The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've declined my own A7 speedy tag on this article after the creator asserted its subject's importance as a Microsoft training provider (a claim I did verify). However, Google doesn't seem to have much more than that going for the company. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being an online source for Microsoft training alone does not make a company notable. I can not find anything that establishes that this is a notable company. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 23:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not nearly enough significant coverage, and half and advert. —fetch·comms 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage suggests that this business has any real historical significance or is somehow significantly and importantly different from similar business. Claiming to be the first in Singapore to achieve some Microsoft certification that nobody outside the trade will recognize is not enough. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has been expanded, but every sentence contained the word "we" or something similar, so I took the liberty of reverting the whole thing. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and one editor arguing for userfication. The consensus here is that any OR issues can be fixed through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article rife with original research that has been tagged as unreferenced since November 2009. The content looks like it is a personal essay from multiple editors. The article's name is worth of an article, but the contents of this article need nuking from orbit. The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article should exist, but its current content isn't up to standard, let's work to fix it. I posted four reliable sources on the talk page as a starting point. Sancho 00:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a notable topic with sufficient verifiable references. Note that an AfD should not be used for an article on a notable topic that simply needs some editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I imagine, percentage-wise there are very few editors in the UK who are knowledgeable enough to expand this, so we need to give them time. --Aspro (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dodgy .. the problem with this article is that it needs to be balanced with "Cannabis in France", "Cannabis in USA" etc. to be balanced... should it not be a sub-section of Cannabis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We already have "Cannabis in USA" see: Category:Cannabis by country. Also, there seems to be too many cultural and legal differences, to neatly put these things in one article.--Aspro (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Comment:" The lack of other articles that would be suitable for wikipedia isn't something that affects a deletion discussion. Maybe there just haven't been interested editors to create those articles like Cannabis in France, etc. Sancho 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, Redirect to Legality of cannabis#United Kingdom. Most of this article is unsourced and too dubious without proper referencing. The few bits of definite factual information are already included in this article. But by all means rescue/recreate if this information is properly sourced.
Comment:Redirecting to a more restricted topic (i.e., just the legal aspects) is the last thing it needs now. Like the Cannabis in Australia article, it would be easier to expand if we included all aspects of cannabis use in this article, including industrial hemp, medical uses, as well as the legal position. I can then transfer some of the information I placed on List of British politicians who admit to cannabis use to it (once the threat of deletion has been removed and I, or someone else gets the time to look up the refs again to get more info). If the article then becomes too big, we can divide it up like the US articles covering different aspect. But it all comes down in the UK articles to the time available from a more limited number of editors.--Aspro (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
Comment. There has now been substantial change since the article was put up for AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can now see enough in this article for a keep, although the usage section still needs serious attention to deal with the OR issues. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We could be bold and simply delete any contentious material. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
userify if it's such a problem. then the creator can reinstate it into wikipedia's database when it's ready. qö₮$@37 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely agree with the idea that if the article should exist, but its current content isn't up to standard, we should work to fix it, not just delete it. • triswithers—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.88 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Violation of WP:DICTIONARY in that it serves primarily to define a Spanish term, not the purpose of Wikipedia. It also links an assortment of Central and South American soccer clubs, which don't fit with the actual term in any event. I believe that this disambiguation page should be deleted as it only serves to define a term and supply links (some dead now) to articles unrelated to the term. Pstanton (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this is just a dictionary definition... not worthy or relevant to an encyclopedia--Stephencdickson (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is not an appropriate disambiguation page as it just contains a list of entries with Universidad as fragment. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Speedy, slightly IAR per notability and subject concerns. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fairly clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC; additional BLP concerns surrounding the subject's wish to get this article off the wiki (which I can understand); see OTRS ticket 2010051210040067. Ironholds (talk) 23:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appalling written bit of opinionated journalese... a much abridged piece, sticking to encyclopedic type content may (just) be justifiable.--Stephencdickson (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article is a serious violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons. Completely unreferenced invasion of privacy and speculation on this person's life. I have deleted the entire biography section for this reason. It's still available in the history. It is not only unreferenced, it is unreferenceable. There are zero reliable sources available either to verify the content or to establish any kind of notability. I've looked extensively, including Spanish language sites. Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - There's a ticket on this. I'm inclined to speedy. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hell, I'm just gonna go ahead and do it. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough sources to verify that this person merits an article. The article states that he is an "award winning" producor but does not metion which award he is supposed to have one. There are reference on the page but they don't seem to say very much about him. This was prodded previously but the prod was declined. So i'm bring it here Theresa Knott | token threats 21:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the sources in the article that actually discuss him. At the most they make passing reference to him. The source for the award win does not say he won any awards only that projects he worked on were nominated. Looking at http://www2.grammy.com/GRAMMY_Awards/Winners/ it does not appear that either of the two nominees won the award. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete .. appears to be incorrect (or at least ambiguous) bit of personal promotion... not worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion--Stephencdickson (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three years into the future, WP:CBALL. No announced calendars, no drivers signings, appears to have been created simply because it could. Too far into the future for any verifiable details to exist. Falcadore (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, far to in the future. QueenCake (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unnecessary. Clearly created to grab the glory of creating such an article. And as for the content.... - mspete93 21:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As the others say, it's too early to create this article since there is no information that can be backed up by sources at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst there's a couple of things in there, it's nothing that isn't speculation. Tell you what tho... give the author of this article some time to see what he has to come up with. Don't rush things. Antimatter31 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are absolutely no confirmed details about the 2013 season. Until there is, this article shouldn't exist. --Kostas22 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are already some confirmed details (e. g., GPs), but not so much. But I think deleting and then re-creating this article a few months later, when there will be obviously more certain details, has no point. SuperR (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comment: We are at least a year away from firm details being announced for even a reasonable guess at a calendar and two years away from getting good indications on which drivers will belong to which team. This is not a case of something being deleted for only a few months. I could not see a stable version of this article not formed almost entirely of speculation, properly forming until very late in 2011. --Falcadore (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe that since more details are coming up now and it IS late into 2011 as said in the deletion discussion, the article should be startet. I don't do it though because I don't want to take the work only to have it deleted by hard-liners. I also believe that after the last new start in the spring of 2011 a new deletion discussion would have been in order because some time had elapsed and new facts may have shown up even then. --Krawunsel (talk) 08:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is a competition for the College of Arts and Sciences at a university. I'm sure the students will have fun, but there is no coverage of this event to indicate that it is a notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe, redirect and merge to Gershon Legman. Legman is a notable figure; this book does get occasional mentions (e.g. passing reference in this New York Times article[1] and about 20 hits at Google Scholar), and the content and footnotes of this article could be profitably incorporated into his bio article. , but I'm not yet findingsure that there is enough separate discussion of this book to support a separate article but Kenilworth Terrace's additions do make a case for the notability of the book as the "earliest of its kind".--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Comment revised 17:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established by several discussions of the book and its publishing history in reliable sources, including the claim "the earliest book of its kind on the subject, and for a long time the only one". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A clearly unresearched, waste-of-time nomination from an editor who seems to specialise in such nominations. Here are 177 sources for starters. And what on earth does the fact that there are lots of sex manuals on the market have to do with whether we should have an article about this one? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary list: "This list encompasses notable fictional characters who have been burned by heat, ice, acid, or radiation, and may or may not have the physical scars to prove it." We don't even have a list of real-life burn victims (List of burn victims). (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the criteria don't initially seem arbitrary, they certainly are. If we created the corresponding List of burn victims, virtually every biography would qualify if we could find a source mentioning the extrordinailly common burns everyone reading this has likely suffered at one point or another: sunburn, pizza blisters, etc. all qualify. No clear delimiter can be found, lest we reverse the "physical scars" criteria. Then we're left with defining "scars": if the skin breaks, there is a scar (though perhaps quite small). That lip burnt on hot coffee last winter left a scar. This might work as a real list of real people suffering third degree burns, another for acid burns, one fatal burns, etc. If someone wants to draw those lists up, I'd consider supporting them. This one, though, fails. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I imagine that such a list could use hospitalization in a burn unit as its defining boundary. I hate to think that people would hesitate on whether to create such a list because they were wrestling with the question of how to define the criteria. To all Wikipedia editors, I can only say, do not worry about what other people might think about your idea. As to the list here, however, it's the classic boring indiscriminate list of names of every character one can think of. There's no explanation for why any of them are on here, if anyone happened to be curious in the first place. As to the ones who might pass the "everybody knows that" standard, I have my doubts. I think that Lex Luthor is on here on the assumption that his hair burned off, but I think that most of the mythical accounts are that he fell victim to a chemical accident that caused permanent baldness. Others, such as Freddie Krueger, on here under the duh standard-- except that it's not that obvious to anyone who is unfamiliar with the Nightmare on Elm Street films. Hence, I'm inclined to say "delete with fire". Mandsford (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Criterion is too nebulous and non-notable for a meaningful list. What next, "List of fictional assault victims"? "List of fictional domestic accident victims"? There's a near-infinite list of lists we could make up like this. -- Boing!said Zebedee 21:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- SummerPhD has done an excellent job of summarizing the problems with this article. In my opinion, they cannot be overcome so the article should be deleted. ReykYO! 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a pretty random topic for a list. only becomes meaningful if adding equally spurious lists such as "people run over in fiction", "people drowned in fiction" etc. all pretty pointless. Some amusement value for the list-obsessed but not a serious encyclopaedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. On a side note, how could the creator have not mentioned Two-Face? Joe Chill (talk) 02:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, extremely blatant hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any reference to confirm the validity of this biography. Unless someone can help determine otherwise, I'd say this is a hoax. Joal Beal (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:DUCK. Tall claim of inventing modern floral design is not referenced. Zero google hits (news, web, book or scholar).--RadioFan (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to be course notes for a computer engineering class. Material covered in the article is various aspects of distributed shared memory. The article title is not a likely search term so a redirect is not an option. Merging the material was considered and rejected as it does not appear to have anything to add to potential targets for merge (see Cache coherence, Bus sniffing, Race condition). Whpq (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Some sort of activist essay about public library hours; exhorts people to take action. Inappropriate for WP. — e. ripley\talk 17:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikpedia is not a work space for library policy proposals. -- Whpq (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete somebody's rant. Wikipedia is not your blog, nor is it the 'letters to the editor' column in your local newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like a Hawaiian newspaper's op-ed column. Joal Beal (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. (GregJackP (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete, this is blatant advertising for a policy change, it is not an encyclopedia article. ~~ GB fan ~~talk 00:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - this is just a protest putting itself temporarily into an international arena using Wikipedia... of no encyclopaedic interest whatsoever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 14:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't beleive this fits any of the WP:SPEEDY criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see one that specifically fits, but it's looking a lot like snow... - SummerPhD (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it snows in Hawaii tomorrow, it is likely that the library will not be operating at its regular hours. Sorry for the inconvenience. Aloha. Steven Manakepoleke, librarian 15:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion for non-notable website, article by SPA company representative. The only given source is a dead link that used to be a press release; I have been unable to find any other coverage. Haakon (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article (not quite enough to speedy delete as spam) that doesn't pass WP:WEB or WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 20:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable band. Creator keeps removing speedy delete tags. States on talk page that the band needs to be "shared" with the world without any indication of notability. Only 3 GNews hits, one of which was a blog - of the other 2, both were passing, trivial mentions. GregJackP (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. You may want to warn the user about removing CSD tags. Tarheel95 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - already done twice, didn't want to run afoul of 3RR so I brought it here. GregJackP (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, tagged as such. I don't think 3RR applies to restoring improperly removed CSD tags. --LPtalk 17:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Has been speedy deleted. Fences&Windows 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:ADVERT and WP:NEO—appears to be a Clipperz∙com buzzphrase with no independent notability. (See Talk:Zero-knowledge web application for testimony from someone involved with a competing product.) / edg☺☭ 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: coatrackspam: a special kind of online services that were defined and introduced by the development team at Clipperz in 2006. They dubbed their online password manager the first zero-knowledge web application, a web service that knows nothing about its users and their data.... Zero-knowledge web applications aim to leverage the Internet to manage personal data, especially sensitive one, without disclosing any information to the server providing the service. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. It's not a well-established concept by any stretch, only one hit in google news, and zero in books. Basically, WP:ARTSPAM. Pcapping 06:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the (hideous, overlong, and fancrufted to hell and back) Tom and Jerry article already has a list of the Tom and Jerry direct to video films in it. This article serves no special purpose of its own. FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a list both in the main article and the Tom & Jerry template, so this is pretty pointless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to pre-existing lists in main article and the Tom and Jerry template.—Sandahl(♀) 15:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a list on the main article. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the Scooby-Doo direct-to-video movies are already listed in the Scooby-Doo article. This article serves no purpose for existing. FuriousFreddy (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundent to existing articles. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 18:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator with no arguments for deletion. Therefore WP:SK ground 1 is satisfied and the discussion may be speedily closed. Discussions about a merge belong on the talk page, not at AfD, since it's pretty obvious this won't end up as a redlink. NAC—S MarshallTalk/Cont 19:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the UK Parliament has origins in the 13th century, to describe the session starting on 25 May as the 55th is ludicrous. The Parliament as a whole is not elected, only the House of Commons. The whole premise of this article is based on an ignorant attempt to replicate articles such as 111th United States Congress. The numbering is based on some fallatious self reference to Wikipedia so i belive that this guff deserves no place in Wikipedia. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn: as the article was renamed whilst I was posting this AfD. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Doesn't the renaming of the article (from "55th United Kingdom Parliament" to "United Kingdom Parliament of 2010") resolve this issue? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - for the time being. We've got List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010, United Kingdom general election, 2010 and Premiership of David Cameron. Currently, other than who has been elected to it, and when it is due to meet, there's nothing else to say that would not be covered in one of those articles. Once the Parliament is in session, there may be stuff about its officers, speakers, programme and politics that might be separate from the article on the Con/LD administration. If that happens we can demerge it.--Scott Mac 14:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly should not be an article entitled "55th Parliament of the United Kingdom" - the UK has never referred to its parliament by such numbers - and they beg the question of when we date the first Parliament? 1707 (GB), 1801 (UK-GB+I), 1927 (UK - GB=NI)??--Scott Mac 14:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Scott Mac. Can always be restored if something significant happens, which is a possibility. I know we don't number our parliaments as they do in some other countries, but I think it's generally considered that the Parliament of the United Kingdom began in 1801 with the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that any numbering would begin fro then. I have either read or been told this by someone in the last few days, it could be wrong though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was created in 1927 not 1801.--Scott Mac 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, I actually mean the Unitd Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (it's been a long day). This is a bit of OR here, but if you count the number of elections held since 1801 we have just had number 55. But if we do keep or restore this in the future, 2010 Parliament sounds better as that is probably what it would be referred to. TheRetroGuy (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge The nomination is an argument for renaming (which has already happened) or text editing, not deletion. The possible merger is an editorial decision which can be worked out on the relevant talk pages. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. A discussion on whether and to where to merge the article may be taken up on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A deleted film. This article will be of no importance 10 years from now when someone who knows all their Pixar films might stumble across this article. Georgia guy (talk) 13:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Right now the only sources are blogs of undetermined reliability. Need something more verifiable before making this decision. It does look potentially genuine, though. I'm wondering if this could be added to a "List of unfinished Disney feature films" article, or something like that, instead of being outright deleted. Just a thought ... --McDoobAU93 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But how many unfinished Disney feature films can you name?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Destino, The Walt Disney Sketchbook, the periodic re-releasing and updating of Fantasia, King of the Elves (apparently), among others. There are numerous books written discussing these projects, so aborted Disney projects are apparently notable. If there's adequate source material to discuss Newt and what happened, it could be part of such an article. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Destino and Fantasia were actually made, and King of the Elves was made into an article in violation of WP:FILM guidelines. Besides, every movie studio on earth has dozens and dozens of unproduced works; because they're Disney's unproduced works doesn't make them inherently notable. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does make them notable are the published works describing them and discussing how they were developed and ultimately why they were canceled. If it was one of those "let's do a insert subject picture" and then Walt or someone else said "No" with no work on it, then it wouldn't be notable. But since there is significant amounts of artwork on a number of these projects, there's something more to go on. As to King of the Elves, frankly the article for Newt was created too soon as well, using the same guidelines ... but in both cases, what's done is done. Revise my vote to Redirect to another article instead of a wholesale delete. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree entirely. Just because pre-production artwork exists for a canceled film does not make it worthy of having its own article in an encyclopedia. A mention in some other article is fine, but not one of its own. If you're discussing what's found i na book, maybe the book could be covered, like John Canemaker's The Disney That Never Was, but let's not open the floodgates to the creation of articles on pictures that will never exist. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such article, and God forbid one to exist. It'd be nice if there was a completed The Walt Disney Company article first. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a puzzling response. Why shouldn't there be such an article, provided there's enough information to merit a film's inclusion within it? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly unecessary. Are we going to have a "[[List of incomplete Warner Bros. films]]" and "[[List of incomplete MGM films]]" too just because you can dig up proof that scripts and screen tests exist for them? --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find a reliable source that says the film has been canceled rather than shelved, then I would say delete. if it's merely been shelved, redirect to Pixar and drop in a one-sentence mention of it in the body of the article. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Even if this film is no longer on the table, it was in development at one point. We should keep the article for a record of what it would have been like, and encyclopedic information about how it was cancelled. dogman15 (talk) 15:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying the same thing I'm saying; I was talking about a seperate article. A mention elsewhere is perfectly fine. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Pixar Animation Studios where this sourced information can be included in the existing article in context as Pixar's "first cancelled film". As the information is properly sourced, and as Pixar's first cancellation after acquisition by Disney, it is worthy of inclusion within the company's article. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, except we need something a bit more authoritative before saying it's the first so-and-so. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the announcement is only hours old, I might expect that these will be either confirmed or denied in sources much more reliable. With a confirmation, a merger and redirect serves. With a denial, we can always have the article again. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 23:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Rumors of the film's "cancellation" have not been confirmed by reliable sources. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article probably shouldn't have existed in the first place, but the information still exists and shouldn't be deleted just because the film may not actually developed. BOVINEBOY2008:) 19:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it will be trivia 10 years from now. Georgia guy (talk) 19:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still attracted media attention, making it notable, though. BOVINEBOY2008:) 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How notable will this cancelled film be?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends - Pixar may still rework the film in the future. There's certainly been enough reliable coverage to date to keep the article. Also, there's still no official confirmation that the film is "cancelled" - just rumors flying around based on blog reports based on an unsigned email. That's hardly verifiable or conclusive proof. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name a film that there have been lots of rumors that say that it has been cancelled, but that it was proven that it was actually still in production?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? I've seen MANY articles for movies when they were far, far, away:
But this is a cancelled movie, not a movie still in production. Slashfilm officially says this. Georgia guy (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Slashfilm is not Pixar, or Disney. They are also just repeating a rumor from The Pixar Blog, which in turn was based on an unsigned email. I'm not seeing anything official from Disney or Pixar yet... your claim of it being a "cancelled movie" is still just unsubstantiated rumors, for now... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I can, as I know people there, but I'm not a citable source. So I won't. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: The article itself has a bare bones summary and the production information twice. Once in the header and once below. It's basically a two paragraph page and has been reported cancelled by two sources - Dave Smith, the Chief Disney Archivist, and Floyd Norman, a Disney animation consultant. It is also not listed in the official Disney: A to Z Encyclopedia any longer. There is no further information on it being produced, or even on the slate for the next couple of years (at minimum). Meanwhile two 2012 pictures are officially announced. The film has been cancelled. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No doubt more information will be forthcoming as the cancellation is analyzed by industry insiders. As failures are sometimes just as newsworthy as successes. Considering the coverage this topic has had for several years, a merge and redirect to Pixar Animation Studios will nicely serve those readers who wish to know whatever happened to it. If the project is ever brought back to life... and that's always a possibility in the film industry... the article can be recreated. Past Entertainment Weekly, continued coverage is in such RS as Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, and Market Watch. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. Your vote was merge and redirect. Currently I count four 'keeps' to three 'merges'. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if it was notable before it was cancelled, it is still notable now. Thparkth (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - The notability of this film was based on its imminent production and release. As this film no longer exists, it is not notable enough for its own article. SnottyWongtalk 00:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Had his only claims to notability been his relationship to Gordon Brown and his involvement in the expenses, I would have gone for WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. However, I did a Google search for "Andrew Brown" EDF and he seems to be getting a good deal of coverage before any of the expenses stuff became public, like this article. It's hard to tell if his coverage is artificially inflated by being Gordon Brown's brother, but I think there's enough. It will be a major headache to include the stuff about the cleaner in a fair and balanced way, but that's what Wikiproject Politics is for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well thanks for commenting, basically, keep per jonny is valueless in an AFD, valueless all over the discussion at wikipedia,please ask if you need directing to wikipedia policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but to expand upon it, I do see significant coverage in reliable sources about this individual, so he does seem to be sufficiently notable to support a keep vote. Its really not surprising that a brother of a world leader might generate enough interest to be notable, e.g., Billy Carter.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A ghost town not notable unwatched stagnant Biography that is only viewed by crawler bots, bring it on. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are you referring to? Surely not the namesake of Billy Beer?--Milowent (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, you are only supporting as a support per Dismas and he is only supporting as a support of the creator of this ADF article, delete, not notable person, media analyst ask yourself .are media analysts notable, no they are not, is he notable as the brother of someone. no he is not, keeping this valueless stub will be of no value to a reader and give the wikipedia a responsibility to take care of it . Merge or redirect anything but this person is not worthy an article.Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually supporting the keep because "I do see significant coverage in reliable sources about this individual, so he does seem to be sufficiently notable to support a keep vote." I do not care whether he is "worthy" of an article beyond that.--Milowent (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You see significant ungoing coverage of this individual, here is the google news nothing. Complete rubbish, you should stop this joking about, it is a big issue when you are not notable to be be stuck with a ghost town unwatched valueless stub that is not about your life. Media strategist what rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the news coverage of Andrew Brown doesn't use the words "Andrew Brown (Media Strategist)" in that order, and why would it? (Try a GNews Archive search for "Gordon Brown (politician)" instead of "Gordon Brown" and you'll discover the extra word in brackets filters out 99.997% of the hits.) Have you done a GNews Archive search for "Andrew Brown" EDF like I did? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to The Telegraph, he has been an assistant producer for Newsnight (a major UK TV current affairs program), a program editor on Channel 4 (one of the UK's 5 terrestrial TV channels), editor of ITN’s political programme Powerhouse (ITN is a large UK TV news organisation), director of media strategy at Weber Shandwick (an international PR company), head of media relations at EDF (a French utility company). There's a Times story about his and EDF's attempted (and somewhat controversial) involvement in the UK's nuclear power program. I think all of those, together with his being the brother of Gordon Brown, probably makes him sufficiently notable. (There are plenty of GHits for '"Andrew Brown" EDF', but I haven't had time to investigate any further, sorry) -- Boing!said Zebedee 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Never been through this procedure before - am I allowed to 'vote', being the originator of the article?) In any case, just wanted to add that "Weber Shandwick is not just an international PR company but is the "WORLD'S LARGEST global public relations firm." and also that the French parent (Électricité de France) of EDF Energy is not only a utility company but is "the WORLD'S LARGEST utility company." and is charged with building the UKs new generation of nuclear power stations - highly controversial in various ways. So having top roles with these is hardly chicken feed. Finally, Brown's namesakes on Wikipedia hardly seem to set the world ablaze in the notability stakes, yet they seem to remain. (p.s. Bearing all this in mind, seems rather odd that, apparently, a page on Brown has already been created and deleted in the past.) James317a (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion beacuse: "What is the notability of the local trading names of the Stagecaoch group?" No reliable independent sources have indepth information about this subject. Fram (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would work better as a sortable table. I get the concept-- Stagecoach Group operates city bus routes in various locations in the United Kingdom, so "Stagecoach in South Wales" handles the services of Aberdare Bus Co., Crosskeys Coach Hire, Islwyn Borough Transport, etc., "Stagecoach Bluebird" handles north Scotland, etc.-- in looking over the various lines, it appears that this long list is only a small section of what would be a gigantic list of towns, their bus services and the Stagecoach groups that administer those services. Relevant, perhaps. Can it be organized in a useful fashion? Not unless it can be sorted. Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a sortable table. Per Mandsford.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons. Policy: Notability - As nominator states, there is no evidence of notability of this list. Reference given at the bottom of the article says that the data in the list has been obtained from the "News Sheets & Publications of the PSV CIRCLE." If this publication has ever had an article specifically "about the local trading names of Stagecoach" then an editor should be able to point to it. Otherwise, this list is not notable (look at a sample of the publication referenced [2] for yourself). Policy: WP is not a directory; this list is simply a directory of subdivisions of a transit company. Comments above suggest that making this list sortable somehow improves the dataset; being sortable is irrelevant to this policy. Suggestion: This information can just as easily be placed into a category or a template. It may already be duplicated by Template:StagecoachGroup and/or Category:Stagecoach Group. If placed and maintained in one of these locations, the policies referenced do not apply. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable by itself (and I say that as a bus enthusiast who finds this sort of information intersting). All the local names should be mentioned in the articles which exist for each subsidiary of Stagecoach, and could even redirect there. I can't really see what this adds to that. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject seems to be too specialized to be notable. Apparent COI for creator of the article. (Besides all the other issues with the article that have no direct bearing on the AfD.) TimothyRias (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC) TimothyRias (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with some reluctance. This would appear to be original research, and without context and background it is pretty much unreadable for anyone who doesn't already know the subject well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks, surely there is a wikibook that this fits in. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reliable sources with serious coverage of wet paint signs have been found or given. Some cursory remarks about "if people see a wet paint sign, they will touch the paint", and that's all. Sources like Urban Dictionary or self-published books (AuthorHouse) are not helping. After two years, two AfDs and a rescue effort, it has become quite obvious that not enough good sources exist to write an acceptable article about this subject. Fram (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable as per WP:UNENCYC, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming. This is just an example of thinking up just anything to be able to creat an article in this encyclopedia. We'll be having 'Keep of the grass signs' next. There really are limits as to what should be in any encyclopedia. We'll get bad press if the newspapers hit on the recent spate of silly new articles. AfD is too mild, I would really suggest CSD, but I suppose it deserves some kind of discussion.--Kudpung (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article Warning sign is almost exclusively about vehicular traffic signs. It contains one small paragraph about non-traffic warning signs. This is a good starting point for a serious article about non-traffic warning signs. Downsize43 (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This survived the first time as a non-administrative closure by someone whose concept of "nearly unanimous" is, to be nice about it, different than mine. There had been talk about improvements that would be made, but I don't see that this is much more than it was then, an article that describes a sign that has the phrase "wet paint" written upon it. There may be something to an article about "wet paint syndrome", described as the phenomenon of people doing something after being specifically warned not to do so. This time, please let an administrator close this one. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs better references, and a search of the Google News Archive [3] and Google Books [4] turns up a lot to choose from. Plus, there doesn't appear to be any explanation on why the nominator thinks this is non-notable. Joal Beal (talk) 15:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not really explain why it is notable
I'm inclined to Keep, provided better sources can be found (no, Urban Dictionary is not acceptable) (isn't that basically our definition of notable: there exists significant coverage in sources independent of the subject?). Surely there're sources about wet paint signs? At Kudpung: I don't see why we shouldn't have a Keep off of grass sign or Beware of dog sign, again provided that sources can be found. Buddy431 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'm having trouble finding anything useful. It goes without saying that if no reliable sources can be found, it should get deleted. Or perhaps it would be best be merged to paint... Hmm... Buddy431 (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are, in fact, lots of sources for this topic, especially the common observation that people will not believe the sign and so often touch the paint to check. As this has been nominated before and the nomination offers no significant new evidence or argument, this nomination fails WP:BEFORE and is disruptive. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on Google book search link at the top of this AFD, and the first of the results that appears is the "Manual of uniform traffic control devices" which mentions the sign, providing it is something officially recognized by the government, and actually required. All such signs have their own article, since they are all of obvious encyclopedic value. See Stop sign, and note the template and category listing at the bottom. DreamFocus 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources out there. Being "unencyclopedic" is only a matter of opinion. The General notability guideline is what determines whether or not something is included, not the opinions of a few deletionists whose point of view is that something they have no interest in is "silly" or otherwise inappropriate in an encylopedia. In general, articles with sources should be kept. Those given the just not notable or unencyclopedic arguments should never be deleted. These are empty arguments showing nothing but disdain out of one's personal taste. Shaliya waya (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a ton of references in books; I added several to the article. This is a common enough - and notable enough - reference to deserve a Wikipedia page. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see what distinguishes a wet paint sign from a "keep off the grass" sign, a "help wanted" sign, a "yard sale" sign (or a "garage sale" sign), a "trespassers will be shot" sign, a "unattended children will be sold" sign, a "no turn on red between 9am and 11am" sign, and so on. Yes, wet paint signs exist, but that's all these "sources" indicate. A stop sign is a broad visual metaphor, used in many applications other than to denote a place for traffic to make a momentary stop. The ubiquitous "male" and "female" signs also have enough cross-cultural impact to be labelled "ubiquitous". A wet paint sign is used for one purpose: to denote wet paint. There is no particular imagery common to wet paint signs, save for the letters themselves. Its cross-cultural impact is limited to its appearance in countless cartoons and madcap gag films, usually (but not always) stuck, by the very paint it advertises, to the back of a freshly-ruined (and preferably expensive) jacket. And, lest I be accused of turning a blind eye towards the elephant in the room: For whatever reason, this particular AfD seems to have drawn the ire of the rabid "inclusionist" crowd, and is an excellent example of how trivial these "arguments" - and I use the term quite loosely - are. My great-aunt on my mother's side took part in the U.S. Census, therefore the U.S. government officially recognizes her, therefore Badger Drink's great-aunt on his mother's side should not be a redlink. For those who can't quite process sarcasm, I'll make it quite literal: This in no way is significant coverage. These are not secondary sources which indicate the notability - rather than the mere existence - of wet paint signs. One, five, ten voices loudly bleating to the contrary, throwing out the usual disingenous half-truths and misunderstandings of both inclusion criteria and definitions of common English words such as "notable" alike in their rabid quest to defend some quasi-political point they've attached themselves to, does nothing to change the truth of the issue. Badger Drink (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What distinguishes a wet paint sign from other types of sign is that they are peculiarly subject to scepticism. Numerous sources comment on this psychological quirk and use it as a powerful analogy. Your failure to notice this and, instead, rant about your grandmother, indicates that you haven't read the article. Please address the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One piece of trivia does not confer notability. Many people avoid stepping on sidewalk cracks so as to not cause injury to their mothers' backs - that does not justify an article on sidewalk cracks, nor Everybody's Mothers' back. "Wet paint syndrome", the great shining centerpiece of this article, is a neologism to end all neologisms, "sourced" to the Urban Dictionary, no less. It's more often referred to as "temptation", or perhaps "defiance"; in no way is "wet paint syndrome" the unique or even a primary term for this particular folly of humankind. If you could tear yourself away from that inclusionist flag and actually read WP:N and WP:GNG - read, not "dimly look at and scan for buzzwords to drop during your next stop at AfD" - AfD conversations with you would be infinitely more productive. Badger Drink (talk) 07:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Badger Drink, please try to assume good faith on the part of other editors; it's one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. To answer your question, what distinguishes "wet paint sign" from the list of signs you offered is that there are a ton of references specifically about the cultural and psychological significance of "wet paint sign". I added several to the article but there are many more. References = notability = worthy of a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Obviously notable topic, covered in many sources, in popular culture etc. Colonel Warden gets it right. --Cyclopiatalk 16:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete per Badger Drink. Nothing more needs to be said. Show me a few reliable, verifiable, secondary source that substantiate the notability of wet paint signs, and I'll gladly change my !vote. SnottyWongtalk 00:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had high hopes that the Article Rescue Squadron could find real sources on this one. As it turns out, they failed. The sources in the article are not about wet paint signs, they are either passing mentions or about wet paint. Abductive (reasoning) 02:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Only reliable sources are the school paper. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 09:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Remarkably little coverage [5], even recently [6]. There's a world of difference between something that has "encouraged the participation of thousands of students" and something in which thousands of students actually participate. I am encouraging thousands of Wikipedia editors to agree with me. Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I applaud the students for their charity efforts. However, the lack of coverage in reliable sources indicate that this dance marathon does not meet the notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, spam, not even worth a redirect unless WP:RS can be found warranting even a half-sentence in the school's article. tedder (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not a speedy , as it does claim some importance. Its just that there is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the user above noted, this post does claim importance. Editors should update with more sources though, even if local —Preceding unsigned comment added by EndedUp1974 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Text appears to be an ad for the company, and does not demonstrate sufficient notability for an article. Ckatzchatspy 08:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the table at Medical Marijuana, Inc.#Medical marijuana states should be incorporated elsewhere on Wikipedia, if it wasn't borrowed from elsewhere on Wikipedia already. The independent sources listed (CNBC, NORML, etc.) do not mention this company at all. The non-independent sources are the company's website and its press releases. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Al that I could find was press releases. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Pure advertising. Carrite (talk) 18:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some of the later notes ask for a rationale here explaining what is good and bad in the debate, and since I am probably known for writing way too long AFD closing rationales anyway, I'll give it a go.
First a mathematics lesson: If there are 200 nations in the world, the possible number of "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is not 2002=40000, since that would mean that "UK-USA relations" and "USA-UK relations" are different things needing separate articles, and that "UK-UK" relations is possible. The correct number can be found by using combinatorics, so "200 choose two" is 19 900 articles.
Second, my role as an AFD closer is to evaluate consensus. This is not a pure vote count, but I do think the amount of support a viewpoint gets is indicative of how well it is accepted by the community. In general "rough consensus" means a "general agreement", and if the community is roughly evenly divided, as is the case here, a "no consensus" outcome is the usual result. This may be fudged a little, but I only do that when the arguments presented are lopsidedly stronger on one side.
Third, I disagree strongly that this AFD nomination is "shameless to the point of vandalism". The last AFD was a year ago, and ended with a "no consensus" result. It is accepted practice to renominate in that situation.
The delete side have argued that the foreign relations between these two countries are not notable. The number of possible "Xinia-Yinia relations" articles is after all very large, and where the diplomatic and economic contact between the countries is very limited, they are unlikely to be of much interest. A few of the diehard inclusionists think most, if not all, such bilateral relationships are notable per se, but that is a small minority, and in my experience, not one which enjoys any consensus. The question must therefore be whether the Iceland-Mexico relations are notable.
For the specific arguments (and I apologize that I'm probably not comprehensive here):
No mutual embassies. Indicates that diplomatic contact is there, but so limited that the bilateral relations can be done by another embassy. I find the counter-argument "what about Iran-USA?" to be rather off-the-point since those relations are notable for entirely different reasons (sanctions, mutual distrust, 1979 crisis, etc.)
No major trade relations, Iceland is only in 118th place on the Mexican list. It is pointed out that this does not detract from notability. I'll add that it probably does not enhance notability either.
Information should be included in the two countries "foreign relations of X" article. Certainly a possibility, since many articles are covered this way. This solution will require serious trimming.
Canvassing has apparently taken place. Point noted, but the participants here appear to be good faith editors.
A foreign state visit. Good faith editors disagree on whether this contributes to notability.
There is sourcing backing up most of the article, so I see no reason to delete on grounds of verifiability.
There has generally not been a consensus that sources need to mention the phrase "Iceland-Mexico relations" or similar in order to be counted as a valid source, as long as the topic is related to the subject.
In total, my personal opinion here is that these foreign relations are not high priority; diplomatic relations between the countries are sporadic and light. Nonetheless, reasonable arguments have been presented by the "keep" side, and since they enjoy support, I'm closing this with the predicted "no consensus" result. Sjakkalle(Check!) 16:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this article hinges on 4 sources, one of them merely confirms they established diplomatic relations and confirms no embassies. the "agreement for the promotion and mutual protection of investments" is common between any 2 nations doing even a small amount of trade. both countries being affected by the Gulf Stream somehow being related in bilateral relations is a bit of WP:SYNTH. LibStar (talk) 07:33, 12 May 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.
Delete Having entries on the Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico seems to cover all the information. If the sources were linked there there would be no loss of content since the article doesn't really say anything than "Relations Exist."--Savonneux (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't find anything to add to an article that basically says "relations exist". And it's also hard to justify keeping Country X-Country Y articles when neither has an embassy in the other country. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." Nuff said. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. Nuff said. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really Richard? this is an extremely weak comparison, the reason the US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran and North Korea is for a long time they did not have any diplomatic relations and applied sanctions and embargoes to these countries. none of this applies to Mexico-Iceland. secondly very few countries have embassies in Bhutan given that it is so small, so mentioning it here has zero relationship with Mexico-Iceland. this is another case of classical straw man argument where choosing selective examples to compare... in fact this only weakens your case.
LibStar (talk) 12:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When people stop using the canard of embassies and ambassadors as markers for notability I will not need to mention it anymore. It isn't a straw man argument. In a straw man I take the weakest argument and attack it. Only one argument was presented. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Learn how to indent Richard please. it's straw man as you are oversimplifying an opponent's argument by comparing it to very selective instances of non-existence of embassies, then attacking this oversimplified version. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the argument is "[Delete because] Iceland has a non resident ambassador in Washington D.C., Mexico has a non resident ambassador in Copenhagen, Denmark." and my argument is "It is a silly way to judge a relationship. The US doesn't have ambassadors to Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba." It is not the strawman at all. It is a direct counterargument based on the exact presented facts, no strawman was created and demolished. It is no different than someone arguing that we can't have articles on countries based on the letter Z, and my counter argument is we already have articles on Zambia and Zimbabwe. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable CountryX-CountryY, no significant secondary source coverage. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again The same nominator is sending this to AFD again? Its the same article is before. Make sure to tell all those who participated in it last time, its time to do this over again. I'm just going to copy and paste my comments from last time, since nothing has changed, and my statements still stand. DreamFocus 04:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the article, I see many things that make this relationship notable enough to be mentioned in its own article. Please read through the article, before just deciding you don't like articles of this type, and trying to delete it. The content makes it notable, not the opinions of others. And unless you have done a proper search in the language of these two nations, for things mentioned in the newspapers of the countries involved, you aren't going to be finding a lot of third party media coverage. But surely such events would in fact be mentioned there. Does anyone doubt this? Is there any reasonable doubt at all that meetings and treaties between two nations, would be covered in major newspapers of those countries, thus satisfying the current notability guidelines?♫♫♫♫♫DreamFocus 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
leaders and ministers between nations (given that are about 200 nations in the world) meet thousands of time a year, a few visits does not necessarily constitute notable relations. simply being reported in newspapers of individual meetings is not necessarily sufficient. if say 2 presidents met yearly that would be a strong indicator of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nominating it until you get the outcome you want. I thought there was a rule about that somewhere. Anyway, when you say "consensus can change", do you mean that the random bunch of people that appear to express their opinions may give you a different outcome, or do you believe that the opinions of those who previously participated might change? And a meeting that affects the interactions between two countries, thus has a notable impact on history, and belongs in this encyclopedia. If treaties were made, then its notable, not just someone getting together to have tea and exchange pleasantries. DreamFocus 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
consensus has shown through deleted bilateral articles that a few treaties (and these are agreements which are weaker and harder to enforce) do not make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus has shown through bilateral articles you failed to delete, that if enough people are around to notice and participate in the AFD, then they are usually kept, because the relationship between two nations is automatically notable by rules of common sense above all else. DreamFocus 05:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any material being deleted. Smaller articles were merged into larger articles. None of the material was deleted. The ones that were just a few sentences were merged in Foreign relations of Mexico. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike yesterday, has more information. TbhotchTalkC. 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want another argument? Well, The article have much more information than others that I saw recently (one is Samoa – United States relations). I don't think that Wikipedia is US-Centrist, but I don't know why this article is not nominated too. TbhotchTalkC. 17:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a personal essay and it not Wikipedia policy. Every legal proceeding allows precedence and Wikipedia has common outcomes. Pointing to a weaker article has its flaws, but pointing to a similar article edited by multiple people is a good argument showing precedence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obioulsy, I know my comment (almost) apply there. I'm not saying "S-U exist. this too", I'm saying "If this article will be delete, Samoa-United States relations have to be deleted to. Of course I'm not going to waste my time nominating any article for deletion. It's stupid, it's unequal. THAT'S IT. TbhotchTalkC. 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a shield. The guy makes a point in his argument and If your only reply is OTHERSTUFF, it discredits your own delete vote since you have on other way to deal with the Keep !Vote.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it's hardly a shield, we are here to debate the merits of this article not other articles you think are weaker. "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist". LibStar (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you are useing that statement there to steer a perfectly good and honest statement towards an poorly writen and vaguely outlined policy that allows you to not only avoid statements like the one above but to discredit the !votes of others. I'm perfectly fine with allowing you to use OTHERSTUFF as a reason why his !vote is not sufficient to keep the article but to have your only reply be a link to a policy is robotic in nature and rude.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 18:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing adminRichard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk·contribs) has engaged in WP:CANVASSing: [7][8][9][10][11][12]. While the message left on these users' pages was neutral, the message was only placed on the pages of users who !voted "keep" at this recent, related AfD. In fact all of the canvassed users generally or exclusively !vote to keep Bilateral relations article, so this a clear example of votestacking. Furthermore, RAN has added the {{rescue}} tag to the article. As the article was already tagged for ARS rescue during the last AfD, re-tagging it now seems like a just another means to canvass sympathetic editors.YilloslimeTC 04:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says: "Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." (my emphasis added) My message meets the guideline of informing without influencing, cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to point that out as well but got snagged in the edit conflict. A neutral message sent to only one "side" of a discussion is precisely what that guideline spells out as unacceptable behavior. This is a fairly blatant violation. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the usual suspects are here, whether they were contacted via Wikipedia or ex parte. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard you're clearly fooling no one, this is the most blatant violation I have seen of In the case of a re-consideration of a previous debate (such as a "no consensus" result on an AFD or CFD), it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters.LibStar (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, if you feel that this behaviour is not canvassing then please keep it up with other AfDs...but I would strongly recommend you don't. Editors in the past have been blocked for canvassing. LibStar (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relations appear to exist, but mere existence isn't enough for inclusion. There doesn't seem to be anything notable here. I'd also like to note that canvassing has obviously occurred. AniMate 05:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please note this delete is NOT on the grounds of notability. It is on the grounds that the material is short in scope and can be more appropriately dealt with at the main articles of the two countries (Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico). There is no demonstrated need for a spin-off article. Simply because notability for a topic can be demonstrated does not mean a stand-alone article is the appropriate way to present the information. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And for what it's worth, it doesn't appear that canvassing for keep votes has so far influenced the discussion here (although it's still inappropriate). If anything it's helped bring an opposing viewpoint to the table that otherwise wouldn't have been represented. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- there are something like 200 sovereign states in the world and it's a fair bet that they've all made friendly noises at all the others at some point. Does that mean we should have 40,000 articles of this sort? Of course not. Vague expressions of agreeableness between that countries that haven't really got much do do with one another, and don't even have embassies in the other, are nothing to base an article on. ReykYO! 06:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith here, but, it may be helpful to take a community college refresher mathematics course, it can be a big help. Since Iran-Iraq relations is identical to Iraq-Iran relations, and because we don't have Iraq-Iraq relations, there would be 19,900 articles with 200 entities. That is how permutations work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete — This bilateral relations meme to create yet moar articles needs to end. It is a trick of the obsessive-minded to endlessly inflate things. Really, what's next? An article on the significance of corn to Iceland? The polar bears of Mexico? Sincerely, Jack Merridew 09:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article about notable relationship between two countries that is supported by proper sources and has many more available for continued expansion and further improvement. Even the briefest of searches finds that Mexico has a consulate in Iceland[13], the two countries have a mutual income tax treaty[14][15], there is an agricultural agreement between the two countries[16], the President of Iceland has spoken in Mexico City speaking about the collaboration between Iceland and Mexico[17][18], there is a mutual invetsment protection agreement between the two countries[19], there is a geothernmal energy agreement between the two countries[20], etc, etc, etc. The arguments to keep at the last AFD and the ones to keep at this one are as strong and pertinent as ever. I trust the closer to make a careful examination of the earlier AFD and this one. Nothing has changed except the number of editors repeating the samed failed arguments from the prior AFD. AFD is NOT A VOTE... its not weight of numbers all piling in to repeat the same argument... it's a careful consideration of the facts and arguments as presented. And so please, lets's stop this one being repeatedly sent to AFD. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 10:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And has been pointed out to you and other inclusions along the way, diplomatic relationships and treaties are a routine matter of course, and do not establish notability. The pointless arguments are on your side, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct when you say: "diplomatic relationships and treaties ... do not establish notability". It is the mentioning of diplomatic relationships and treaties in reliable sources that make things notable. Notability is when the media notices an event and reports on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The leader of one nation visits another and speaks about collaboration between their two countries, and they form agreements between them. I would think that would count as a notable relationship between them. Are the actions of nations and their leaders insignificant now, just because you consider it so routine? I would think it notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and having a place that list all the agreements and ties between two nations something of obvious educational value for any looking up that information. DreamFocus 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Routine. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To develop Tarc's argument, Jennifer Anniston and Hugh Grant may both be notable. If Anniston lends Grant $100, they both go to a party, and have some friends in common, and it's all documented in reliable independent sources, that still doesn't provide support for creating Anniston-Grant relationship. Some information is trivial no matter how well-sourced it is, and if it's to be covered at all it can be adequately covered in the main arguments rather than in a spin-off article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many relationship articles between people do exist. [Angelina and Brad] for example, plus I've seen a lot for various musicians. That has nothing to do with this though. The relationship between countries is far greater than anything to do with celebrities. Totally different things we're dealing with here. DreamFocus 05:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. What I'm saying is that a documented relationship between two notable parties is not of itself inherently notable. Notability is not inherited; reports of relations between Iceland and Mexico may only attest to the notability of Iceland and Mexico, not the notability of the relationship between them. The relevant test is whether there is another material on the relationship to found a substantive article of a length that makes covering it in the existing articles impractical. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no such requirement that we need a "substantive article" to determine notability. 10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as 10 facts from a single source. A single source is just more convenient when writing an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Canvassing aside, most objective editors agree that you can't build an article around a trivial fact that relations exist, plus a huge quote from a speech one day. Relations are notable if you can verify something of note. Wikipedia is not a directory of every treaty ever signed. We already have an article about the foreign relations of Mexico in general. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this one is much weaker than Croatia–Mongolia relations. In general, I believe that any two countries which have established diplomatic and trade relations have relations enough to be notable. If they had ambassadors and embassies in each country, I would stay it is a strong keep. However, it is borderline. May I make a suggestion however? There are A LOT of bilateral relations articles which are easily more notable than this one which are not written yet. I've been working to create Chinese-African articles. South Africa and the UK don't even have a bilateral relations article!--TM 14:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD. At this point in the discussion ten additional sources have been added to the article. It now contains 26 references compared to the original 4. Spanish language articles from Mexican newspapers and English language sources from Google News Archive have been added. The closing administrator may want to compare the nominated version versus the current version. Here is the nominated version and here is the version at which this notice has been placed.Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). All the votes cast are for the version with 4 references. (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that none of this addresses my deletion argument above, which was not based on a lack of notability. My Delete still stands post-expansion. The delete votes of Savoneux and Good ol'Factory also do not appear to be able to be addressed merely by expansion and addition of sources (I'm hopefully not misrepresenting them). Other votes suggesting that the topic is inherently non-notable (which I don't necessarily agree with) are also perhaps not addressed by an article improvement. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. What is needed is more substance, not more citations of what is already there, and weak. There's a gulf of difference between the relationship of these two, and, say Poland–Ukraine relations. In the end, as a wise author once observed, "there's just no there, there". Tarc (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with DustFormsWords, many of the additions are mere padding, the long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers really adds little value and "On the trip Olafur Ragnar Grimsson gave an interview to Organización Editorial Mexicana and said that "geothermal energy has a future in Mexico." is a mere statement that says nothing about concrete actions for bilateral relations, Iceland have said similar statements all around the world given that they are a leader in geothermal energy. The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association". there are 4 countries in EFTA so what is really saying that Iceland is the worst performer! this is trying to inflate the status of Mexico Iceland trade when on closer inspection reveals the opposite. LibStar (talk) 03:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better to use the exact wording of the original source. As you argued once before, introducing bias and synthesis can be a hazard in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The standard for inclusion is notability, which is defined as significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. While this article has bunch of sources, on inspection none of them meet this standard. Many are not independent, e.g. [21],[22]. Some are primary sources, e.g [23]. Others do not provide significant coverage, e.g. [24] (word count = 34) or [25] (108 words.) And many are not on the topic itself, but rather on specific visits or mention Mexico-Iceland relations only trivial in passing, e.g. [26] or [27]. Per guidelines, we need at least two independent sources that actually address these countries' relationship in a direct, non-trivial manner, and we just don't have that here. YilloslimeTC 06:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses primary sources. There is no prohibition about using primary sources for articles. Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." The only primary documents used in this article are the text of a speech and a photograph of the meeting.
Deriding a fact by saying it adds little value or saying it is padding, is 100% subjective. It was published in reliable media on the subject. It was vetted by Google News as reliable. You are deriding the original media source, Organizacion Editorial Mexicana. OEM is the largest Mexican print media company and the largest newspaper company in Latin America. Deriding it as a source is just silly and US centric. You wouldn't say that about the largest US newspaper, the Wall Street Journal or CNN, the most visited news website.
Others are not significant ... word count = 34 There is no magic number of words that has to be reached for a reference to be reliable or the subject notable. The discovery of the structure of DNA was published as just a page and 1/2. It is one of the most important scientific publications of the past 100 years. Terse doesn't mean unreliable.
See Canada – Iceland relations for a smaller article with even fewer references for a typical article on relations.
The funniest is this statement "Iceland was ranked 118th in total trade with Mexico and was ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association". We report what reliable media report, Wikipedia is not about superlatives, that is the Guinness Book of World Records. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not at all deriding the sources nor their accuracy, I am commenting on how they are used to build a case for notable bilateral relations. Iceland commenting on geothermal energy in Mexico undoubtedly happened but I fail to see how this relates to concrete bilateral actions. Reliable sources in Mexico report the Eyjafjallajokull volcano, so do we report this in this article? I am surprised you have not added sporting results between these countries as you have diligently pushed in other bilateral articles. A long quotation from Pricewaterhousecoopers means very little except to accountants and not the general reader of WP. your use of Canada – Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) example is a true classical straw man argument. for an article that I literally created TWO days ago, it cannot be turned into a full article in 1 week. truly selective and truly a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. if you feel it does not meet the very high minimum notability standard of Richard Norton, feel free to nominate Canada – Iceland relations for deletion. "ranked 4th among the countries of European Free Trade Association" should say 4 of 4th or last. LibStar (talk) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a strawman argument, in the strawman scenario I just attack the weakest of multiple arguments. Here I attack all the arguments, so it is just a normal refutation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my argument; namely that the material is short in scope and would be more appropriately covered in the existing articles on this topic. You also haven't addressed the argument that the sources merely establish the notability of the Foreign relations of Mexico and the Foreign relations of Iceland, not necessarily the notability of Iceland-Mexico relations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are even larger? Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article Rat Pack and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient commercial relations,which is one key type of foreign relations--perhaps the key type, because thats the usual reason for treaties and political visits and the like. Relying on the technicalities of "substantial" and the like to argue for or against an article is in my opinion unconstructive, though it's a useful device by which the GNG can be twisted to mean whatever one pleases. Back in the days when people thought that it was a fixed fundamental principal rather than a rough guide, I got a good deal of practice at quibbling about it in either direction to support whichever position I held, but now I prefer to discuss whether or not something is actually notable or not. DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Article has enjoyed considerable improvements by editor Richard Arthur Norton. Far too much valuable info would be lost if we tried to cram details on all a nations minor relationships into a single page, rather than keeping it in dedicated artilces. The number of bilateral relationships is governed by n! / ( (n-2)! x 2) so if we have 200 recognised nations we'd have only a very reasonable 19,900 items , not 40,000 as has been claimed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed [28]. LibStar (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia states: "Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered 'friendly notices' if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion." Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the same page:"Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." Sound like something you've done lately? AniMate 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments about Richard Arthur Norton's quote above: (1) This is the third time in this discussion he has quoted that passage. Saying it over and over again does not make it any more true. (2) "...if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion". When messages are sent to numerous people with one opinion and not to people with a different opinion they do not appear intended to improve rather than to influence. What is more, that is so obvious that it is difficult to understand how Richard Arthur Norton can fail to see that fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I think a problem with many of these articles is that they aren't really articles on the relationship itself, but more just a rundown of what the relations are. That is a key difference, and trying to glue together the latter to make it look like the former is exactly what WP:SYNTH is in place to prevent. This article may as well be titled "List of Iceland-Mexico relations". Things actually have to happen to make inter-nation relations notable, and reliable sources have to make note of that, otherwise it is just a list of agreements and treaties. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia warns this about synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Synthesis requires a new position, so if I say that the relations between Iceland and Mexico are "improving" or are "awesome" or are "getting worse" or are "not notable", I am synthesizing a new conclusion not present in the original material. None of the material used violates the Wikipedia concept of synthesis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking simple agreements and declaring that as proof the relations are notable is synthesis to a T. Tarc (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By Wikipedia rules they are notable. Saying in the article that the relationship is notable or not notable would be synthesis. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable topic with plenty of WP:RS. Lugnuts (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly the article needs expanding, but it seems that reliable sources discuss Icelandic-Mexican relations in detail, making them notable. Pantherskin (talk) 14:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not any more notable than any two arbitrarily chosen countries, and less notable than many. Precedent is clear that WP editors do not accept assertions of bilateral notability on the basis of common treaties. Collect (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Iceland's embassy for mexico is in... the United States. Mexico's embassy for Iceland is in... Denmark. No reliable sources independent of the subject discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth. While the fact that weather in both countries is effected by the Gulf Stream is true, that says nothing about bilateral relations.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have seen the embassy canard before. It has no known precedence in Wikipedia. If you know of a rule that says something about it please quote it. The US doesn't have an embassy in Iran or Cuba. It shouldn't be used as a marker for notability since the US relationship with Iran and Cuba are notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure note: I've notified the participants of the first AFD who had not yet commented here [29]. –xenotalk 17:39, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is actually a good article, regardless of whether it is notable or not. It has a couple of pictures (including the infobox), is well referenced, and the material is divided in sections. There is no good reason to delete such a decent article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a pretty article about a totally non-notable subject such as my cat for instance, complete with a photo and an infobox, and divided into sections- but that doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. ReykYO! 22:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as several readers have pointed out, the topic itself has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as mandated by WP:GNG. Yes, the two have relations (not in itself notable, as established by numerous discussions), and yes, the two have interacted at a basic level (which is normal for most any random pair of countries in the world today, and which gets reported on all the time but passes unnoticed by this encyclopedia, except in this series of nonsense articles). That said, there is no source actually covering "Iceland–Mexico relations" in any depth; there are only brief news items about routine interactions that Wikipedians have surmised are equivalent to "Iceland–Mexico relations". That, of course, is bogus; we need independent sources providing in-depth coverage; unsurprisingly, these are not to be found.
MarshalN20, WP:N is a pretty well-established guideline, not one you can simply wish away. And the presence of photographs or sections is not a reason to hold off from deletion.
Dream Focus, you may wish to review WP:BURDEN. This encyclopedia is based on sources that can actually be located, not on hypothetical sources in Icelandic and Spanish that may or may not exist.
MichaelQSchmidt, conspicuously absent in your explication of the "sources" is one that actually addresses this relationship, not aspects thereof you may find notable. - BiruitorulTalk 18:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the magic word "relationship" does not have to appear in any reference, any synonym will do. The article on 2003 invasion of Iraq has sources on the "insurgency" and "civil war". "Invasion of Iraq" does not have to appear, any accurate synonym will do. How do we know what a synonym for relationship is? Just look at what the US State Department uses as their website for US relationships, and what the headings are: import and exports, meetings, consulates, cultural exchanges, health and NGOs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a baseless argument, because we know what valid sources on actual relationships look like: like this, or this, or this, or this. The point is that there should be some source(s) that provide some sort of an overview of the topic, should it exist. None do in this case, which is telling. - BiruitorulTalk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like many of these, there is nothing here beyond the normal pedestrian functions of government. There is nothing notable about this relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Meets the standards of WP:N IMHO, contains 14 WP:RSs and the topic in-of itself is notable. The foreign relations of any two nations that are internationaly recognized, wether it be Mexico and Iceland or Peru and Sri Lanka are naotable based on the diplomatic status of the two nations and the relationship (or lack there-off) between them.--White Shadowsyou're breaking up 23:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, verifiability is not tantamount to notability. Plenty of trivial details published in newspapers around the world every day pass entirely unnoticed by this encyclopedia. Just because there isn't anything substantial to say about this relationship (and there isn't, else sources describing it would have surfaced) doesn't imply we should prioritize the trivia found about it and pollute the encyclopedia with it. - BiruitorulTalk 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
International relations is undoubtedly a notable subject that should be covered comprehensively by Wikipedia. An important question is how to organise it. Deleting bits of it in the name of WP:N, which exists to stem mostly promotional stuff, does not help in answering the question, damages the concept of comprehensibility, and is bad for Wikipedia. Blind application of WP:N is bad. This sort of material is what we want in the encyclopedia, and whether it is to be stand-alone, or in a larger article on trivial relations, "Delete" is the wrong way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, not every facet of international relations need be noticed by this encyclopedia, and the norm for relationships that are actually notable is not to do so. To give one example, Israel and Syria interact in fairly important ways every week of every year. That does not mean that, when Israel–Syria relations gets expanded to a decent length, every twist and turn need be recorded there. A competent editor will use books like this one to chronicle the important happenings, but will not include every one of thousands of available press clippings on more mundane aspects of the relationship.
Now, if we don't give priority to that sort of trivia in articles on actually notable relationships (and let's drop the pretense for a moment, because no expert actually believes "Iceland–Mexico relations" is a notable topic), why do it here, other than as an exercise in "watch me do this"? - BiruitorulTalk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biruitorul, I don’t agree with your approach. We should have something on every international relationship. For some relationships, the material will be much more dramatic than for others. So be it. You seem to want to have an independent measure, such that dramatic relationships are covered in detail in proportion to the drama above a certain threshold. Accodingly, this would see Mexico-Iceland afforded no content. This is a rigid, linear scaling method that is almost never properly used anywhere. Better to minimally include the top half dozen most interesting things in the relationship. As a reader, that is what I expect to find in any resource. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see an abundance of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a spinout of the obviously notable articles International relations, Foreign relations of Iceland and Foreign relations of Mexico, sources independent of the subject are not necessary. Are you expecting all sources to not be published in Mexico, Iceland, or by authors or publishers with interest in either Mexico or Iceland? That's just silly. There are not WP:COI issues involved, for which the independent source clause exists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and "not a directory or random collection of information" (like the relationship between Fish and Bicycles, which has more refs than the relations of these two countries, per Google Book Search [30]). Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Neither country even has an ambassador in the other country. The canvassing means that a "Keep" result is highly suspect. Edison (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US doesn't have an embassy or ambassador in Iran, Bhutan, North Korea or Cuba. In the end it comes down to: Are the sources reliable, and is there enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The US is in a state of active hostility with at least Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, and deliberately withholds diplomatic relations. Bhutan is an isolated country which has "had relations with" few other countries. "I did not have relations with that country." This is a red herring and irrelevant to the present discussion. There are not enough good sources for a standalone article, and the information is better presented within "Foreign relations of..." articles for each sovereign relation rather than forming all binary pairs. Edison (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why there is no point using it as an argument for deletion. Stick to notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While on the topic of red herrings, no one is arguing for "forming all binary pairs". We are discussing Iceland–Mexico relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written and sourced article. I have no relationship to Iceland or Mexico. I recommended keep during the last AfD too. Robert Brockway (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think just about any bilateral relations between any two sovereign nations is notable. This case is no different. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You may think that, but consensus reached at numerous AfDs is that that is not the case - one needs sources referring to an actual relationship. - BiruitorulTalk 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that since the consensus in the previous afd for this article was to keep it, and you haven't provided any diffs to prove your case. Even if it did, consensus can change over time. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article, Iceland–Mexico relations, compare to Libstar's: Canada - Iceland relations. Iceland–Mexico is better sourced, it doesn't contain sentences that were cut and paste complete with misplaced capitals and the non-standard spelling of mollusks. How is that article Libstar's standard for bilateral relations and this one he has put up for AFD? He is using the same types of sources in that article that he is condemning in this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard, learn to indent properly. I created Canada - Iceland relations a few days ago so you deliberately select a very early stub for comparison. This AfD does not exist for debating its notablity or suitability. it's a strategy that you're using when you have nothing more to argue. if you are questioning its notability because it does not meet your extremely high bar for notability, please nominate for deletion. however, I can confidentially say Canada - Iceland relations will easily have much more indepth coverage than Mexico-Ireland. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, but maybe if you spent more time on the article you started and less here, your article would be improved and not have material cut and pasted directly from websites. If you do cut and paste, at least add in quotations, or at least change the sentence case to the Wikipedia style or change the wording slightly. All the changes I made to this article were made in a single day. And remember what you say (I am paraphrasing), don't make claims that the article will meet Wikipedia standards, just do the work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Four sources? even discounting the other ten, keep. Thanks to User:VernoWhitney for advertizing this debate on ANI. What a frivolous nomination it was. East of Borschov (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder when number of sources became the criteria for notability. We deleted probably hundreds of bios for BLP1E that probably have more than 10 reliable sources. Source and notability are not interchangeable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely correct! Even two reliable, independent source providing significant coverage will suffice. East of Borschov (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC) As to your question when, it appears that the core of WP:N stabilized at some time in the middle of 2007. But I haven't checked the history of higher-level rules. East of Borschov (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, we have the AfD's so that sort of thinking can't just run rampant unchallenged. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to address the arguments that aren't based on notability? Namely, that there is no rationale for why this material can't be covered in the existing articles "Foreign relations of Mexico" and "Foreign relations of Iceland"? - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Whilst not wanting to comment on this particular article, because it is a little hard to ascertain whether it is notable or not, having non-resident ambassadors does not tell one whether the relationship is notable or not. Monaco–Russia relations is an example of such a relationship. I will also note that File:Iceland-Mexico 2008.png likely fails the WP:NFCC. --RussaviaI'm chanting as we speak 09:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Monaco is so tiny it (population 33,000 less than 2km squared) it is hard to justify an embassy there. I think only France and Italy have embassies. Most countries would get their ambassador in Paris to look after Monaco. LibStar (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are details in many bilateral relationships that are better off in dedicated sub-articles, since WP has suggested maximum article sizes. And the WP system has enough room to accommodate the details. This article is extremely well-referenced without being wordy - every sentence ref'd and I don't see a single sentence that should be eliminated. We can reasonably presume that some or many of the other I/M bilateral relationships articles could be expanded to include the level of detail present here. Including this level of detail would make the Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland articles unwieldy. Novickas (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so not the wordy quotation in accountant speak from Pricewaterhousecoopers? LibStar (talk) 14:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous complaint was that there was no in-depth interpretative material on the relationship, just isolated facts. Now you appear to be taking the opposite approach. When an interpretive source is added it becomes: "[a] wordy quotation in accountant speak". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
indepth coverage does not mean indepth quotations. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of reliable sources allowing for an well-referenced, informative article. The arguments supplied by the nominating editor and others are entirely unconvincing and border on IDONTLIKEIT. No amount of heckling is likely to change my opinion so I would suggest to the nominating editor that he or she needn't bother. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I will challenge the premise of this comment, because after all it's the closing administrator we need to persuade. Yes, the article does have "sources" and references". But validating what, exactly? That a routine head-of-state visit once took place, the type we never normally bother to record in this encyclopedia? Or that Iceland has some puny business venture in Mexico? How about sources that actually discuss, you know, "Iceland–Mexico relations" in their totality? - BiruitorulTalk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Milowent, you generally have something worth saying on AfDs - would you care to comment on my argument above that (a) despite being notable, the material can more appropriately be dealt with in the existing articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland, and, in the alternative, (b) that the sources demonstrate notability accruing to the foreign relations of the individual countries, not necessarily accruing to this particular relationship? - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want to duplicate a large article by cutting and pasting the information into two articles that are even larger? Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Iceland are already large and unwieldy, and why would we want the same information duplicated in the two articles? What good would come from taking the article Rat Pack and duplicating the text in 4 biographies? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the content remains, I don't feel strongly either way about merger in this case--I see that, for example, that Foreign relations of Mexico is a long article, maybe it could be included, maybe not. I see these "Foreign relations of x-y" articles come up in AfD, and I haven't commented very often because I am not well-versed in how these AfDs actually decide which articles get kept and which deleted. In very weak cases of two small un-connected countries where the article has no substantive content or sources, deletion seems appropriate. In cases of two large countries, e.g., Sino-Indian relations, the preference for a separate article is clear. In between we have a huge spectrum. This one seemed sourced enough to be kept. I understand the construct of the distinction you are suggesting to govern the outcome, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject to say if I agree with you or not.--Milowent (talk) 06:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I'm testing the argument, too, as it seems to be solid and policy supported, and I'm rather disappointed no one's directly rebutted it yet. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject approached academically and with reliable sources which in theory is what an encyclopedia does.Comfort shoe (talk) 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:GAL — Get A Life instead of challenging well-done articles on esoteric topics. Wikipedia is not paper, the presence of this article in no way impinges upon the WP experience of any user. This is a waste of time challenging good material when crap is flooding through the in-basket even as we dither. Carrite (talk)
Esoteric is one thing, fictitious is quite another. Find some sources actually discussing "Iceland–Mexico relations" (sort of like how this source describes Brazil – United States relations), and I'll gladly vote to keep. - BiruitorulTalk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, isn't it sort of logical that article topics will have been covered as such by outside sources? WP:GNG, maybe? - BiruitorulTalk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drama about the need to get rid of ARS aside, my deletionist tendencies just cant support getting rid of well-fleshed out bilateral relations articles such as these. It is well referenced, undoubtedly encyclopedic, and (while not a criteria for keeping) quite useful for a political junkie such as myself. There's cruft, and then there's esoteric. This is the latter, not the former. --Mask? 19:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Undoubtedly" encyclopedic? Has any political scientist, journalist, foreign affairs expert, or similar professional ever bothered to examine "Iceland–Mexico relations", under any name? If so, where? If not, why should we? - BiruitorulTalk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:GNG demands "significant coverage" for "a topic", while WP:SOURCES speaks of how "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications", the underlying assumption being that at least one source will deal with a topic as a whole. - BiruitorulTalk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia rules state: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." This meets that standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be confusing 'encyclopedic' with 'previously compiled'. No worries, easy mistake to make. This is one of the joys of WP:NOTPAPER. The subject, while notable, is not in, say, Britannica, because of the esoteric nature of the topic. Encyclopedic in this context is shorthand for well defined in scope (the article is limited to Mexico-Iceland relations, a distinct subject that can be covered) supported by references (not making shit up to fill a page) and documenting (admittedly subjective) important knowledge. Cruft is something to fight against, and I've been doing it for years, but this is not that. --Mask? 23:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key phrase here is "supported by references". I don't dispute the validity of the sources themselves. I do dispute that they amount to a notable relationship, since none of them actually talks about it in any depth. - BiruitorulTalk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concede that the ambassador (a political scientist by training) discussed the relationship with the president (a lawyer and an economist), probably in such generalities as "relations are excellent" (what else could one expect between this particular pair?) and "let's boost trade". But this encyclopedia relies on published material that treats subjects in depth, not on brief records of discussions about a topic. Had the ambassador published an article about this topic in, say, the Journal of Latin American Studies, great. That didn't happen, though, and we're left without evidence of attention paid to the topic in published sources by experts in the field. - BiruitorulTalk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From a procedural standpoint, it is shameless to the point of vandalism to nominate this article so soon again. I know there was precedent, but it is still lousy. From a substantive standpoint, this is another one of those unlikely but notable articles. It is well-sourced, and well-written. The nomination is, again, of the brown peoples are not notable variety. Well, Mexico is a large country and its diplomatic relations are important. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It just so happens that this "topic" doesn't exist outside Wikipedia, meaning it's not only unlikely, but also fictitious. Sure, Mexico – United States relations are notable, but can you show coverage of this topic as such anywhere? Oh, and could we please avoid the not-so-subtle charges of xenophobia against Libstar? That does nothing to improve the "keep" voters' argument, which, as far I can tell, says we should prioritize any and every variety of trivia, provided it's presented in a pretty format. - BiruitorulTalk 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please quote directly the Wikipedia rule that demands this. Your argument assumes that every notable person already has a biography written about them. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that Wikipedia editors cannot write a biography based on the same secondary sources as someone writing a biography. Is someone not notable because there is no published biography, or has no one gotten around to writing one yet? I don't think we can assume every biography of someone dead is already written, it is just silly. Having a published biography almost guarantees notability, but the absence doesn't mean anything. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's a straw-man argument. Of course notable individuals are profiled in obituaries, newspaper and magazine articles, etc. Of course there may be notable relationships covered by journal, newspaper and magazine articles. The fact remains that this particular one has not, other than in passing mentions we'd never normally notice outside this series of nonsense articles, been addressed in any sort of depth by published sources, peer-reviewed or otherwise. - BiruitorulTalk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again it is a standard refutation of your logic and not the strawman fallacy. The absence of a published book or long article dedicated to a topic does not mean the topic is not notable. I know of no such rule. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Icelandic-Mexican relationship exists outside WP - and has since 1964 - most recently in the form of binding bilateral agreements on agriculture, taxation, and energy along with oral commitments to support each other's agendas in the UN. These are admittedly mostly supported by primary sources right now, but that is not a reason to delete, government sources will do to establish notability. If it's lacking in secondary sources, I would say that's probably due to a lack of EN WP editors fluent enough in either Spanish or Icelandic to find the secondary sources. Novickas (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:PSTS; primary sources can't be used to validate the notability of a topic, and need to be discussed by published secondary sources. The government sources merely tell us relations exist, which is not inherently notable (per previous discussions and WP:NOTDIR). And two things about your final point. First, WP:BURDEN requires sources to actually be at hand, and does not permit unprovable speculation about what might exist out there. Second, if we can for a moment drop the pretense that this pairing is anything but laughable, we'd acknowledge that Iceland's notable relationships are probably limited to US, UK, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and maybe a handful of others, while Mexico's are largely limited to US, Canada, UK, France, plus a slew of countries in Central and South America. Not "Iceland–Mexico". - BiruitorulTalk 00:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources determine notability not what makes Biruitorul laugh. It is much easier to determine too, since Biruitorul will not always be available to perform his laugh test. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only two primary sources used are the images and the text of a speech. Both were used for verifiability and not notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, there are several secondary sources in the article. Novickas (talk) 01:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you were confusing primary sources with third party sources. It is a common mistake, no problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information uncovered by User:MichaelQSchmidt is more than what can be crammed in the usual tables of each country's foreign relationships. Pcapping 23:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still an ad hoc collection of incidents and events between the two countries without any study of relations as a whole or assertion of a notable relationship in world events compared to any other random two countries. --BlueSquadronRaven 02:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS - My Delete vote above notwithstanding, it should be abundantly clear to everyone at this point that there's no community consensus at this stage to delete this article. Let's get the AfD closed so we can all put our energy to more productive things. - DustFormsWords (talk)
Keep Looks like a decent survey of rather minimal relations between the two countries. Since somebody has gone to the effort to put it together, let's leave it. It does no harm, and it is a verifiable and rather decently written article on a serious subject. This is not the sort of irrelevant or frivolous material notability guidelines were created to exclude. RayTalk 03:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep International relations are notable and this has an abundance of information and reliable sources. I can't understand how this is not encyclopedic.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 17:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep: Thoroughly sourced, passes WP:GNG with flying colours, and excellently informative article, it should be improved if possible, not deleted. This kind of relatively obscure but well documented articles are what makes WP more useful and informative than any "normal" encyclopedia. I am sorry that the canvassing incident smeared some of the keep !votes, since they for sure have more merit than the WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments of the delete ones. --Cyclopiatalk 00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, saying "strongest possible keep" doesn't make your vote count twice as much. And it then makes you look silly if you're every asked to vote in an AfD on science, Earth or homo sapiens, because you've already spent your strongest keep on Iceland-Mexico relations. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
excellent point DustFormsWords, I would save "strongest possible keep" for my own city since I know it definitely exists. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can use my maximum keep intensity on many different articles. I have a very high keep-ability! (for the record: I know perfectly well it doesn't make it count more, it's just a way to say what I feel about). --Cyclopiatalk 13:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to whoever closes this thing: Obviously this is going to be closed as "no consensus". However, it would be awesome (though certainly not required) if you could provide some analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments proffered here, rather than just stating there was no consensus and moving on. Thanks. YilloslimeTC 01:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. There's obviously going to have to be community discussion about these kind of articles generally and a neutral summary of what's gone on here would be of assistance. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, its already clear that there are bilateral relation articles that are clearly notable, articles which are clearly not notable, and a huge swath in-between where editors argue about the quality of sources, whether those sources are "significant coverage", etc., and opposing factions exist about that. I'm not sure this one AfD viewed in a vaccuum provides much guidance.--Milowent (talk) 05:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are plenty of sources specifically about this topic, more so than many other topics on Wikipedia. Easily passes WP:NOTE and its WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Close however you like. Those telling you how to close have already voted. --Oakshade (talk) 04:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A search on Google and Google News archives turns up nothing that suggests this church meets our criteria at WP:ORGDougweller (talk) 05:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What I found on the search was about a church of the same name in Florida. I found nothing under the name of founders George Rayburn or Nyla Rayburn. Mandsford (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a brief summary of the article to Glendale, Arizona, omitting all (or most of) the detail on beliefs, which sound orthodox and hence NN: they would be appropriate to a church website but not WP. Such merger is usually the best solution for articles on subjects of local significance only. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glendale has a lot of churches for its 250,000 people. Mandsford (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (not merge). This church is non-notable, and the Glendale article does not include a list of local churches (as most city articles don't). --MelanieN (talk) 04:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merging seems to be of little gain as even modestly-sized communities could/would be overwhelmed by brief mentions of the various businesses & societies, small & large, pervasive in any hamlet or city. — Scientizzle 14:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Personal_name#Nonhuman_personal_names. Does appear to be a fork/duplication, per Savonneux. Additionally, sources do not seem persuasive at this point. There may be more to say on the topic than is currently said in the existing article, but this is a reason to improve the existing article, not to fork it. If the section becomes too long as a result, then consensus to split it off to a sub-article may emerge. I am accordingly deleting, then redirecting as a potential search term. Shimeru (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. This is surely stretching the boundaries as to what sort of articles are included in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more than a dictionary definition, with most of the other content bordering on original research. Worth a brief mention in the article about pets at best. JIP | Talk 06:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. As per Alan and JIP. This is definitely stretching the boundaries as to what sort of articles are included in any encyclopedia - WP is about knowledge, it's NOT a repository for poorly conceived magazine articles.--Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it may bea GF contrib from a minor.--Kudpung (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is well sourced, despite the fact it is a stub. There are entire books written on the subject, as you can see here. This goes far beyond the requirement for WP:GNG. The rationale behind the deletion is nothing more than WP:JNN ("just not notable"), while the other comments appear to be WP:PERNOM, PERMAJORITY, and Just unencyclopedic. Shaliya waya (talk) 07:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that an article may be referenced and there may be books on the topic but it still should not be included in WP. In the interest of long term maintenance and to set some sort of boundary or bottom line I feel that there are some articles that are not worthy of inclusion. I don't want to be snobbish about it but pet naming is not the sort of knowledge that I would expect to be in an encyclopedia. We should have articles on history, mammals, cats, pets etc but not pet naming. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are very valid occasions for "just not encyclopedic" if applied with common sense, and IMO this article is one of them. Don't look for a WP Guideline about it though, because See WP:UNENCYC. A decision to keep or delete this article will have to be based on the closer's integrity.--Kudpung (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's already covered in two topics Personal_name#Nonhuman_personal_names: "In some cultures, pets or sporting animals are sometimes given names similar to human names." and in Name: "The name of a specific entity is sometimes called a proper name." --Savonneux (talk) 08:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after looking at sources and trying to find something more tangible. Pets have names, boats [and ships] have names; in other words, X has a name and it's usually based on cultural attitude.--Savonneux (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see this as any more notable than the topic of what color to paint the kitchen. Mandsford (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it very notable then as there are thousands of sources which cover that topic in detail. Here's one which took just a few seconds to locate: The Kitchen book.
Delete Seems more like a dictionary definition. Joal Beal (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, naming pets is clearly part of the social construction of biography, which is why lab rats don't get names. Polarpanda (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at most, merge to an article on pets. This is just a content fork, not different from creating an article on reading literature as a fork of literature. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who claim lack of sources seem to ignore Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state. This article is just a stub, and has a great potential for expansion. If you go to Barnes and Noble, you will find at least several books entirely devoted to this topic. That is by far enough to meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Those who say this doesn't appear simply personally not to like the idea of this article. The dicdef argument is not enough to delete it either. Look at WP:NOT#DICDEF. It says Definitions. Although articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic, they should provide other types of information about that topic as well. Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible. This says they should be expanded, not deleted. Being short or being a stub does not mean it is a dicdef. Yes, it is true that the majority now say it should be deleted. But these are mostly just votes. The keeps here have much better points. Shaliya waya (talk) 06:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is very notable as there are numerous books devoted to the topic. And one can immediately find other relevant sources such as the NYT - Naming your pet dog (is) often a sacred rite. The contrary opinions just seem to be blatant cases of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, unsupported by neither fact nor policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Heaping all the contrary opinions into one group makes it simple. At least two of us has pointed out it's a fork. --Savonneux (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are news articles about it, as found above, as well as plenty of books mentioning this. DreamFocus 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - classical case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. It cannot be denied that pet naming is a notable and thoroughly discussed feature of many human cultures. The article now is for sure just a stub, but Shaliya waya above gets it right. --Cyclopiatalk 12:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can be denied. The act of "verbing X" may be extremely commonplace ("fence painting", for instance) while not being a topic which can be covered given our standards for sourcing. As Savonneux noted, this subject is already covered in sufficient detail by the existing Personal name#Nonhuman personal names. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can be denied if you want to deny the obvious, of course. Fence painting would be a perfectly reasonable subject; there's plenty of references on Google Books for example to make it a notable per WP:GNG. It is very difficult to find an extremly commonplace act that hasn't RS coverage. Pet naming is not one of these theoretical exception, since it has resources on it. Moreover, Personal name#Nonhuman personal names doesn't have the same scope (i.e. it talks also of names that nonhuman animals give themselves), and it doesn't have the same level of detail which should be expect by an article on pet naming.--Cyclopiatalk 15:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In Japan, dogs are often given non-Japanese first names, such as "John" or "Charley." From Personal name#Nonhuman personal names. I'm fairly certain it's not about names animals give each other. --Savonneux (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this is notable, though the book mentioned here is in a few hundred libraries. [31] Apparently a small medical cult, no independent references I have been able to find. If it is notable, the other two articles should be merged into it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although there's not much here, and the article doesn't source beyond the two books, it's clear that Dr. Thomas L. Hanna's methods for are widely referred to in publications about pain management[32]. This probably can be rescued. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not see the reason for deleting this artcle. Clinical Somatics is a forerunner of such present day respectable philosophical schools as somaesthetics (Richard Shusterman), part of a larger "turn to the body" in philosophy and cognitive science (Mark Johnson, Shaun Gallagher, Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, and others). Thomas Hanna himself was, I believe, a perfectly ordinary professional philosopher before turning to practical bodywork. The link between his two careers may be (I haven't read it) his "Bodies in revolt". The interest in embodiment current philosophy goes back to such respectable figures as John Dewey and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Well, I hope I did this right. It is the first time I enter into a debate about an article in Wikipedia. (comment added by Jacob Hilden Winslow)
Looks like the first time you've contributed anything to Wikipedia. [33]. It is somewhat unusual when a person's first contribution is a comment in the AfD forum, so I'm wondering how you found the debate. I took the liberty of placing the comment after Gene93k's addition, rather than at the top of the page, and putting on the label (you're arguing keep). Normally I don't tamper with other people's edits, but this is a matter of display. Always make sure to sign the comment with what they call the "four tildas" (You add the symbol ~ four times-- on many keyboards, it's a key in the upper left hand corner, above the tab key). In any event, Happy editing. Mandsford 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. No hits on PubMed or Scholar; no relevant press coverage -- hits are press releases. This is a proprietary term (marked as trademark in some press releases) and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
Delete. Something has gone wrong with the find sources template, which is now letting press releases through. All the Google News returns are spam. Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
One of the interdependent articles. Even if the main one, Clinical somatics, is notable, this one is not notable separately and should be merged into it., DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into clinical somatics, which, of the three articles in the group, would get the yearbook photo for "most likely to succeed". Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect or very selectively Merge to Muscle memory. This pseudoscientific notion should not receive WP:UNDUE weight on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of three grouped articles. I speedied this one as A7, but it was challenged)- No apparent evidence of any notability. The main article is the one on Clinical somatics. If by any chance that is notable, this should be redirect to it. Everything I can find on the googles seems to be derived from a press release, for example [34] and [35] DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original speedy tagger. In contesting the speedy deletion, the creator did assert notability -- that of the book on which this private training company has based its curriculum. That would warrant an article on the book if reliable sources about it can be found, but not on this company. Also, per DGG. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Although clinical somatics appears to be notable, the institute itself doesn't appear to be. Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy declined by an IP with no previous edits. Marketing man with a few upcoming books, only reference is the man's Facebook page. Speedy delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the original poster of the content and tried to include as much information as I could about the books and their impact - most of my knowledge comes from his old books which I can't reference but I will reference the new ones when it comes out. It also rerferances a site by the canadian government that is some validity! What does it need to stay? - RichardDober —Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardDober (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any mention of Winchester on that Canadian government site. So to establish notability that's worthless. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the Communication logs link (citation 4) he is the sixth entry down. What more does this article need me—Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, got it. But that only qualifies as a trivial reference, not even close to being enough. It's merely a directory entry. What you would need is non-trivial third-party coverage by a reliable source such a newspaper article that's entirely about Winchester. Something like that. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly suspect, given the lack of google hits. I believe the "Bruce Winchester" in that listing is someone else. As screwed-up as the Canadian government is, I'm hoping they wouldn't hire a 24-year old as a senior policy advisor. I think this article is probably a hoax. freshacconci talktalk 23:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 The article is written as a resume. Google returned a grand total of 21 hits, most of them from Wikipedia. No evidence of notability. In any case, I don't see why this even needed an AfD; it's a pretty blatant CSD G11. --LPtalk 04:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I brought this to AfD was to avoid an edit war over the speedy tag. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - again. The curious lack of Google hits suggest hoax as much as non-notable bio. — RHaworth(talk·contribs) 04:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete There is no serious claim of significance in the article. I can find no reliable sources at all. The only fact in the article that is cited to a reliable source is the fact that he once worked for a company called "Flagship Solutions ", and that is all that the source tells us. (As Blanchardb pointed out above, it is just a directory entry.) (Interesting is this forum post in which Bruce Hamilton Winchester boasts about being the subject of a Wikipedia article.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, too, that as of this writing none of the replies mention the deletion tag, while the original post says something about our "strict" inclusion guidelines. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. It blew up in his face over there. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Player is non-notable soccer player. Has never played professional soccer at any level (the CSL and PDL are not a professional leagues), no relevant collegiate soccer experience. Player fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYNJonBroxton (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The CSL is not a fully professional league, as per WP:FPL. --JonBroxton (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? The source Traxs has provided seems to suggest otherwise, and the reference at WP:FPL indicating that it is not fully pro is a broken link. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first link states "The CSL is Canada’s only professional soccer league with close to 300 players, the majority of which are on professional contracts playing for the league’s 10 teams in two divisions." - it suggests not all the players are professional. Bettia(talk) 12:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this the same Kevin Zimmerman that plays for the Kansas City club?--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by the Kansas City club you mean the Kansas City Wizards, there is nobody called Kevin or Zimmermann playing for that team. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the [search result, the article is not in the top three links but on the first page. SOmething in the KC Star that requires a pay to visit... is there a team called the "Kansas City Attack" ?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When that article was published, this Kevin Zimmerman was 12. The KC Attack is a kids club according to this. So it might be the same guy but probably has no bearing on his notability..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not even call it essay (which is supposed to be a coherent exposition on a certain subject), since it consists of two basically unrelated parts: one about hypothetical connections between Nazarene Christianity and Islam, another is about Sana'a manuscripts. Another problem is that there is no established term "Nazarene Islam". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.69.71 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Incoherent essay. EuroPride (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Nom provides no legitimate rationale for deletion. The fact that a list duplicates a category is not a reason for deletion and is specifically addressed in WP:CLN in this phrase: Developers of these redundant systems [Categories, Lists and Navigation Templates] should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. This AfD should be closed or nomination withdrawn.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even factoring in the additional rationale from the previous Afd (for which I apologize for not including in comment above) that essentially Some entries aren't notable (since as of today most if not all are), no valid rationale for deletion is on the table. If an entry is not notable or cannot be supported with sources, it can be removed from the list. No reason to delete the entire list.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unsourced list with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename -- no reason to delete navigation list, no requirement for it to be ' notable' or sourced as it is the list of wikipedia's articles. (User) Mb (Talk) 14:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider renaming. No valid reason for deletion stated. Duplicating a category is specifically given as an invalid reason, and some entries being wrong makes no sense either. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can see no reason to delete this. Complements category per WP:CLN. The people on the list are notable, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is notable. i'd say that being a member of the group is a defining part of these people's lives. Could use some more references, obviously, but that's not a reason to delete. If there is doubt over any of the entries, and they can't be verified, then they can simply be removed from the list.--BelovedFreak 11:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Non-notable organisation. It sounds on the face of it that it should be notable - it has notable founders - but this search returns only 56 hits, so let's say it's not notable yet. Unreferenced, too. Fails WP:ORG, WP:RSandy (talk) 08:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, nothing much out there yet. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails the GNG badly, and arguably fails WP:ENT as well, with only one significant role in a notable series (the Edison Twins). The rest are minor roles, or non notable productions, or voice acting, for which he has received zero attention apart from being mentioned by name is cast lists. Keep arguments are not convinving, delete arguments are more solid. Fram (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently most notable for several guest spots as "Adam Berman" on Danger Bay, he does not meet either WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. Google searches reveal database and wiki-mirror hits but no notable coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:ENT is intended to supply guidelines for situations in which a personality is likely to have reliable sourcing, right? I don't dispute that this individual exists and has had some roles, I just can't find any coverage of him. I'd be happy to change my vote to keep (of course) if anybody else has more success finding actual sources. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the body of his work isverifiable in reliable sources... for example: [39][40][41][42][43][44] He need not neccesarily meet the GNG if it can be determined his work meeting ENT can be otherwise verified. While most certainly nice for writing a comprehensive article, wide and in-depth coverage is not an absolute mandate if his notability can be determined for his body of work and not instead for wide coverage of the individual, as ENT encourages finding those reliable sources (as above) confirming his works. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 00:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some kind of policy backing for what you're asserting here? To say that WP:ENT even implies your conclusion above seems far-fetched to me, at best. It says very plainly up front "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." There is no dispute that the subject here meets one or more of the criteria in WP:ENT, but it is unclear that he meets WP:GNG as a result. WP:ENT is essentially indicated to predict notability, not guarantee it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is made per policy WP:V and consensus reached through discussions and AFDs and talkpages and noticeboards for several years. ENT and GNG are not exclusionary. Meeting one OR the other can be enough to allow consideration of notability. An actor with a brief career might recieve wide coverage in multiple reliable sources and merit inclusion through the GNG even though his short career might fail ENT. That does not exclude him. An actor might have an career that spans decades and have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and merit inclusion through meeting ENT. Even if he otherwise maintains a low profile and fails GNG by not having wide coverage in popular press, that "low profile" does not exclude him. One need not meet both guidelines. ENT is no more predictive than is the GNG itself, as guideline well acknowledges that not eveything that is notable makes headlines.
To expand (hope folks do not see this as TLDR), guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (people) specifically allow acceptance of notability for WP:Verified assertions without always demanding the topic must also meet the GNG. For instance, WP:ANYBIO allows that an assertion of winning a notable award or receiving multiple nominations for such awards shows notability... as long as the assertion is properly WP:Verified in reliable sources. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:ATH (under discussion) has long accepted per consensus that performing at a professional level in a major sport is acceptable in allowing inclusion. It does not also demand meeting GNG. WP:PROF states that someone could be "notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." WP:ENT allows that notability may be considered if the actor has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" but does not mandate that the subject must also meet the GNG.
And again, while all guideline criteria absolutely require meeting policy WP:V, it is no where mandated that a topic "must" also meet the predictive GNG. It is the verification of any assertion in reliable sources that is mandated... and notability does not always depend the depth of coverage of the topic or the individual. So with respects, a topic missing out on meeting the GNG is not the final nail in the coffin. Notability is not always a contest to see who is more popular in press coverage. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 19:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Darkwind (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can only verify in databases... need secondary sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Arskwad (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't. Primary sources are fine, the credits of these series, if there is no possible reason to doubt the information. DreamFocus 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable voice actor, obviously. Look at the list of things this person has been in! DreamFocus 15:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More notable than a breadbox. The relative notability can be questioned, but it meets the standards to stay here. tedder (talk) 06:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENT. The mere fact we can "look at the list of things this person has been in!" does not actually mean anything. He could have been an extra in all of these movies for all we know. WP:ENT is clear that an actor needs to have significant roles in notable films. Provide a reliable, verifiable, independent source that he has had multiple, significant roles in notable films. SnottyWongtalk 00:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This artist seems to not meet WP:ARTIST. Only one of the sources seems to discuss him to any degree beyond passing reference and that is not much more than a blurb on a probably non reliable source. ALXVA (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malicious Editing
You should be aware that ALXVA has been systematically posting deletion notices on contributions by Drmissio. This has occurred after a heated discussion about Fred J. Strain and Who’s_Who_in_Nebraska. He won deletion for Fred J. Strain which was totally wrong. He lost deletion for the time being on Who’s_Who_in_Nebraska. He also lost deletion of Mary_Lincoln_Crume. He has posted for deletion the following contributions:
ALXVA should be censored for his actions. To systematically look through a contributor's list of contributions and then attempt to get them deleted is malicious. This is why you will see that Drmissio has left Wikipedia for good. Drmissio (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Take your complaints to WP:ANI if you feel that is appropriate. This article is in AfD and will be judged on its merits. How it got here does not concern us. If it deserves to stay, it will stay. SnottyWongtalk 01:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article suggests the artist is notable. Perhaps something of greater significance can be teased out of the list of sources...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete provisionally. Changed because of concerns over verification. The editor who could perhaps satisfy this has departed.[45] If material in the article (exhibitions, inclusion in books listed in "further information" section) could be properly substantiated with page numbers, quotations from sources etc., then I would be for keep. No prejudice to recreation if these conditions are satisfied. Ty 01:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on its HTML formatting, I would guess that the listing is cut and pasted from this pay site, the online version of the Artists' Blue Book, already listed as a reference. A Google Books search of the print version Artists' Blue Book does not indicate a listing. Regardless, there is no indication that these sources cover him in anything other more than a passing or trivial way. There is no indication or even assertion, that this person meets WP:ARTIST, and I do not think anything else meets WP:BASIC. I'm open to somebody showing the kind of in-depth or multiple significant pieces required by WP:BASIC, but it isn't there now and I can't find it. ALXVA (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources in google scholar or local uni library. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Appears to have local notability, but not much more than that. If anyone has any sources that prove otherwise (and can satisfy WP:ARTIST), now would be the time to produce them. SnottyWongtalk 01:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nominiation withdrawn in light of sources found.. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews [46]. will reconsider if someone can find something in Turkmeni or Russian LibStar (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: what's wrong with English sources? Narrow the search to Bouygues-Turkmen connection, year=2009, it's there. I doubt that this concrete box in the desert is worth of an aricle but at least it is sourceable. East of Borschov (talk) 04:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you have English sources, please provide as well. LibStar (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English news coverage is limited to construction, literally "another box in the desert, hail Caesar". Very little relevance to museum. East of Borschov (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In travel books, it's usually referred to as the "National Carpet Museum" [47]. The article could be easily rolled out [48] to be made longer. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepOver 600 google book hits. Turkmen carpet is very notable and this is the national museum of Turkmenistan. I rest my case.. I can't understand why in the hell the nominator would look in google news of all places for information about a museum. It isnt news. In future consider looking in google books or just a general search instead as I've found 12 sources to expand this into a start class.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat 12:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gnews is not the arbiter. Plenty of other sources exist. Ty 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced article about unremarkable person, which now seems to have some COI/autobiographical activity. Way too many red links and unlinked companies for this person to meet notability criteria. Simple Bob (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find anything except a linkDin linklin (one of those) about this guy. Did find an article about a "Michael R. Duck" who invented some kinda automatic coffee machine but it doesnt appear to be who this [article] is about.--Savonneux (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although Peking Duck is more famousKeep Don't shoot the duck just because they poked their head over the parapet and edited their own page. OK he's not as notable as the Peking Duck, but he is still a big wheel in the Asian trade fair world, even if he is not such a hit in Somerset. I'll put in some refs as this appears to be the main problem.Harrypotter (talk) 18:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Gotta love the photo, but this is an ad. That's where this hardcore Inclusionist draws the line. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the best I found was a trivial bit that verified their name's origin and The Santa Fe New Mexican, 27 March 2009, "ABACABB BREATHES LIFE INTO DEATHCORE" by Vaughn Fortier-Shultz ("a freshman at Academy for Technology and the Classics"). Not enough for me. duffbeerforme (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Considering all the legendary state institutes of technology-- MIT or Cal Tech, Georgia Tech or VPI, I feel sorry for Ohio that such a grand name is trademarked for what appears to be online classes. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how to properly post here because I'm fairly new to Wikipedia. Nonetheless, this article has merit for several reasons. Ohio Institute of Technology in both of its incarnations has graduated thousands of students in total. Companies seeking student records verification on potential new hires have been using this article 2-8 times a month to find the appropriate contact information and the history of both organizations. Both incarnations were significant and have worked with larger Universities in a variety of capacities from partnerships to buy outs. The article may have to be changed slightly or reorganized. It is also apparent that there was intentional destructive spamming of this article going on by disclosed and undisclosed users. Thank you for your help and suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.117.94 (talk) 04:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate your thoughts on the subject; however, the article fails Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I had a really useful article that was deleted for the same reason (see:here). Cheers!--It's me...Sallicio! 00:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance to Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, what specifically is not notable and/or verifiable? Is the issue that the article needs to be rewritten or reorganized? Your detailed feedback is very helpful as the burden of proof is on the party making the initial assertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.117.94 (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point of factual clarification: Every incarnation or transformation of Ohio Institute of Technology since the 1950's has been classroom training by certified instructors. No classes were offered online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.117.94 (talk) 02:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usual criterion for the notability of higher educational institutions, regardless of how they happen to be titled, is whether they are in real existence and award degrees. This school did award an Associates degree, as proven by [49] and [50], and a Bachelor's degree, as proven by [51] and [52] so it counts as more than a trade school awarding certificates. . I hope that someone with access to proper sources will clarify the article. A college does not have to be of the quality of MIT to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without coverage in reliable sources, there is really nothing upon which an article can be built. I appreciate that some basic information may be verifiable, but we can't properly cobble together occasional tidbits of verified information to create an article. That's why the GNG should be applied rather than the "usual criterion" mentioned by DGG but undiscoverable in our notability standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete School fails WP:School. No reliable sources. Traxs7 (Talk) 02:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems DeVry University (incorporated) used to be called OIT but they dropped the name in the '90s. This one allegedly incorporated in 2002 has zero mention, anywhere.--Savonneux (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But Rewrite: This article should primarily be about the original OIT, with a separate section on the 2nd one. (I guess two articles might be written, but let's see if we can keep it all in one, because it may not be too lengthy.) I already started on the rewrite. This is a decent rescue candidate.--Milowent (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search shows results. The first one being from the New York Times called Careers; Electronics Field Offers Opportunity and dated Feb 27, 1980. Book search shows results also, but not sure if any of the more than four hundred things listed are notable. The many news results prove its notable though. DreamFocus 14:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to DeVry University. It is part of the history of that university. Later incarnations do not appear to be notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Desperate cleanup necessary, but the article can stand on its own. The DeVry connection can be handled with {{main}} on the DeVry side. tedder (talk) 06:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to DeVry University. This institution is an earlier version of DeVry. The small amount of text in this article will never grow larger because the institution is now called something else. This all belongs in a "History" section in DeVry University. SnottyWongtalk 01:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I am not in agreement with that merge option is because DeVry University has multiple campuses, and this institution predated DeVry. Nevertheless, that's just an organizational issue and the content will be accessible with either outcome.--Milowent (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After 417 Ghits, I am not convinced that this person is notable enough for inclusion. The COI on the article runs rampant, and I cannot seem to find enough reliable, third-party coverage of the subject to merit keeping this article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doggone it, WP:ILIKEIT, and the works of "multiplism" were very WP:INTERESTING, but I see no proof that this has established notability outside the local area (another cite would be [53]). Unfortunately, it's difficult to search for this individual's nom de plume, in that it is too similar to the title of the famous film Victor, Victoria. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some more refs.[54](used in the article),[55], [56], [57]. Ty 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided Never was totally certain about his notability, but the sources provided satisfied me enough to watchlist the article (I may have been a bit distracted by the pretty pictures). Also, while I can't find copies online, this article reads, "The home has become a Rutherford landmark, [...] TV crews covered his unveiling events, and even Weird NJ magazine has focused on it." If a reliable source confirms the existence of reliable sources on a subject, but those confirmed reliable sources cannot be accessed, are those confirmed reliable sources invalidated? (Not rhetorical). I don't believe a subject has to be very widely known to be significant; state-wide sounds reasonable. liquidluck✽talk 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source can be used for information in it, including that other sources have also covered the subject. 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Keep per discussion to date. There are enough sources for the subject. The article is in a decent state, but needs expansion from the sources, and at least there's no shortage of free images, for a change. Ty 03:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't think the references that have been found so far are quite enough to pass the notability guideline. The only significant coverage seems to be from two local sources. If more significant coverage can be found, I would change my mind to keep. Robofish (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, "The home has become a Rutherford landmark, [...] TV crews covered his unveiling events, and even Weird NJ magazine has focused on it." Ty 02:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added a couple of sources that transliterate the subject's first name as "Ahmed". There may be other transliterations that I haven't yet checked (such as "El" rather than "Al" and other possible renditions of "Bahrani") and I note that searches for the name in Arabic get quite a few hits (Google Books, Google News), but I don't know how many, if any, of them are for this subject. I would also note that I see no evidence for this being a "vanity article", so the nominator's accusation is, as unsourced negative content, a violation of WP:BLP, which applies to discussions as well as to articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is evidence towards notability [58], the other is just an exhibition listing [59]. I'm Neutral now, but happy change to keep if other sources can be found.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article suggests he is notable. Rirunmot 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:CREATIVE is the appropriate criterion to consider in this case, rather than WP:PROF. But a single reliable source attesting to a show in an art gallery (the other source mentions him only trivially) isn't the "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work" required by that criterion, and there isn't anything in the article that his work is in the permanent collections of major museums or would pass through some other means. I tried searching Google news archive for anything about his Olympic ring sculpture in Doha but came up empty. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As sources the article uses the artist website, the (apparently broken) website of an organization called Ixtlan Industries, and the websites last.fm and Encyclopedia Metallum, which both use user-submitted content. I searched the web for sources (the artist name is written in Latin letters in the Russian language as well according to the website). I've been unable to come up with any reliable source that suggests notability, only with hits for the original Senmuth and blog entries and similar stuff on the article subject. Nothing significant for the original artist name in Latin or Cyrillic letters either. The Encyclopedia Metallum entry states that "Senmuth distributes his own CDs" and is not on a label. I suggest, sadly, deletion for failing WP:MUSICBIO, as this does not pass muster as it is. Hekerui (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strongly oppose - I don't know about Senmuth but Tenochtitlan definetly should be left. See discussion at Russian wikipedia. It's very unique and important project. Hugo.arg (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I google-translated your argument and you seem to say that Tenochtitlan has had 500 last.fm listeners, was sold at amazon.com and and is on Encyclopaedia Metallum. On last.fm they have their tracks as free downloads, amazon doesn't actually have their stuff available from what I can tell and Encyclopaedia Metallum uses submitted content but is specialized in metal music and its threshold of inclusion is much lower than that of Wikipedia. The Russian Wiki page doesn't link to reliable sources, unfortunately. Hekerui (talk) 08:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are all reviews, articles, mostly in independent sources about the project "Tenochtitlan". Hugo.arg (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 01:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources have been discovered. tedder (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I marked the above article for speedy deletion as a duplicate of the article being discussed here. ialsoagree (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE/nomination. ialsoagree (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a duplicat of Naji Hibbert. If it were not for this AFD I would have deleted it already, but please include Naji Hibbert as a kind of outcome from this debate too. I am voting to delete Naji Hibbert as well even though it has correct capitalization. Seems not to meet WP:Athlete. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aside from the provided external link, no indication of notability could be found. the link provided is not enough to show notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Unfortunately "Science fiction" isn't a very friendly search term so I cannot comment much on source existance beyond that I did not see any on first several pages. Otherwise does not ascertain notability. No reception/development sections. — Hellknowz ▎talk 15:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until someone can pull up some magazine reviews from that era, all we can show is that the game existed, which alone isn't enough. Marasmusine (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No citations to reliable third-party sources; no assertion or evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think a brief article about this could work; it's mentioned in several different trek books, and of course the DVDs themselves could be ref'd. Chzz ► 01:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is a important part of Star Trek Voyager. This article is linked by ten or so Star Trek articles. I know this article needs cleanup, that is why I put the cleanup tag on it. It should not be deleted just because it is poorly written. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepGoogle Books shows at least 7 relevant hits. No objection to merging this, to somewhere relevant, though. Jclemens (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Six of the seven supposedly "relevant" hits are in-universe primary sources that fail to substantiate notability; the seventh is a passing reference, also failing to establish notability. The subject does not have the significant third-party coverage required to justify independent coverage of the topic, and there's no evidence there's any material out there that could be used to offer an appropriate encyclopedic treatment of the topic anywhere. --EEMIV (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to borg. Nothing but primary and promotional sources on this subject. But could easily add this content to another article, which could be spun out once there was some independent source of notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Borg, it's not overly notable, and is an element of the Borg. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think what's being missed by the keep voters here is understanding of notability. Are the unicomplexes important to the Star Trek universe? Absolutely. Are they mentioned in many places in the Star Trek universe? Yes, no question. But that isn't the point. This project is not Memory Alpha. This is an encyclopedia, and as such we rely on reliable, independent sources to support the notability of a subject. This article fails Wikipedia:Notability. There are no references, and the only external links are to Memory Alpha pages. This article can't be notable because the universe in which the subject exists thinks its notable. If that were the case, then EVERYthing would be notable enough for inclusion. The keep votes here all rely on the notion that its notable because the fictional universe thinks its notable. The keep votes are invalid, and do not override notability considerations. Further, as WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy notes, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" We know that the fictional unicomplexes existing in the fictional universe is true. We can verify that it is true. That doesn't make this a valid encyclopedia article. Until recently, this had been a redirect for three years. If the keep voters want this kept, they'd better come up with some reliable secondary sources sustaining the notability of this subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Unicomplex is a major importance in the Star Trek universe. Just like USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) and USS Voyager and United Federation of Planets. If it were a minor part of the Star Trek universe, such as a romulan disruptor, then it should be merged into a larger article. This article can become a much larger article because of its important role in Star Trek. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 15:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is of such major importance, then there should be no problem identifying reliable secondary sources. If such sources do not exist, then there is no notability outside of the Star Trek universe. I don't dispute it's notable WITHIN the universe. It is, as you say, of major importance within the Star Trek universe. That's not the point. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, USS Voyager (Star Trek) suffers the same problems as this article; all references are primary sources. There's no secondary sources at all. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One relevant news search result and four book results when I search for "Unicomplex" and "Star Trek". It is a notable location, mentioned enough times in the series, both television and books. Wikipedia is not paper, no shortage of space. DreamFocus 08:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One relevant news search result? Ref please? Also, and again, notable to the series isn't enough. It doesn't matter if it is the most central object in the entire fictional universe. Whether it's mentioned in every single episode, every single book, it matters not. We must have secondary sources, not PRIMARY sources, to sustain notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that almost ALL articles on television shows have just primary sources. That is because television shows are not going to be talked about on other channels unless in a advertisement. Your not going to see CBS news talking about some show that is made and aired on Fox. This is because that would be helping their competition, that is why there are no television news sources. Newspapers tend to not publish articles about television shows unless they are very popular and have been on the air for 10 or so years. So that leaves books and internet sources. There are numerous online articles on unicomplex see here [60]. As well as several books, seven of them are on google books. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is notable. There are no other subjects called "Unicomlex" that I am aware of. This article needs to be improved, not merged because it is written bad. After all, wikipedia is not paper. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable, you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable secondary sources. If you can't, then there's no out of universe notability, and this article needs to be merged. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article can be cleaned up to meet quality standards, and references can be found. At the very least, it should be merged. You may not be able to find many, if any secondary sources for every part of a franchise like Star Trek, which may only be present through news reports (which do not often focus on single television episodes or parts of the storyline,) advertisements, or informative sites for the franchise or online encyclopedias, which has been previously discussed. When a substantial amount of primary sources are available, it should be taken into consideration. I will try to improve the article. Wolfeye90 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then find those reliable secondary sources. You're right. You can't find reliable secondary sources for every part of a franchise like Star Trek. If you can't, then it doesn't belong here. If all you have is primary sources, then take it to Memory Alpha. This is a fundamental principle on this project (see second pillar of Wikipedia:Five pillars). Policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability demands we can verify this information. Doing so with primary sources is discouraged, and if an article fails to have secondary sources supporting it, it fails Wikipedia:Notability. Simply saying 'let's clean it up' isn't enough. For several days now this article has been on AfD and still not one secondary source has been provided. Marking it for clean up in the hope that someday it will eventually have secondary sources means providing an extremely low metric for inclusion. It's like saying "Hey, let's make an article. Maybe 20 years from now there will be a secondary source found on it. Don't delete it! We might find it!". Also see User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up. There are 57,000 articles tagged for cleanup, a 3.5 year backlog. If you can't find reliable secondary sources now, years after publishing of the primary source, it's highly unlikely you're going to find them. If you can't, take it to Memory Alpha. Memory Alpha doesn't require secondary sources. We do. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then the article should be merged into Borg. Even with secondary sources, the article would contain very little information. Your hostilities are not needed, Hammersoft. This is simply a discussion on possibilities.Wolfeye90 17:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my intention to be hostile. The nature of AfD is debate. I am debating. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hammersoft please see Wikipedia:There is no deadline. According to POLICY there is NO deadline for articles. Now that we know this article needs to be improved the article will be improved. Also if this article has to be deleted or merged 3/4 ths of the television articles also would have to be deleted or merged because they too don't have second party sources either. So this deletion discussion is snowed --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has existed for more than five years. When do you suppose reliable secondary sources will be found? Five, ten, twenty, fifty years? When is too long, too long? There's a repeated assertion on this AfD that secondary sources can be found. So find them. Waiting five more years isn't going to help. Voyager ended many years ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Borg. I have no trouble finding sources but the matter seems best dealt with as part of our main article on that race. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing references in Cinefantastique. Searching cinefantastiqueonline.com for "unicomplex" returns no hits [61]. Nor does searching all 173 issues of this fan magazine at moviemags.com [62]. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources you would find would be in web archives. The unicomplex was mainly in Star Trek Voyager and in the late Star Trek the next Generation seasons so that would be between 1994-2004. The above websites are about current magazines. The unicomplex would not be in current news articles because Star Trek The Next Generation ender 15 years ago and Voyager ended 6 years ago. If you had searched back in 2004 there would have been many second party sources because the Unicomplex was the one of the main settings in the Voyager series finally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those sites are not comprehensive - moviemags just does magazine covers and patchy coverage of contents. It's quite useless for proving a negative. Google does enough in this case to demonstrate that deletion is not sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying Google does enough, but I'm not seeing it. If the references are out there, add them. I don't see them. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say please to get someone to add references? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick search and added a few sources to the article. So now hammersoft cannot say that there are no results on google (because one you screen out unwanted words you get 1,220 results). --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, those of you who think references will be found, and we should just tag it and move on; Species 8472 was tagged as needing reliable sources on January 6, 2008 [63]. Two and a half years later, still no references. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: couldn't find good enough sources. Merge the article to the borg, and let someone expand the section and split it out later if they can pull it off... Arskwad (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable DJ who, according to this article, "is known throughout the internet for hosting and releasing underground mix tapes". Quite a few citations in the article, all leading to user-contributed video sites, mp3.com, myspace, and mixtape kings. Clearly fails WP:NMUSIC, and I have not been able to find reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see a valid WP:MUSIC claim of notability. GregorB (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unremarkable website, no reliable sources, the article reads more like something a bunch of kids would write than a serious encyclopaeda article Simple Bob (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under speedy criterion A7, db-org. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Queried speedy delete. He may be a bit noteworthy in Ulster matters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page was speedy delete tagged "it is nothing but gossip, weaselry and allegations, without a single source or reference after all this time thus making notability questionable. When tainted text is removed nothing but a useless stub remains. [email protected] (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somehow transformed before end of AfD -- The article was created in February 2007. It is the responsibility of the article's creator to ensure that the article is not in violation of any policies or requirements, in this case WP:SOURCES, WP:WEASEL and WP:OR. [email protected] (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joe Bratty certainly shows up quite a bit in Google Books, but I'm a bit wary on books about Northern Ireland history because there's several different versions of the history. Nevertheless, if the factual claims in the article can be verified, I didn't see that much weaselry and OR to remove. Having said that, I'm wary about leaving articles on obscure Troubles figures lying around, because they'll be easy targets for future one-sided editing if no-one's watching closely. Is there anywhere suitable we could merge this? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just about. I must declare from the start that south Belfast is my native area and for as long as I can remember Joe Bratty was about as notorious a name as they came. His activity in the UDA was long and bloody and as such I think he was notable in terms of his impact on the Troubles. I have also rewritten the article on the basis of the reliable sources available at hand to me (apologies for any typing errors in there but I'm in a bit of a hurry) but I reckon I could work on it further over time as there is plenty of coverage out there. Keresaspa (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, I'm a little leery about the current references, are they books or what? I'm willing to lend a hand with bringing it up to speed, but it's be a few days. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're books [64], [65], [66], [67]. Not sure what else they could have been to be honest! Keresaspa (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please take another look, I think it's cleaner now and pretty well referenced. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. Does appear to have enough coverage now, and looks reasonably balanced. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made in the article. I was just about to close it that way but decided to !vote instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find any sources that confer notability for this musician. I also don't see how his Thai pop group, D2B is notable. Angryapathy (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with this : [68] ? Obituary in a national newspaper. Claritas (talk) 17:05, 28 April 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) 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D2B easily satisfies WP:MUSIC #5, being one of RS Promotion's main acts at the time. Big's notability is derived from that of D2B's as well as the huge fan and press interest following his accident which lasted long enough to bypass NOT1E. --115.67.168.181 (talk) 17:26, 5 May 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) 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seem to be some sources in Thai - quite a few hits on their name in Thai. So...I'm not sure; I've asked a Thai speaker to take a look. Chzz ► 01:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commentบิ๊ก ดีทูบี returns about 600k result however only some of them can be used if illustrating notability is required, since many of them links to his illness and death (press release and personal expression in online blog) along with copyright violation materials such as clips, streaming music, etc... I agree that individual member of the group may not notable enough for seperating the article, but for D2B, it hits, as 115. IP says. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will consult with User:Harley Hartwell in 1 day and let he do that in best choice soon.(About 1 or 2 days.) --EQ San (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge I believe that Panrawat's article may not meet the Notability about musicians, however Discussion between me and EQ San (talk·contribs) results that the content in Panrawat Kittikorncharoen should be moved to D2B (band) and redirect the article "Panrawat" to D2B (band). Merging the content about the accident and death of one member into the band's page is similar to Izumi Sakai's death that has briefly been written in Zard article, but such content about Panrawat's death has not been mentioned in the band's page with verifiable source. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 02:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I withdrawn my comment Let all anonymous editor gave us his/her own comment. -Harley Hartwell (talk) 05:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also note that his name was "Apichet Kittikorncharoen" for most of his lifetime (though the article fails to properly note the fact). Searching for his birth name provides more results and evidence of interest. --115.67.138.205 (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only questionable sources have been unearthed. Even controlling for FUTON bias, nothing has come up since the article was nominated well over two weeks ago. tedder (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Medicine flown from Australia in bid to save Thai pop idol", AAP, via the Sydney Morning Herald.[69] this Time article, "The Lethal Problem with Bangkok's Canals" discusses his accident in its introduction.[70] Thirty gnews hits for "Kittikorncharoen", all of which concern the subject, though not all primarily. --115.67.73.30 (talk) 09:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ ALL IPs, Please consider Log In or create your own account to make sure that you do not have conflict of interest about Big's topic. We are discussing about the notability of the singer as the primary concern, according to the nominator's reason for nominating this article for deletion. Without notability, the article would never exists here, in English Wikipedia, which contains more regulations and guidelines than Thai Wikipedia, where the article about Big himself can be seperated. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that it was obvious that all IPs in this discussion are from the same editor, being in the same IP range. Since I didn't log in when I first contributed to the discussion, having the signatures remain this way should be least confusing to other editors. Logging in wouldn't alleviate conflict of interest issues, either, since Wikipedia accounts are anonymous. You may be thinking of sockpuppetry or AfD-pushing, which shouldn't be a concern, since I have now clearly stated that all the IPs in the range in this discussion are mine, and I haven't submitted any !votes. Appraising anonymous comments is at the discretion of the closing admin. I don't edit the Thai Wikipedia, by the way. --115.67.5.199 (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stubify - there is adequate evidence of notability. Claritas (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have no idea how to search for Thai language information on teh interweb, but the one source viewed pragmatically indicates there will be others. Yes the article needs an overhaul but article quality is no reason for deletion. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy. Non-notable insurance company. A total of 15 GHits, most of which are either the company's self-published info or press releases. One mention in a blog (ref #1) of a free-lance journalist that may have made a weekly paper in East Timor. No GNews hits. No GBooks or GScholar hits. One GBlog hit (above). Fails WP:CORP. GregJackP (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The newspaper article is a valid reference, despite being on the journalist's website rather than one owned by the newspaper. This appears to be the first insurance company licensed to operate in East Timor. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - per WP:CORP, "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." [emphasis added]. There is only one source - and even if accepted as a valid reference, it is only one source. Ref #2 is self-published and not independent. It does not meet notability guidelines. GregJackP (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ref #3 is a primary source, announcing the political decision to issue the company a license. WP:CORP states: "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to verify some of the article's content." A single secondary ref doesn't establish notability, additional secondary sources are needed. I couldn't find any, which is why it was nominated for deletion. GregJackP (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GregJackP explains convincingly why this article fails WP:ORG. The standards he mentions are important for articles about commercial organisations. If there are insufficient sources, the article runs the risks of being a promotional tool, or providing inaccurate information to a company's commercial detriment. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:16, 11 May 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) 00:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article was PROD'ded for 7 days without contest as non-notable, not asserting anything that met WP:MUSIC, and without secondary sources. Article had been PROD-deleted years ago, so sending to AfD as I agree with the observations of the PROD'ing editor. Jclemens (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to Raffles Institution (Secondary). Lacks references to support a separate article, but certainly worth covering in the article about the institution. Edison (talk) 20:43, 5 May 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) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect back to school. It's only worth a sentence or two, and no independent reliable sources have been given to indicate it deserves more than that. tedder (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reliable sources seem to mention the topic. Challenged for sources, the author began creating fake sources. See [[71]]. SummerPhD (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources to establish notability on google news archives. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:09, 12 May 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) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent hoax. The sources given reek of fakeness: for example, the ISBN given isn't just invalid, it isn't even the right number of digits! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to author article. author has some notability in scientific community, her article can probably stay. she was nominated to work at the IAS in princeton, which is pretty good. but this novel is not notable. creative arts is NOT a notable publisher, though they do have occasional works of interest. merge some notable content into the author article. some puffery here too, like barnes and noble distributing. thats not the meaning of the word distribute in bookselling. if they were the official distributor of it, it would be notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. I've just deleted the Synopsis section as it was a direct copy from Barnes and Noble. Vsmith (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet book notability, and I respectfully disagree with Mercurywoodrose - the author doesn't satisfy personal notability, whether counted as an academic or as an author. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Even" New Scientist? Novels about science are a curiosity, and a popular science mag like New Scientist is a natural home. Of course, it's only a couple sentences in a short review of 3 books. Apart from a very brief summary of the book, the only real comment on the book is "gripping stuff". Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the "sources" in the ref section are a mess. Neither of the latter two mentions are actually from the sources to which they were attributed. The Reiken comment (incorrectly attributed to the "Association for Women Geoscientists" is actually a quote taken from the blurb on the back cover of the book (you can see the back cover on Amazon). Guettarda (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And the Bushaw-Newton "review" (from BioScience, not "University of California Press") is a review of Echoes of Life, another book entirely. It opens with a few kind words about this book, but it's not be any stretch a review. Guettarda (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you on your comments here. I didn't spot it. But what about replace University of California Press with BioScience ("BioScience is the flagship publication of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). It is a peer-reviewed, heavily cited, monthly science journal ") instead of just removing it? Nsaa (talk) 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a review of this book. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aggree but the review of her next book says "In her first book, Carbon Dreams (2001), Susan Gaines combined fact and fiction to depict the life and struggles of a female geochemist as her career developed. The book portrayed the scientific world in both positive and negative ways by highlighting the passion that scientists have for their research, the difficulties and frustrations of finding funding, and the politics of scientific discovery.". This can be used to describe it (synopsis), and it covers point 1 in our policy (the important part here in this discussion). Nsaa (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : It's a well known book reviewed by major newspapers and well known sites such as New Scientist. It easily passes the bar for notability. Fell Gleaming(talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guettarda's analysis of the reviews. Nothing major here, this book has barely been noticed. YilloslimeTC 19:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Move to an article about the author as she has written another books also, Echoes of life : what fossil molecules reveal about earth history, in over 600 libraries. [75]. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note.We already have an article on the author, Susan M. Gaines, but it's now up for afd as well. But merging the book article into her bio seems like a sensible solution.--PinkBull 21:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, moɳo 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : This book easily passes notablitiy having been reviewed by newspapers and even new scientest mark nutley (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:Notability (books) says Books should have at a minimum an ISBN (for books published after 1975), be available at a dozen or more libraries and be catalogued by its country of origin's official or de facto national library This book is listed in Dreams)&filter=pz:id=lcweb|ammem|catalog|ppoc|thomas the Library of Congress so it certainly meets the minium requirements, along with the reviews which have already been pointed out this novel certainly is notable mark nutley (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets criteria for notable books. Thparkth (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS, anyone? The man is a convicted criminal, yes. Is he notable for more than this? No. Is the coverage of sufficient scope and the event of sufficient importance to make up for this? No. Ironholds (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it says, "little is known" kinda gives a dead giveway he's not notable. I mean, if the news isn't bothering to investigate that far, I suppose he's not that important. And I agree on Ironholds' points. --AllyUnion(talk) 08:37, 5 May 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) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete Insignificant crimes by WP standards. The news coverage was presumably over the possibility of his being a terrorist, for which there is apparently no evidence. I'm prepared to accept the possibility of an article about everyone actually so arrested on that charge in the US, but not for this. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. I declined the speedy on this, and the recreated version was started with the hangon tag. I can't find much about this band that's really enough for WP:MUSIC. GedUK 07:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:47, 8 May 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) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not released as a single, and not notable as an album track. Given references just support background information and the article borders being a hoax as there is no music video, nor were there plans for one. Chart positions given are also for different songs. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist Elena Paparizou. Wiki-policy has long been established that Deletion is the last choice to consider, and must only be used if there is not another option. WP:BEFORE says that before an editor nominates and article for deletion he must first consider turning the page into a useful redirect or proposing it be merged. WP:MUSIC also says that an editor should merge and redirect stub articles of albums into the artists page. The nom in this case actually undid a redirect to bring this article to AfD. That is not how things should be done around here. Vanruvan (talk) 02:22, 7 May 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) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An unexplained redirect that you did after I PRODded the article. Wiki-policy also states to leave an edit summary. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
unverifiable place. Arguably notable (as a village) but there's no any references to prove it is indeed a village. I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
KeepMadhesra and Ratwara, at least. I have added sources to the articles confirming that they are census villages. The National Panchayat Directory site seems a bit unstable at the moment, but the pages are available in Google's cache here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find similar sources for Kodhiyar and Samari? Regards, --Maashatra11 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 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) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Because he was entirely a minor league figure, he may not be notable enough for an article. He does have a couple things going for him, however: he managed Hall of Famer Rogers Hornsby, and he managed a couple teams to first place finishes in the minor leagues. You decide if he stays or goes. Alex (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because as a player, he played in only 516 minor league games, and as a manager, only managed in the minors for a few seasons. Managing a minor league team is not enough to establish notability, not even if one of his players went on to be an all-time great. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll say keep on this one. His league championships make him notable enough. Spanneraol (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally minor leaguers aren't included, this one may well be notable for inclusion. Would like to see offline sources added and hope the article grows.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A minor league player lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please bear in mind that online sources will be difficult to find because of the time frame of the prominence. I'll grant that doesn't give a "free pass"--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But all too often I see articles kept at AfD on the wing and a prayer of offline sources that never materialise. This isn't even a case where we have an idea where the offline sources might be: we're just guessing that something might be out there. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:50, 12 May 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) 00:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shimeru (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find when I searched for sources (using the company's name coupled with the founder), both using Google News and also a library database of newspaper articles, was this article (and press releases). It does not appear to be enough for Wikipedia's notability guideline. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 04:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ATHLETE: has never played in the NFL. Some degree of coverage as a college athlete; but not "significant" coverage in reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd venture to say that 426 articles found through Google News is "significant" coverage. Sure, some are repeats... there is more than enough coverage here to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. WP:ATHLETE is not exclusionary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He may not have played in the NFL yet, but he has already received enough significant coverage to have an article per WP:GNG. Andy14and16 (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the pages that come up in a google search qualify as significant coverage about the subject. They are just passing mentions in articles about other things. -DJSasso (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The 22 articles below are examples of significant coverage, not passing mentions in articles about other things. Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable concept at best, no relevant ghits on books or scholar Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The handful of Ghits are all false hits. Edward321 (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just gave the article a cleanup. His career seems to be pushing at ENT (even if only in Turkey). Available sources (in Turkish) over a decade-long span appear to meet requirements of the GNG and need to be translated and added. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 04:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an unreferenced BLP, so that alone should be reason enough to delete it. And he doesn't look notable either: a few TV show appearances and some local play acting. No awards, no coverage in the media. Fails WP:ENT. YilloslimeTC 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found on gnews don't seem to be about only this person, but rather about several other people. Without a translator (his name translates to "Stars" on gtrans) I would have a hard time accepting those articles as proof of notability. --Joshua Scott(LiberalFascist) 14:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tim Song (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of this previously deleted article was contested at requests for undeletion. The proposed deletion rationale was "no indication that subject meets notability criteria". This is a neutral, procedural nomination only. Best regards, Arbitrarily0(talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after having looked at the Discogs entry, I don't see anything that passes WP:MUSIC or even comes close. Their own releases appear to be MP3-only, and they may or may not have done remixes for somewhat notable artists, but those claims are sourced only to the myspace page and said remixes may be unofficial and/or unreleased. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - could have been speedied; totally fail to meet our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:42, 6 May 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) 00:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a fair amount of coverage, especially some articles in Miami New Times and Spinner, and then a variety of brief but non-trivial mentions in various other newspapers. There's enough there for WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. (At the moment, there still needs to be some NPOV cleanup.) Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensive blog coverage found on Hype Machine and Elbows aggregators. Their music has been included on several Ministry of Sound compilations including the 2010 edition of The Annual compilation series. They have also been released by Kitsune. Entertheinferno (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows how much their new album will sell when it comes out? If one single gets popular and their album sells at least 1,000 copies, then the descision will be made, backed up by their apparent featuring in Elbo, Miami New Times, Spinner, Hype Machine, and apparently many other sites and papers. Weak Keep. --Sneaky Oviraptor18talkeditstribute 20:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment - Blog coverage is meaningless. Sneaky's argument is WP:UPANDCOMING at its worst, a clear WP:CRYSTAL-violation. If and when actual notability comes, then create an article. Passing shout-outs are not substantial coverage by reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just returning to reiterate that I put effort into selecting reliable sources, not blogs. The articles in Miami New Times and Spinner are entirely about the group, and many various other newspapers have mentioned them (see my additions). Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 04:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
