little verifiable info to write a meaningful stub; either alone would be sufficient for deletion.
--Jerzy•t 07:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not mean to suggest that inclusion of a reference that verifies nothing about the topic was reason for deletion. I reiterate that we have no verification of a potentially notable occupation beyond "[former] afternoon personality ERIC SCHMIDT", no verification of anything in 5 of the 7 sentences, and nothing suggesting notability beyond one colleagues' opinion (above) that an apparently unverifiable [emphasis added by Jerzy] "claim ... could make him notable". No verifiable info supporting notability, and too little verifiable info to write a meaningful stub; either alone would be sufficient for deletion.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kongthin Pearlmich[edit]
- Kongthin Pearlmich (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 subject of this article has not been verifiably demonstrated to exist, nor to create or sell any artworks—ever. The only sources relate to a late-2008 episode where—through a representative at a non-existent law firm—the subject is claimed to have offered a painting—that by his own estimation was hugely valuable—to a cathedral. Fails BLP1E and V. Bongomatic 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Moreover, speculation that he may have substantial and noted sales of his works in the future is simply WP:CRYSTAL ball-gazing. Bongomatic 13:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Even were he demonstrated to exist, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability per guidelines. If the episode constitutes a hoax, it is not a notable hoax. Bongomatic 03:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to notable for one event, which means WP:BLP1E applies, so delete ~DC Talk To Me 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No source has been provided by the nominee to substantiate the allegation that it is a 'hoax'. The article references a Telegraph article amongst others, generally a good source. The fact is that publicity shy artists exist, but that doesn't mean they are non-noteworthy. The fact that he was first reported about in connection with one big event, is neither here nor there. The article mentions his body of work. A look at his (admittedly eccentric) website shows a large body of work (presumably owned by private collectors - something which again doesn't mean he is not notable). Malick78 (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and WP:BLP1E specifically says: "if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". There is no reason to think he is likely to remain low-profile. He has, as I said, a large body of work and sells for high prices. Malick78 (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Ty 10:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The artist has had work displayed in two historic venues, and has gained national media attention for this, as well as the unusual, not to mention questionable, circumstances in evidence. As there is a substantial body of work displayed on the artist's web site, there is every likelihood that there will be further exposure for it, i.e. the person is quite probably not "likely to remain, a low-profile individual." BLP1E was conceived for when an otherwise unknown member of the public became caught up in an unusual occurrence, not when a person gained attention intentionally with regard to their profession. WP:BAND allows an artist who "has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" or who "has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network." WP:ATHLETE allows those "who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport." The article is fully compliant with core wikipedia policies of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. It certainly does not fail the latter, as the sources are highly reputable. Ty 07:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The question is not whether this might be a hoax--the question is whether this is a notable hoax. Given that it has been 16 months since the Telegraph article, and the only other major new source reporting is a a short bbc piece that essentially reports that the Telegraph published an article, I would say it very definitely has not succeeded in being notable. When the question is whether something is widely known, the absence of evidence is certainly evidence. Where most web sources that mention it point for their information is, not surprisingly, Wikipedia. Not even the forum on his website has any postings; for some of the Google sites I checked I was the 3rd visitor , so perhaps the other 2 also came there because of this discussion. We have been part of the attempt at a hoax--and even with the publicity appearance here has given it, it still has not become notable. As one positive outcome, I'm glad to see many of the web comments that mention us in this connection, recognize that being here does not make a story reliable. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that the Telegraph was happy that an expensive exhibit (large chunks of marble...) was made by somebody called Pearlmich. The BBC article questioning his existence came to no conclusions. The Telegraph would therefore seem to be the better source since it actually takes a stance on the issue. As for the website, there are many photos of artworks: these should be assumed to be by Pearlmich because if they were by someone else, that other person would have asked for an injunction to take the site down due to copyright violations. This has not occurred so let us assume that these are by the artist claiming them. It's therefore a substantial body of work, showing the existence of an artist deserving of an article. Hopefully of course more info will appear in due course regarding him, but conclusive evidence of your 'hoax' is completely lacking. It's just insinuation. If it's a hoax, why would no one have owned up after all this time? A hoax is therefore more unlikely. Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As DGG correctly points out, whether or not it is a "hoax" is irrelevant, so his later remark "We have been part of the attempt at a hoax" is by his own words irrelevant, as well as unproven. The article on wikipedia is reliable and correctly states the known facts. It's certainly not a hoax that these works were exhibited in a world-renowned venue and achieved national media coverage for that and for the mysterious circumstances surrounding the artist, including the question of whether or not this was some form of scam—something either implied in the coverage or asked outright. The article follows wikipedia policy of NPOV in reflecting this coverage. The only question then is whether this incident should be preserved in wikipedia, the encyclopedia with the intent to contain "the sum of all human knowledge". Bearing in mind the status of the venues whose exhibition of the sculpture was what led to the wider coverage, I believe it is a benefit to wikipedia to retain this information, so that it remains accessible as a summary of the incident for anyone in the future who wishes to find out about it—or about this incident in the history of King's College Chapel, Cambridge or Canterbury Cathedral. Just for the latter aspect, the information should be retained. It relates not just to Pearlmich, but also to those institutions. The current form of the article is simply the most convenient way of retaining the material. What has already occurred has ensured notability: a google search for "canterbury cathedral sculpture"[77] brings the Daily Telegraph article up as the first result, and the fifth result is the story reported in the Hindustan Times,[78] as it received international coverage, syndicated by Asian News International. A musician only has to get a single in the bottom of a national chart for a week to meet WP:BAND. This situation is analagous to that, and to set a higher bar is simply to discriminate against the fine arts in favour of pop culture. Ty 03:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact is that the Telegraph was happy that an expensive exhibit (large chunks of marble...) was made by somebody called Pearlmich. The BBC article questioning his existence came to no conclusions. The Telegraph would therefore seem to be the better source since it actually takes a stance on the issue. As for the website, there are many photos of artworks: these should be assumed to be by Pearlmich because if they were by someone else, that other person would have asked for an injunction to take the site down due to copyright violations. This has not occurred so let us assume that these are by the artist claiming them. It's therefore a substantial body of work, showing the existence of an artist deserving of an article. Hopefully of course more info will appear in due course regarding him, but conclusive evidence of your 'hoax' is completely lacking. It's just insinuation. If it's a hoax, why would no one have owned up after all this time? A hoax is therefore more unlikely. Malick78 (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sum of human knowledge ≠ the sum of human ignorance. I agree Wikipedia coould cover it--there can be a sentence in the article on the Chapel, saying "From 16 Sept 2008 to 18 Sept, 2008, a 15 ft high triptych of Christ was displayed in the Chapel, said to be the work of an otherwise unknown artist named Kongthin Pearlmich; it was offered to Canterbury Cathedral, but they declined to accept it . " sourced to the Telegraph & the Church Times. I agree it was an event worth noting in the history of the Chapel. My colleague above offers the opinion this is discriminating against the fine arts but apparently nobody in the art world seems to have commented on it. If they have, we would have evidence for an article on the sculpture. We cannot have an article on the person as there is no RS reporting he existed. I have supported consistently articles on artists and art works that can be shown to be both real and notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My remarks were not intended personally but generally. As you say it is worth noting in the history of the chapel, then that is an argument for merge (relevant info) and, consequently redirect, not delete all the material from wiki. The RS's used for the article verify the existence of Kongthin Pearlmich (though that may well be a pseudonym) as someone had to make the sculpture and that is the name supplied to go with it. What the RS's also verify is that there is not anything else that can be confirmed about him, which is the whole point of the story, just as the lack of any information about the missing crew of the Mary Celeste is the whole point of that story. Artworld comment is not necessary, simply coverage in RS. Ty 13:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sum of human knowledge ≠ the sum of human ignorance. I agree Wikipedia coould cover it--there can be a sentence in the article on the Chapel, saying "From 16 Sept 2008 to 18 Sept, 2008, a 15 ft high triptych of Christ was displayed in the Chapel, said to be the work of an otherwise unknown artist named Kongthin Pearlmich; it was offered to Canterbury Cathedral, but they declined to accept it . " sourced to the Telegraph & the Church Times. I agree it was an event worth noting in the history of the Chapel. My colleague above offers the opinion this is discriminating against the fine arts but apparently nobody in the art world seems to have commented on it. If they have, we would have evidence for an article on the sculpture. We cannot have an article on the person as there is no RS reporting he existed. I have supported consistently articles on artists and art works that can be shown to be both real and notable. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete DGG's shortened version is all we can verify. It's not the King's College Chapel exhibition I have trouble with it's all the other stuff - millionaire reclusive artist etc. The original exhibition seems to have received no press coverage.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:58, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Osizzle AP Government Review[edit]
- That Osizzle AP Government Review (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 user-biased. The very name of the article gives it away (Creator's username is Osizzle93). This is also basically an explanation of the US Government's workings with some definitions. This not only has many major issues, it also is possible Conflict of Interest, a possible hoax, among other things. and would require a major rewrite to become encyclopedic.Hamtechperson 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Classwork, not an encyclopedia article. Suggest a SNOW. (but it's not COI or hoax, just a student outline for an AP course) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, some kid's outline. Abductive (reasoning) 07:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete barely-coherent outline of POV essay per WP:NOR. MuffledThud (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete someone's class notes are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Probably should be snowed. ~DC Talk To Me 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:ESSAY. Joe Chill (talk) 15:27, 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 speedy delete. hoax DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University of N&Z West[edit]
- University of N&Z West (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 speedied for spam or copyvio two or three times before under this and at least one similar name. I've got to say, I can't imagine how a university founded in 1993 with 17,000 students can have zero Google hits outside Wikipedia—but this one does. Even if this were a purely online school or a degree mill there would have to be something. WHOIS says that the address unzwest.com was created late last year. I don't want to say, "this has hoax/scam written all over it," but . . . . Glenfarclas (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Deleted as hoax, and salted. User blocked. From their web site [79]: "UNZW is internationally recognized as one of the great teaching and research universities," which is utter nonsense. . It claims an association with The" Los Angeles Movie School", which gets zero hits on Google. The instructors for the film school faculty are listed as[80] "Jack Mangboard" , "Bill Stupak" "Matthew W. Stroke" etc, none of whom have any hits on Google or IMdB. I leave it to someone else to notify their internet provider. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 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 merge to Happy Camp, California. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Camp Family Resource Center[edit]
- Happy Camp Family Resource Center (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 is an organization offering vaguely-defined "family-oriented services" in Happy Camp (Siskiyou County), California. GNews shows a one-sentence mention in a USA Today article about gas prices, and then there's the local coverage the article cites, such as from the Siskiyou Daily. I don't see anything approaching "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," especially in light of WP:CORP's admonition that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Glenfarclas (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm willing to treat local newspapers as RS; the coverage of this organization in such media is significant, showing notability per WP:GNG. The sentence from WP:CORP quoted in the nomination is not supported by community consensus. It's generally accepted that, barring BLP problems, subjects are notable if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to write decent articles about them. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I disagree that sentence in CORP does not reflect community community consensus. We do not pick and discard portions of the guidelines based on a claim that it is not supported by consensus during an AfD. If it truly isn't supported, it would have been or should've been debated and removed at the guideline level. Not during a deletion discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then again, the notability guidelines are supposed to accurately describe common practice at AFD. We don't want to freeze the guidelines by insisting that they be adhered to in all AFDs, then using the AFD results to justify the current guidelines. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge - It may be a one-sentence mention, but it's USA TODAY--impressive for a small organization in such a tiny and remote town IMHO. There is plenty of obscure (but notable) factoids and tidbits on Wikipedia, that's what makes it interesting to me. The local news mentions are from two different counties in California. Anyway, I'm not done searching for more refs. Give it a chance. Lokedawgg (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- merge to Happy Camp, California. No independent notability. The inclusion in an USA Today article is more of a ref for the town, not the center. When newspapers or magazines pick typical examples to add human interest to their stories, it does not make them individually notable, unless the particular person of place or organizations becomes widely noticed, as does happen, but not all that often. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. It's true, "Happy Camp" is the first part of the name anyway. The Family Resource Center plays a very important role in Happy Camp, everybody here knows that and I just wanted to express that here on Wikipedia because not many people outside realize it. However, you're probably right about the importance level: it isn't important enough in the scope of Wikipedia to merit it's own article, yet. Could you help me merge it into the Happy Camp, California article in a way that doesn't over- or under-emphasize, or otherwise break Wikiprotocol? ...Pending consensus of course! Thanks! Lokedawgg (talk) 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article makes no claim of notability, of local interest only. Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Local results yes, through county-wide, state-wide and federal efforts. Also a Google web search of "happy camp family resource center" turns up 6,650 results--most of which are positive hits, I wouldn't call that insignificant. What say you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one Google News hit, a Google Books hit that is a mention in "Northwest Forest Plan, the First 10 Years (1994-2003)" and a mention in Socioeconomic Monitoring Results]. These are primary sources and not remotely sufficient. Your claim of 6650 Google hits is false; there are only 67. Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an aside: I'm not sure how you're searching but there are 6,650 hits if you search this way (in quotes--as in the way I originally referenced the search): http://www.google.com/search?q=%22happy+camp+family+resource+center%22.
- To the point: You are discounting all the references in the article, which include Reliable Sources as outlined in WP:RS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the '10' in those results, and the truth is revealed. Do you seriously think a tiny organization such as this has thousands of mentions on the internet? Does everybody in Happy Camp {pop. 1143) have a blog? Abductive (reasoning) 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh. Okay, you're right about the number of results--I was clicking 'next' and exploring each result--I wasn't finished adding refs. My mistake about the number of results (why does Google display: 'Results 1 - 10 of about 6,650 for "happy camp family resource center". (0.15 seconds)' if there are only 70-ish? Weird.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the '10' in those results, and the truth is revealed. Do you seriously think a tiny organization such as this has thousands of mentions on the internet? Does everybody in Happy Camp {pop. 1143) have a blog? Abductive (reasoning) 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see one Google News hit, a Google Books hit that is a mention in "Northwest Forest Plan, the First 10 Years (1994-2003)" and a mention in Socioeconomic Monitoring Results]. These are primary sources and not remotely sufficient. Your claim of 6650 Google hits is false; there are only 67. Abductive (reasoning) 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge Contrary to what people are saying here, there are over a dozen reliable, independent sources which point to the existence of this entity and it's importance in the community of Happy Camp. Specifically, which references are unreliable or irrelevant? I would honestly like to know, thanks 65.170.243.110 (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your dedication to your town—and nobody doubts that the Family Resource Center exists. However, "But it exists!" isn't really the issue, nor is "It's very important to the residents." Most of the sources are primary documents, a listing in an agency web directory, and so on, so unfortunately what they don't point to, by and large, is that this is a notable organization for purposes of an encyclopedia of global scope. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see, you've really "heard it all before" here. I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.170.243.110 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't trying to be snarky, if that's how it came off. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Glen, no. I didn't think you were. I wasn't trying to be a snark either. I was genuinely impressed :) —NLI 65.170.243.110 (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect. Not enough here for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:51, 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) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Samuel Schwartz (businessperson)[edit]
- Samuel Schwartz (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
wp:blp of unclear notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 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) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP or merge with Comcast. I can't find any reliable sources about this person. The company Comcast Interactive Capital is not notable itself. There are zero Google news hits about him. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternately, merge with Comcast Interactive Media, for which he's allegedly a VP. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exotic Tour/Summer Tour '94[edit]
- Exotic Tour/Summer Tour '94 (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:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Nothing particularly notable about this concert tour. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information Nouse4aname (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Major tour by successful and influential rock/pop artist and part of a series of Depeche Mode tour articles. The information ought to be kept, however, it may suit to merge the information within this article with Devotional Tour, since both tours were in support of the same album. The "Exotic" leg can be noted as such within that article. (Freak.scenery (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Please address the concerns regarding the lack of reliable sources and notability rather than making statements that simply represent your opinion and are not based on policy or guideline. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:55, 11 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) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The tour, its commercial success in distant markets, and its effect on Fletcher and the band's personnel, is discussed over several pages of the book Stripped: Depeche Mode, by Jonathan Miller, Omnibus Press, 2004, ISBN 1844494152. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then by all means add such relevant material to the article. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:30, 21 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) 02:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jewels and Binoculars[edit]
- Jewels and Binoculars (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 bootleg album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:11, 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) 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of significant coverage. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:30, 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) 00:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Florian Peek[edit]
- Florian Peek (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. Self-published saxophone instruction book does not quite bring notability. Dutch Improv "group" seems to consist of the subject himself. All references are primary sources, either to the subject's instructional blog or the Dutch Improv site. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Web search (both for real name and alias) yields self-published stuff and some blog/forum hits. News search comes up with this, but it only mentions his name in passing. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability. Favonian (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this is a Dutch article naming Florian Peek as a nominee for the Title of Business hunk 2008, a dutch prise for young male entrepreneurs --Marcus Left (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the source from saxontheweb: (http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=115476) (James writes under the name Tenor Harry here) clearly indicates notability. Plus I know (since I'm myself one of his readers/students) that he distributes a bi montly newsletter to over 2000 saxophone students who are spread across the globe. Within a specific instruments community that is a lot. I read this number in a discussion online somewhere but I'm unable to re-locate the thread so far (will keep searching for it).
- One of his videos shows up number one on Google for the query: learning to play the saxophone.
- The dutch improv website clearly shows over 20 members, many of whom have added photo's or massages, have registered friendships with other members. and appear in the video's together. Plus it has an active events-agenda that seems consistently filled with a weekly workshop since the start.
- The dutch Saxforum.nl shows 73 threads started by him.
- So I think he's definitely a noticeable person within in the saxophone community.
- I have edited the links to the better Wikipedia formating using the [[]] Thanks for the tip ;)! --Marcus Left (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcus Left's comments re-indented for clarity. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Taking these points one by one:
- SaxOnTheWeb: First of all, who is "James"? We're talking about Florian Peek here. Secondly, the fact that a person writes an entry on a public forum hardly amounts to notability.
- Comment Taking these points one by one:
Comment Well: James Dóxx and Florian Peek are obviously the same person. I filed the entry under his real name because I thought that would be more appropriate, but perhaps something could be said for moving/renaming it to James Dóxx and omitting any business stuff since in that field he is indeed not notable--Marcus Left (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- A prominent placement on a Google search is not a sign of notability, it's only a sign that he has a video called "learning to play the saxophone".
- 73 threads on a public forum does not confer notability, it only means that he is verbose.
Comment Correct, but in a relatively small community of saxophone players can being verbose and published not indeed constitute being notable? --Marcus Left (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please truly understand the concept of notability for people, including the need for reliable sources cited from non-primary sources. This means that the subject's blog writings and Youtube postings are not a means of attesting notability. If Peek has been the subject of some independent coverage (a magazine or newspaper article) this would be considered significant coverage. Even mention in a well-respected blog that is known for journalistic controls (editorial review, fact-checking, etc) would possible do. But some chatter in some forums is not sufficient. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand. Thanks for you explanation. A leading British Online instrument store (www.Karacha.com) includes his method with several of their beginner Alto saxophones: (http://www.karacha.com/Carmichael-Evolution-Alto-Saxophone-Ultimate-Starter-Mega-Pack) quote from their site"...#Hello Saxophone - A Learn to Play the Saxophone Course which has been described as "elegant in its simplicity" and "incredibly intelligent...."
I'll search for some mentions in saxophone magazines (it's just that there are very few nitch magzines for the sax, and Sax on the web is really considered The international online place for all things saxophone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcus Left (talk • contribs) 16:43, 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) 02:07, 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) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matema college[edit]
- Matema college (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to fin any reliable sources to assert so much as existence. Of the sources cited, 2 belong to the organisation itself, one is YouTube, one reads like an advert, number 5 links to this, which is a reasonable source, but gives little more than a location and the final source (#4) barely mentions the organisation. HJMitchell You rang? 13:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From its web site: "most of the building work is almost complete and basic school furniture has arrived, however we still require funding to develop and sustain the project and welcome the first students...”, with a 2009 copyright date. Not yet in existence as a school. It may be possible to write an article about the Matema Educational Trust. There are circumstances when it is appropriate to delete a high school article. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to this lessons started on 19 June 2009. TerriersFan (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Hey, I've removed any info which can't be referenced, and added the link to the charity commission (and raindance), which regulates all charities in the UK and also lists the company accounts on their website. The charity's already supporting the local infrastructure in the region, but some of these things have been left out simply because they can't be referenced (there isn't even electricity in that area) -so no internet-, so that's all been left out! I hope you trust that's sufficient, and I've tried to leave the details short and reference'able! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmanywhere (talk • contribs) 08:24, 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) 02:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to take another look. The beginning of instruction cited was a one day film school "the inaugural lesson for Matema College " Tghat is not enough to justify an article. This does not mean the have an educational program. The remaining sourceable material that now comprises the article remains only a general description of the education problems in Malawi. I consider this a possible G11, speedy promotional. DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V; not yet functioning. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 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) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Night-life and popular music of Brighton and Hove[edit]
- Night-life and popular music of Brighton and Hove (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:NOTTRAVEL. Entirely personal commentary on the local "scene" for a town; not an encyclopedic subject. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found this article some time ago and added to my list of Sussex-related articles to improve when the time allows. It would probably be enough to include the more useful content into the Culture section of Brighton, and into a new Brighton in popular culture or some such. So I have no objection to this being deleted. --Sussexonian (talk) 00:46, 14 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) 02:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I guess. The "music" section of this article isn't genuinely "popular music of Brighton and Hove," it's just "Brighton and Hove in popular music." That leaves "Night-life of Brighton and Hove," but as noted above WP:NOTTRAVEL. If someone want to merge the information about pubs and so on into Brighton as Sussexonian mentioned, that may be appropriate. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd imagine there's an article to be made about Brighton specifically as a travel destination, something like Tourism in Brighton or similar. But there's nothing useful here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:17, 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) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw: Rebirth[edit]
- Saw: Rebirth (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 enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. Defender of torch (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this comic. Joe Chill (talk) 15:36, 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) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:27, 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 speedy delete, copyvio. Kimchi.sg (talk) 04:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paint_America[edit]
- Paint_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)
Non-notable, essentially promotional; orphan/lack of citation/notability templates have been sitting on the page for a while Ex0pos (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 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) 02:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no significant coverage. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's paint over this in white so we have a blank canvas... I mean Delete. Non-notable spam article. Hamtechperson 03:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I just tagged this as a copyvio of [81], which it mostly cut-and-pastes from and in part closely paraphrases. In the event it's not speedy deleted, I !vote delete for lack of notability as explained above. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:30, 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) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kawatra Building[edit]
- Kawatra Building (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed. I cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability, and none are included in the article. Drmies (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book published in Ottawa listed as a reference might' be a reliable source, but is probably self-published and is not held by the Library and Archives of Canada. - Eastmain (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability.Annette46 (talk) 14:53, 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) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. From the pictures linked to in the article it appears to be an older two-story commercial building. The name Kawatra Building is carved in stone on its facade, so it should have sources under that name. But it doesn't. Abductive (reasoning) 08:03, 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) 02:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carl Verheyen[edit]
- Carl Verheyen (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 tagged for multiple issues for over a year without improvements. Subject may have little notability, but perhaps if not deleted, jsut merged into another article (perhaps supertramp, although, he seems to be jsut another guitar player and nothing special.. hence why the AFD) Alan - talk 04:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Subject is sufficiently notable with many RS. The problem is this article is not well referenced, and apparently nobody is willing to work on it. BTW: the Afd research tools show he is not "just another guitar player" Annette46 (talk) 15:00, 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) 02:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Subject is clearly notable based on a simple Google search, and problems with the article do not constitute justification for deleting it, just for improving it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Well known and in-demand session musician as well as a member of Supertramp. Certainly independently notable. Poor article though.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 12:47, 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) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jonah Carver[edit]
- Jonah Carver (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)
Unsourced article about non-notable past soap opera character. Rm994 (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.Who wastes their life writing this kind of crap? Szzuk (talk) 15:46, 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) 02:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of significant coverage in RS. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:26, 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) 00:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chambliss Astronomy Achievement Student Award[edit]
- Chambliss Astronomy Achievement Student Award (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)
Award given out at poster sessions to students. Article is mostly list of the winners, all of whom are redlinked. One winner got a write-up in which the award is talked about, and I leave it up to others to figure out the BYU News hits. These do not amount to notability for the award in my opinion. This may be contrasted with an award Chambliss funds for amateurs [82]. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 00:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All of this info and more is on the AAS page for this award. [83] Unrelated comment: there are WP pages like this for most of the AAS awards & prizes.--Sainge.spin (talk) 01:38, 15 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) 01:58, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Robertson[edit]
- Paul Robertson (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 person. Fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Without significant coverage, can not properly meet WP:BLP. Prod removed with note of "rmv PROD; notable Canadian media executive", but the two sources added do not show actual significant coverage of this person, only confirming his positions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as de-PRODder) Robertson's actual position now appears to be president of television at Canadian media giant Corus Entertainment and he is widely quoted in industry trade publications, including Hollywood Reporter and others, as a Gsearch reveals. The stub article needs improvement but not deletion, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 1 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, 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) 01:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is notable enough to be quoted from in the news media at times. [84] Some of the Google news result show him. Dream Focus 04:03, 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) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advent Computer Training[edit]
- Advent Computer Training (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 in reliable independent sources for this company. Nothing in the news; the 121 unique GHits seem to be online advertising, online reviews, and complaints. (It doesn't sway my opinion, but I'll note that the Google autocomplete options when you type in advent computer training include "complaints," "scam," "costs," and "prices.") Their industry award seems to be a non-notable business award from an organization they're affiliated with. I don't see notability under WP:CORP. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, no signficant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, what little content is there has WP:PROMO tone. MuffledThud (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Google News also finds no reliable sources, only credit agency reports and a mention in a story about a golf outing. Platinum Level! Hey.... that's better than Plutonium Level.... er.... isn't it? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fail WP:GNG, couldn't find anything from WP: Reliable Sources. Only forum posts and random individuals talking about the company. And, returns 0 hits if you search "Advent Computer Training" on Google news. FaceMash (talk) 19:34, 20 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 Nomination withdrawn in light of sources found.. LibStar (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irene Xavier[edit]
- Irene Xavier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. almost comes under WP:ONEVENT. not a lot of coverage for this individual. gnews also refers to other Irene Xaviers. [85]. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only apparent third-party source that's even close to reliable is [86], which doesn't seem to constitute significant coverage. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)changing to neutral per Mkativerata. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Obviously gnews isn't going to present much for a person who was most prominent for something that happened in the 1980s, and in a country where the mainstream media doesn't give any oxygen to opposition activists. These google book hits get her well over the line, in my view - wide non-trivial coverage: 1. There's also substantial coverage if an ordinary google search is conducted. I might just do some work on this article in the next day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Many references show up in Google Books searches; look for Irene Xavier Malaysia for 205 hits. This article should be improved and made WP:BETTER and not hastily deleted based on a single search of the wrong archive. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:48, 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. This and the other linked articles were created in good faith though with a COI, but Wikipedia is not for self-advertisement even of worthy persons or causes if they do not meet our notability requirement. JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Purifoy[edit]
- Chris Purifoy (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)
Claim to notability is having founded 3 non-notable organizations. Google news archive search provides 1 result, an entry in the student newspaper of his alma mater. The editor (User:Musicedbloggerman) who created this article has also made a walled garden, creating 2 other articles linking to this one, Philip E. Daniels and The Restoring Music Foundation, both of which are currently at AfD. Wine Guy Talk 01:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a handful of passing mentions doesn't really add up to notability. The hint of COI from the creator of the walled garden doesn't help either. -- Bfigura (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am Chris Purifoy. Someone that works for one of the foundations I founded, The Restoring Music Foundation, created this article along with a few others about the foundation. I believe the article about The Restoring Music Foundation was deleted, which is fine because it is fairly new to the public sector. 2010 should find sufficient notability for a listing in Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you kept this article (Chris Purifoy) alive however. I may not be famous in the grand scheme of things, however my work in music education is unprecedented. We are really revolutionizing things in this important educational space. I am also the chairman of a council of top tier industry professionals that are writing a restoration plan for the music industry crisis. I would truly appreciate your consideration before deletion. I may not meet your top notability standards, but in the music education industry I am very well known. Thanks for all you do on here. No hard feelings either way. --Cdpurifoy (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I made a notation to MusicEdBloggerMans puppet page (whatever that is), that further explains this; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Musicedbloggerman. Should I have Joe (musicedbloggerman) make a notation to these articles as well? He works for me and wasn't sure what to do. I figured it'd be best to just explain the matter. best, --Cdpurifoy (talk) 06:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there are no reliable sources in the article, or that I can find to verify any information in this biography of a living person. Zero News Ghits. Bearian (talk) 02:33, 22 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) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christ's Politics Society[edit]
- Christ's Politics Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not notable organisation. Student society with no strong claim to notability noq (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can't find remotely significant coverage under either "Christ's Politics Society or "Christ's College Politics Society". If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound? If Jeffrey Archer speaks to a college group and no one notices, does it make them notable? You have my answer. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, student club with 9 Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 08:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ORG, student club at a single school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find anything that resembles WP:Reliable Sources. Self-published media is not considered a credible or reliable source. - FaceMash (talk) 20:44, 21 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) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cashville Records[edit]
- Cashville 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)
Non-notable record label that has released nothing by mixtapes. Fails WP:CORP. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:36, 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zomexa[edit]
- Zomexa (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)
There is not significant coverage in reliable sources that discuss this social networking site. In the future it might become notable, but at this point I do not believe it is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The web site is one month old and there is nothing to say about it at this stage. Now, it is just another website and there are no sources indicating notability. Johnuniq (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Note that today a press release has hit and was picked up by Yahoo News.[1] Also on the List_of_social_networking_sites, Zomexa has already developed (in just a month) a better Alexa page ranking than a handful of other sites on the list. I believe that is notable. I am new to wikipedia and this has been a very positive experience and I appreciate your feedback. I understand the lack of reliable sources but I believe that notability has also been established with the double blind search system and the daily improving Alexa page ranking. Zomexa has certainly established and exceeded standards of accepted social networking sites that have been accepted by wikipedia. If the page is deleted, I would appreciate assistance in what benchmarks would need to be established to republish. IE - an independent news report, a verifiable number of accepted members? I believe that both of those things will be coming soon. Thank you again for your efforts and feedback.GeoffUT (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability standards are written out, please see WP:WEB. This is the guideline for Web content. The criteria section states three criteria. If any one of the three criteria are met then the website would be considered notable. At this point none of the criteria are met. 1. There are not multiple reliable sources that are independent of the website that discuss it. 2. The site has not won any awards. 3. The information on the site is not distributed by means that are independent of the site. If any of these can be shown, then the site deserves an article until then it does not deserve an article. I am sorry this has not been a positive experience. This is nothing against you it is only about the article. If you have any questions or need any assistance let me know. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:30, 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.