Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 16
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eclipse (breath freshener). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eclipse Ice[edit]
- Eclipse Ice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails General Notability Guidelines. Article does not make any claims for this product which make it stand out from the hundreds of thousands of other food products. No one apart from the manufacturer appears to be writing about the product. dramatic (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Eclipse (breath freshener) and add any relevant content about it there. Mandsford 16:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Redirect. There is no need for this to be a separate article. --MelanieN (talk) 00:12, 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 merge to Wolf Frameworks. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sunny Ghosh[edit]
- Sunny Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find significant coverage of this person. Haakon (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Wolf Frameworks. He may not be notable, but his company is. --MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per MelanieN. I could not find any evidence that he passes WP:PEOPLE. Jujutacular T · C 23:19, 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) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nottingham Outlaws (American football)[edit]
- Nottingham Outlaws (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. British University American Football team. Sports teams at British Universities for mainstream British sports such as Soccer have next to no following within the institution never mind outside. American Football has next to zero following in the UK. Doing a quick google, once all the links to teams in other sports with the same name are filtered out (such as the more notable rugby league team) there appears to be nothing more than sites directly related to the team and its rivals. The lack of coverage probably also explains the lack of references in the article Pit-yacker (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note: see also Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Nottingham_Outlaws_roster
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've never been a fan of "mass deletions" but in this case it seems to be the right direction. The AfDs are coming up at a reasonable pace for individual article review. This particualr subject seems to have very little sources and thus, to me, is a strong candidate for deletion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - university sport in the UK simply isn't notable. I work at a university with 30,000 students and I'd be surprised if 90% of them could even name any sports teams we have other than by guesswork -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. British university sports teams are only very rarely notable, and this does not appear to be an exception. Pfainuk talk 12:28, 22 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) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bredbandskollen[edit]
- Bredbandskollen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:12, 22 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. Without sources, I'm not going to merge. If anyone wnats the text to work on for a prospective merge, all you have to do is ask. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial Immortals[edit]
- Imperial Immortals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Google search turns up nothing other than sites directly linked to the team and its rivals. British University teams in mainstream British sports such as Soccer and cricket are rarely notable. American Football is of niche interest in the UK, so unsurprisingly this team isn't an exception. Article is completely unreferenced. Probably because there aren't any. Pit-yacker (talk) 23:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable amateur team -Drdisque (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. Take your pick. tedder (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's just not really any independent sources cited.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. British university sports teams are only very rarely notable, and this does not appear to be an exception. Pfainuk talk 12:27, 22 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) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torrentroot[edit]
- Torrentroot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website that has made no impact on it's field. Wikipedia article has been almost empty for a year now. I suspect its just being used as an advertisement. Renox (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:14, 22 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) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tropics Kickball[edit]
- Tropics Kickball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable recreational league sports team. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The claim for being on the front page of a newspaper has no citations. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 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 Speedy delete as an attack page, per CSD G10. Edison (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Lugaynes[edit]
- Greg Lugaynes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Offensive redirect Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily deleted As an attack page. Obvious instance of WP:CSD G10, and unlikely search term, other than as a personal attack.Edison (talk) 22:31, 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) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reel FM[edit]
- Reel FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this pirate radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. Zero notability, blatant advertising, no idea how this survived the first AfD. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no reason to assume this is notable. Sorafune +1 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 22 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. A9 per the close I made in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bree Jasmine Samuel Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You Say What Now[edit]
- You Say What Now (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable song from a seemingly non-existent person. I've tried several searches and I'm unable to find anything. It also doesn't appear on iTunes, despite the article saying so (and I've looked in the American store). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The reference to "a seemingly non-existent person" comes from my comment in this AfD. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This really didn't needed to go the afd, since the creator of the song, Bree Jasmine Samuel, is going through an Afd. So if her article get's deleted this article will get speedy deleted per A9: Unremarkable musical recording where artist's article doesn't exist.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 16:36, 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. No consensus to delete; discussion about editorial improvements (if found to be required by consensus) such as rename, edit, merge etc. can continue on the talk page. Sandstein 09:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chiropractic controversy and criticism[edit]
- Chiropractic controversy and criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is a blatant POV FORK and attempts to improve the article have been blocked. The majority of the article has been simply copied from Chiropractic history, and is not based on sources of "Chiropractic controversy" or "Criticism of chiropractic", because such as topic doesn't not exist... it is WP:MADEUP like a lot of other "Criticism of" articles on Wikipedia. The current Chiropractic article has criticism sprinkled throughout, and does not need to be trimmed. DigitalC 19:49, May 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Keep While the criticism article does have some information that is similar to the history of chiropractic article, interestingly enough, the history article doesn't have sources for the information that was copied, while the criticism article does. In that way, the criticism article is almost better than its counterpart (which is a little sad). I've gone through this before and I guess have to go through it again. Yes, "Criticism of" is not an actual topic, say the name of books about it, or sections in a textbook. However, Criticism of articles document criticism on a topic, which is completely valid as an article topic, so long as it is correctly sourced. And it seems clear to me that this article is very well sourced indeed and is completely valid to exist on Wikipedia. SilverserenC 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This article is of fairly good content and a decent amount of sources (although neutrality can't be guaranteed in them), however it is not overall a NPOV article, and seems like it was written by someone with some sort of bias. However, the content is well written, but can't stand alone as an article, but is too valuable to simply delete. A massive edit overhaul would still not work, as the article isn't bad in context, just the way the whole thing is set up. If it is merged though, it would need to be shortened. Old Al (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DigitalC, can you explain why you are nominating this now? Because it seems to me that, when you couldn't get consensus for your changes on the talk page, you nominated it here, which seems rather pointy to me. SilverserenC 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am nominating this now because it has been almost a year since the last nomination, and the article has not been improved. Attempts to improve it to make it more neutral in tone (IE: incorproate positive criticism, aka praise) have been blocked by other editors. In addition, there was no consensus in the last discussion, so relisting it for more discussion seems like it would be beneficial in terms of coming to some sort of consensus. DigitalC (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and/or merge. It's a very obvious and notable subject that documents what has always characterized the profession. This article now has the opportunity for growth which the subject has been denied by some of the chiropractic editors who have always cried "undue weight" as an excuse to minimize and hide the subject in the main article by sprinkling barely noticeable tidbits around. The option of a merge is definitely preferable to deletion (we aren't forced to choose between "keep" or "delete"), but merging isn't really a good option as this subject has enough notability in its own right to be a much larger article. The profession has always been characterized by criticism and controversy from both inside and outside the profession, and that story is not and cannot be told properly in the main chiropractic article.
The actual size of the main article isn't a problem that would prevent complete merger, but so far the objection from chiropractic supporters is "undue weight". They don't realize (or don't want it described) just how much criticism and controversy has characterized the history of this profession, and it's growing right now because of the latest screwup by the profession in England - their attempt to sue Simon Singh for libel. Fortunately the BCA has withdrawn the suit. This article can grow much larger, and then even I would consider it undue weight to include so much material in the main article. As it is now, the chiropractic supporters would never allow all this in the main article. Certain of them are pretty good at wikilawyering and stonewalling to keep out such things, no matter how well sourced. If there were to be a merge, it should be done in its entirety, but that would overwhelm the main article and create an undue weight problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per WP:NPOV, "A point of view fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia". This article was created even though criticism is present throughout the article Chiropractic, and even thought a large portion of this article was copied over from Chiropractic history. The article serves to highlight negative viewpoints/facts, and has avoided positive viewpoints/facts to the point of editing them out of the article and blocking their addition. DigitalC (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is of a type that is specifically approved for two reasons:
- Keep. There's definitely room to improve the article by tightening the prose regarding D. D. Palmer (that narrative is rather lengthy in comparison to its importance, though it does bear mention as a well-referenced example of many of the practices that have been criticized, or which were controversial). (I don't really see that as a duplication of chiropractic history—the emphasis in this article is clearly more focused on Palmer's opinions and conduct, and reactions to those things.) And perhaps, the vaccination/fluoridation section could be improved by finding a broader range of sources to describe the prevalence and consequences of that particular branch of chiropractic. (These are minor cleanup issues, and not major problems with the article.) However, in general, my comments from the first AfD still hold true. The article is well-sourced, with reference to both assenting and dissenting views, and definitely meets the notability burden.
I was actually discussing criticism articles earlier today, and my opinion here is similar: criticism should be discussed within the main article (in proportion to its importance), but when the volume of coverage of criticism is sufficient to warrant a more thorough discussion—and especially when the state of the Wikipedia article is such that editors have contributed more properly-sourced information about criticism than support—it's perfectly appropriate to summarize in the main article, and fork it and write a standalone article about the criticism. (This actually mitigates the emphasis of criticism in the main article, deservedly or not.) Of course the tone of the article should be neutral, but that doesn't mean that limiting the scope of the article to the discussion of "negative" things is inherently non-neutral or undesirable. TheFeds 22:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article appears somewhat too elaborate and I am not sure what the added value is above the parent article. However, an article that articulates the artificial controversy surrounding this alledged "cure" -i.e. Simon Singh- might be warranted. Furthermore, the notion that we should be presenting both sides equally is laughable at its face. Do we consider AIDS-denialists, Flat Earthers, et cetera comparable to actual scientists?--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 22:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AIDS-denialists, Flat Earthers, et cetera are covered under WP:Fringe. Chiropractic is mainstream enough to have significant coverage in respected scientific journals, including Annals of Internal Medicine, The British Journal of Medicine, and the New England Journal of Medicine, as well as contributing to the WHO Bone and Joint Decade (2000-2010). DigitalC (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strangely enough the articles you cite support the Flat Earth analogy. So, I don't think they mean what you think they mean. Second, during the Simon Singh controversy it became abundeantly clear there is no scientific basis for this "therapy." Unles you can produce an article from any reputable journal in medical literature, which the BCA could not!, we can safely assume there is no scientific basis and any positive coverage is in the form of testimonials, i.e. pseudoscience.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 23:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From my understanding of the "Simon Singh controversy", it was about treatment for non-musculoskeletal symptoms, ie - asthma, infantile colic, blood pressure, etc. Further, did you read the BMJ article I linked above? I'll quote some here for you to make it easier: "For patients with low back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management". If you "assume there is no scientific basis and any positive coverage is in the form of testimonials", you obviously haven't looked at the article on Chiropractic, let alone looked at the research. DigitalC (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Criticism exists and is documented and is notable. Criticism articles aren't eo ipso POV, they are content forks that keep main topic articles in conformance with WP:MOS in regard to size. This has been established in other AFDs. List of wikipedia pages starting with "Criticism of". POV should be sorted by editing.--Savonneux (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For those who say this is too long to be merged, please note most of it can be shortened. Old Al (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And that would involve loss of content. With every paragraph having valid sources, any shortening of information would involve a significant loss in encyclopedic content. And, as others stated, this article is a content fork, not a POV fork. The entire length is the actual reason why we think it is valid to have a separate article. SilverserenC 23:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I do not consider chiropractic mainstream but fringe. Nonetheless our treatment of it has to be balanced. This article is not. to the extent I think it would be inappropriate to even merge it. Since I came here, I have always been dubious about our insistence on not forking, though-- a pro and con approach seems the obvious way to to cover some topics. But whatever I thin, it remains the policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment SilverScreen, I looked at your userpage, and it said you work on overhauling articles up for deletion. I'd move my position to keep if you would undertake the effort to change the article, as I think it is save able. If you do decide to do it, good luck! Old Al (talk) 00:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would need to know what exactly you think needs to be added and any reliable sources that you have for the information. SilverserenC 00:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Any links that are pay for viewing (i.e. the science journal ones, or any not viewable to the general public) should not be included, and some counter arguments would be nice too. And thank you for not being a dick. Old Al (talk) 01:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um...no problem? ^_^; Actually, paywall sources are fine to use, via PAYWALL. Users jut have to be able to verify that they are from reliable sources, but they don't necessarily have to have ease of access to read them. That's entirely separate. So those sort of paywall sources we can use with impunity. Counter-arguments sound good though. You have any sources with them? SilverserenC 01:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No credible reason has been presented to call for this article's deletion. Joal Beal (talk) 01:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is significant controversy surrounding chiropracticy. To address, DGG's concerns, the article could be renamed to simply Chiropractic controversy, if it is felt the article title is a POV fork.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep(ish) I am not really a fan of criticism of articles for various reasons, but I do not think that AfD is the best tool here. I would be up for a discussion on reorganizing this family of articles; probably at WikiProject:AltMed, advertised at Talk:Chiropractice and possibly including an RfC. Give me a nudge when this discussion concludes, and I will see if I can find a better way to organize the topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG. Article is not balanced (per Old Al). Possible merge with Chiropractic history per Silver Seren as sources could be used to bolster a legitimate non-POV Fork article. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 22:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with DGG - article still not balanced. POV fork. Plus, a lot is just copied from other articles - like the D Palmer being run over story. stmrlbs|talk 04:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides the D Palmer information, I don't see anything else that is copied. And the Palmer information has been reworded and has sources, while the original information in the history article either doesn't or has much weaker ones. SilverserenC 04:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then fix it in the chiropractic article. It is more appropriate there. The story is obviously being repeated purely for the shock and titilating value. It is repeated for in 4 chiropractic articles. enough already. But that's not the only problem. Look at the article and try to find something that is not critical - like some balance? Why bother using the word Controversy? Just rename it "criticism of chiropractic". stmrlbs|talk 05:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems to be largely a content dispute (POV issues), and it seems too large to be merged into the main article. I can't see any reason why it should be deleted right now. —fetch·comms 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It could all be merged back to the articles where the information came from, mostly Chiropractic history DigitalC (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would cause undue weight to be focused on criticism without extreme removal of content information from this article. SilverserenC 00:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps rewrite/retitle to include controversy/criticism as well as positive views on the topic (to better balance out the POV). Negative POV issues can sometimes be best resolved by adding a +1 to -1 rather than removing the -1. If improvements to the article have indeed been blocked as the nominator says, that's an issue for dispute resolution. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:19, 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) 02:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Holloway Bears[edit]
- Royal Holloway Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and unreferenced. A quick google search of both the current and old names of this team returns nothing other than sites related directly to the university to which the team belongs and sites related directly to rival teams. This is hardly surprising as a university sports teams in the UK for mainstream British sports such as Soccer and Cricket have a minuscule following in their own institution never mind outside of it. What's worse for this team is that American Football enjoys little beyond niche following in any quarter in the UK Pit-yacker (talk) 19:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 19:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Very few UK university sports teams meet our notability criteria and this one does not appear to be an exception. Pfainuk talk 19:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - With a few exceptions, university teams are non-notable. This isn't one of those teams. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete lots of text, but no references. I don't exactly think this is "original research" but without sources cited... it's gotta go.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:51, 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. — Scientizzle 06:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth A Fuchsman[edit]
- Kenneth A Fuchsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like the curriculum vitae of an academic, rather than an encyclopedia article. It cites no outside sources, indiscriminately lists all his publications, and shows no evidence of the kind of academic impact needed to pass WP:PROF. Google scholar search found no citations to his works; there are a few in Google books, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. The article was prodded via WP:BLPPROD but DGG deprodded it on the basis that it is verifiable that he has published what it says he has published. I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep the article. David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a claim of notability in the article? Perhaps it could be A7 deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my above comments, not notable. ALI nom nom 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless there is something the article doesn't say, this is an article on an Assistant Extension Professor. Abductive (reasoning) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My deprodding should not be taken to mean we should keep the article, just that at least one of the key pieces of information in it met WP:V, and that BLP prod did not apply. (as an aside, I find that BLP prod is often misused when there are references to be found, but the article is an obvious candidate for deletion otherwise via speedy or Prod. When there's a speedy reason, I substitute that, often long before it reaches the 10 days.) I do not think there is a reason for speedy here, because the assertion that one has written multiple articles and a book is at least some claim to possible notability. Not a proof of meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, but enough for the very low bar in WP:SPEEDY A7. Now, looking in the usual way at his publication, there is only one book, Farnen & Fuchsman,(eds.), The Enduring Influence: Religion in american Life there is an immediate problem here: I cannot find it in worldCat or even google, though Farnen has many other books there in the general subject of American intellectual history, and is almost certainly notable. The other works are articles, and it appears almost all of them are in a variety of very insignificant journals. Even if the book could be identified, this is not a nontable career. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it save effort just to pretend that it's a normal WP:PROD and let it expire rather than forcing it to go to an AfD in such cases, though? What problem does it cause for the ostensible reason the article was prodded (lack of sources) to be different from the reason for leaving the prod in place (lack of notability)? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DGG. Speedy deletions and ProDs should not be used for academics, creative persons, and similar BLPs where the criteria are subjective. In this particular case, Fuchsman is an Assistant professor, not normally considered to be notable, although he has a hefty c.v. of scholarly work. He will probably become notable, but who knows? Bearian (talk) 17:41, 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 Pictures (Katie Melua album). (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ghost town (Katie Melua song)[edit]
- Ghost town (Katie Melua song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested redirect. Non-notable song fails WP:NSONG. Recommend redirect. SummerPhD (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pictures (Katie Melua album), as it appears to fail WP:NSONGS. I can not find significant coverage for this song; only some passing mentions for it in reviews/articles on the album (e.g. [1]). Note that this song is not a cover version of The Specials' "Ghost Town", but apparently a "tribute" to it. Gongshow Talk 06:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, i almost laughed when i relealised this article existed. Not being rude but again i point to WP:NSONGS (as seems to be the case in most of these requests for deletion), the song has not charted, has no credible sources and no independent coverage. if a song doesn't chart is generally accepted that it must recieve extensive coverage. There is absolutely no reason for the existance of this article. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:11, 21 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) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ChanceToMeet.net[edit]
- ChanceToMeet.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable website. Article supported by poor quality or trivial references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 19:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 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) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Husain Kadodia[edit]
- Husain Kadodia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Muslim scholar, one small book of little note, weakly cited to promotional primary locations and a forum, after searching, results show a lack of notability. Off2riorob (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a BLP describing a religious scholar, but having the usual problems associated with this class of articles that are often written by interested followers (the current AfD for Tzvi Berkowitz is another current example) – namely – there's no real claim of notability, article is filled with WP:OR, and sourcing is pitiful (this ref is typical – note that it doesn't even mention the subject's name). This person has at least written a book, but it seems to be held in barely a handful of institutions. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:39, 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) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ollie Crowe[edit]
- Ollie Crowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable local politician in Galway, Republic of Ireland. Fails WP:Politician and also fails WP:GNG. Snappy (talk) 18:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete local councillors in Galway are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN and the lack of reliable sources suggest he isn't notable for anything else. Valenciano (talk) 19:57, 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) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Usman Bhaimia[edit]
More than 800 results in a google search seems notable enough. Gloucester City has a population of 150,000 people seems notable enough. Appearing in the local media on a daily basis also seems notable enough. Usman Bhaimia has his own section in the book 'History of Gloucester' written by the Mayor and Sherriff of the city Chris Witts which is notable enough. He has had personal interviews taken by national tv channels bbc and itv. National newspapers such as the Guardian have written an article on him too. There are far more insufficient articles in wikipedia with lot less significance that have existed for a long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.185.254 (talk) 11:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Usman Bhaimia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable local politician who fails both political and general notability requirements. No significant coverage of the subject in the unique GHits available, nor of his business or his 'record' of being the first of something in a limited geographic/population area Nuttah (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced bio of non-notable individual. Per WP:POLITICIAN just being a local councillor is insufficient. First muslim elected in a particular nation would be notable, first muslim local councillor in a city of less than 100,000 people definitely isn't. Valenciano (talk) 19:54, 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. One argument to delete besides nominator. Nominator withdrew. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 03:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lewis Machine and Tool Company[edit]
- Lewis Machine and Tool Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, The only references here are the companies website. The user has attempted to make it come within wiki standards but I still thinks this lacks notabilty. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TO be clear there are other sources but not really about the company. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - i cant find any sources either, fails notablility. Dwayne was here! ♫ 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I guess that I don't understand how this company doesn't have any notability? Could someone make this clear to me? All you have to do is make a quick search on google for LMT or Lewis Machine and Tool and you will easily find a handful of things that make this company notable. For instance their contract with the UK or the many products the USA military buy from them. They have played a key roll in the small arms industry in developing better weapons for our troupes, especially with their patented MRP. I admit that I am a new user here and I might not understand all that there is to know about Wikipedia, but I still stand by this article in saying that it shouldn't be deleted.--Iskor12 (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two articles covered in the news in 20 years. [[2]]. That's my personal opinion on why it should go. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Lewis Machine & Tool".1 You will find at least 25 News articles for them.--Iskor12 (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can agree that the company should meet notability requirements. I'm not opposed to withdrawing the nomination. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hell in a bucket. I know that you are only doing what you think is best for Wikipedia and I respect that. I would love to see this article Withdrawn from the nomination. Thanks--Iskor12 (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable in the firearms community JohnDLG (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep if the nom has agreed to withdraw, I'm fine with that. However, I can't actually verify many of the sources (they are pay-per-view archives) and a few seem like brief mentions only, but I'll AGF that most of them are solid. —fetch·comms 06:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 2 last things that I would like to add.
- LMT is one of the only weapons manufacturer's that still make the M203 Grenade Launcher.
- (This is the main reason on why I believe that they are very Notable) They make the L129A1 rifle that is the UK Ministry of Defenses' first new infantry combat rifle in over 20 years.--Iskor12 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I HATE the way this is written, it's pretty much an ad as it sits. But the company is significant, it would seem. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article needs additional work, but the company appears to be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not the nicest article, but the company is notable, so should have an article. - EdoDodo talk 17:45, 23 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) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michel Perrault (sociologist)[edit]
- Michel Perrault (sociologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax; see talk page for more. NW (Talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX Contribution from a single purpose account (SPA) [3] is reason to ask further questions which, in this case, the article cannot answer [4]. The occasional hoax is a small price to pay for the freedom of having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Some might say that four months is proof that they "got away with it"; I'd say it's actually proof that the article was so uninteresting, nobody bothered to read it until now. Mandsford 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for the reasons I outlined on the talk page. EdwardTattsyrup (talk) 23:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. The composer Michel Perrault is the only author of this name found in WorldCat, the Bibliothèque nationale de France catalogue, Google Scholar or FRANCIS. I suspect that the supposed quotation is output from the Postmodernism Generator; for example, compare the first sentence of our quotation ("If one examines capitalist narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject neosemiotic nihilism or conclude that narrative must come from the masses") with the first sentence of section 4 here. EALacey (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I cannot find any references to confirm that such a sociologist indeed existed (would prefer input from a native French speaker about search results in French though). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:12, 21 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. Sandstein 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc.[edit]
- Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Irrelevant case {CSD-A7 Tkfy7cf (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Relevant, yes, notable, no. If someone can show me that the Labriola case has set a precedent
that is being followed outside of the State of WashingtonI would reconsider. However, this one turned upon the common law rule that a contract must be supported by consideration. I have to admit that I phrased that one badly, as pointed out by others-- while it isn't uncommon for one state court to begin a trend that is noted by others, such as happened in the 1980s with comparative negligence, Labriola would not be binding in another jurisdiction. Mandsford 18:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Contract is purely a creature of state law, so requiring that a state contract law case set a precedent beyond its own state would put the vast majority of contract law case articles on Wikipedia in jeopardy! Verkhovensky (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This case is controlling precedent in the State of Washington, and its very governance by the classic common law is interesting when the case is understood as a unique intersection between common law and modern employment law. This article should clearly be expanded, but it obviously should not be deleted! Verkhovensky (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To echo Verkhovensky's point, contract law is a creature of state common law, so conditioning the case's notability on a finding of its precedential value outside of Washington is unreasonable. The case is fairly recent, still good law, and, as pointed out above, represents an interesting -- nay, notable -- intersection of contract common law and modern employment law. The article should be expanded, not deleted. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Verkhovensky has said nothing about this case that could not also be said of any other published decision rendered by an appellate court in the State of Washington. Every published decision is controlling precedent in the jurisdiction in which it is rendered, so that's not enough to demonstrate notability (one can produce evidence of notability and argue the "law" of Wikipedia, and, if neither can be found, one can argue what should happen as a matter of public policy). Maybe someone wrote a law review article about it. Maybe it's widely acknowledged in independent and reliable sources, though if it is, I've missed it. I agree with one thing-- if someone wants the article kept, it should be expanded-- fast! The ruling won't come down for at least a week, so it's not too late. Mandsford 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Giving a one week time limit for the expansion of an otherwise valid article seems like an odd rule. And the assertion that a decision rendered by the Washington Court of Appeals has the same weight of authority as a decision rendered by the Washington Supreme Court represents a misunderstanding of civil procedure. Verkhovensky (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the rest of it, perhaps. On the last part, NO. In the decision that you are writing about, the decisions cited from the Washington Appellate Reporter (Wash.App.) were all Court of Appeals decisions, and the Respondent's attorneys were relying upon Knight, Vale & Gregory v. McDaniel, 37 Wash.App. 366, 368, 680 P.2d 448 (1984) as the most persuasive authority. In those instances where a Supreme Court has not previously addressed a legal question, the lower court decision is the published authority until overruled later. It appears that this will probably end up kept, in which case you'll have more than the usual Wikipedia-week. Best wishes. Mandsford 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Verkhovensky is actually correct on this point. Court of Appeals decisions are not binding on other Courts of Appeals in the same state (unless you are in a state with a peculiar rule, like California). I am not sure what you are trying to indicate with the term "published authority", since that only denotes authority that is published in a reporter. And to say that the cases cited from the Washington Appellate Reporter are all Court of Appeals decisions is to state the obvious; the only cases published in the Appellate Reporter are appellate cases. Just because the Supreme Court has not spoken on a particular legal issue does not make the decisions on that point by a Court of Appeals equal in precedential value to an on point decision by the Supreme Court if there were one (i.e., they are not magically binding on other Courts of Appeals). Indeed, the case cites other Court of Appeals decisions as persuasive authority, not mandatory authority. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the rest of it, perhaps. On the last part, NO. In the decision that you are writing about, the decisions cited from the Washington Appellate Reporter (Wash.App.) were all Court of Appeals decisions, and the Respondent's attorneys were relying upon Knight, Vale & Gregory v. McDaniel, 37 Wash.App. 366, 368, 680 P.2d 448 (1984) as the most persuasive authority. In those instances where a Supreme Court has not previously addressed a legal question, the lower court decision is the published authority until overruled later. It appears that this will probably end up kept, in which case you'll have more than the usual Wikipedia-week. Best wishes. Mandsford 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not every published decision is controlling precedent in the jurisdiction in which it is rendered. Judicial holdings can abrogated and reversed and overruled. That is not to say that cases which no longer have good law are not themselves notable; some such cases certainly have historical value. In any event, requiring evidence such as a law review article to substantiate the notability of a case erects a high standard indeed, and a standard uncharitable to the hardworking, contracting people of Washington who likely find this case important indeed. And corroboration by "independent and reliable sources" is an inapposite requirement in regards to a published judicial decision. KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All Wikipedia articles are subject to that inapposite requirement I'm afraid. Mandsford 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what Knives is saying is that because every published decision is obviously published, the entry in the reporter itself is sufficiently reliable. Also, the present article includes a cite from a casebook, so your requirement has been met. Verkhovensky (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All Wikipedia articles are subject to that inapposite requirement I'm afraid. Mandsford 00:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Being precedent within a jurisdiction is sufficiently notable. Heaven help us if we require extra-jurisdictional significance as a ground for notability for legal articles. There go quite a few FAs down the AfD scrapheap. Hopefully more can be written in this article. Crude searches uncover the prospect of some reasonably significant coverage of the case and its significance. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
&Comment The argument is that its a precedent in a significant jurisdiction is not really adequate justification; it needs to be shown that this is a significant precedent, widely cited, or a controversial one in some manner. Without references to its impact, I do not see how the article can be justified. Looking for that in Google Scholar, which now does very nicely for this sort of question, [5] there are 56 citations.Most of them seem to be about attorney's fees , the nature of a appeals court review, mitigating damages, and the requirements to justify a summary motion; only a few are about the main point of issue. This does not seem enough to justify the article. If however, a standard textbook refers to it as the authority on the main point at issue, that might lead to a different conclusion. May we have their wording in full, please. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nearly every single legal article in Wikipedia is a mess. There isn't room for minor precedents in narrow areas of law in narrow jurisdictions. NB article is an orphan, and is exceedingly unlikely to be anything but. This is an unnotable decision indistinguishable from hundreds of others issued every year by state supreme courts. THF (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, there is no need to insult the hard work of all the folks dedicated to improving legal articles on Wikipedia. Secondly, I've added a note on how the Labriola case illustrates an unusual strict adherence to the common law pre-existing duty rule in the interests of justice. A link to Labriola would go nicely in the article on the pre-existing duty rule as an example of such common law adherence, especially since such has largely fallen out of favor today (and I will add such a mention later when I have more time). In the meantime, deletion simply seems to hasty. And arguing that the room for improvement shown by most Wikipedia legal articles has nothing to do with whether or not there is "room" for an admittedly unusual but statewide precedent. Verkhovensky (talk) 02:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the point of "room": editing Wikipedia is not like the FCC's regulation of the broadcast industry -- scarcity is an inapposite rationale. "The Internet can hardly be considered a 'scarce' expressive commodity." Reno v. ACLU (US 1997) (my apologies for the severely lacking citation; this is after all only the discussion page). KnivesDon'tHaveMyBack (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Labriola is no longer an orphan. Verkhovensky (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons stated by Verkhovensky, Knives, and Mkativerata. PsychCat (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm still not clear as to what sets this Labriola case apart from any other court decision, Verkhovensky sees something that makes this more than a "run of the mill" case, and has put in a great deal of work into it so far. If it appeared that those of us who doubted the case's significance were unduly harsh, I can only say that nearly all articles about state court decisions are likely to get raked over the coals in the same manner as this one has been. Mandsford 12:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an interesting legal precedent in an area of law that was once settled, but is now rapidly changing. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 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. The general consensus is that the article lacks the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charlotte Centre Curling Club[edit]
- Charlotte Centre Curling Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not meet encyclopedic guidelines Tkfy7cf (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not because it's unencyclopedic -- it's actually written very well-- but because the club itself is not notable enough for its own separate article. I'd compare it to a local softball league. Mandsford 18:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP First of all, I used the {{newpage}} template on it when I created it YESTERDAY. Then it gets nominated for deletion less than 24 hours later? (23 hours 54 minutes to be exact) What happened to the whole 'in good faith' thing that Wikipedia talks about? Thanks to user:Mandsford for saying "written very well" but I must correct you when you "compare it to a local softball league." How many softball leagues are there in the USA? How many in North Carolina? How many in Charlotte? I don’t know the answers to those questions but I bet they are a heck of a lot more than about 170, 2, and 1 which are the answers (in order) to the questions how many curling clubs are there in the USA? How many in North Carolina? How many in Charlotte? You see, curling clubs operate differently than you may be aware. Typically, in states where curling is not a decades-old tradition like it is in Minnesota and Wisconsin, there is only one club per major metropolitan area because there is only sufficient interest to support one club. That is why there is only one club in Columbus, one in the entire state of Tennessee, one in Dallas, etc. etc. That makes each of those clubs notable because they are by their nature unique. Please take a look at List of curling clubs in the United States to see just how few and far-between curling clubs are in the USA and then think about whether or not they are all 'not notable.'
- I would also point-out "A look inside: How Curling Came to Charlotte" in the May, 2010 issue of the Curling News (page 3) which is cited in Charlotte Centre Curling Club article. That piece takes-up about 80% of page three of the 20-page publication. The US Curling News is the newsletter published by the United States Curling Association which is the chartered by Congress national governing body for the sport of Curling. Let me say that another way: The Chartered by Congress, national governing body of an Olympic sport dedicated almost an entire page of its newsletter to the topic of this discussion, the Charlotte Centre Curling Club. That, I would argue, goes a long way towards notability. Not to mention the two news pieces cited in the article including coverage by the local NBC affiliate: [6] and there are more pieces on the Charlotte club on the local NBC affiliate like this one: [7].
- I just found another source! Check it out [8]. Towards the bottom of the article you’ll see "Pre-game curling demonstration, Mar 14, Charlotte Bobcats Arena, 333 E. Trade St. Demonstration to take place before the Charlotte Checkers 2 p.m. game" So the Charlotte Checkers, a professional hockey team had the Charlotte Centre Curling Club come to the NBA arena they (the hockey team) play in to give a demonstration. I would say that is more notability. When was the last time a "local softball league" was asked to give a demonstration at a Major League Baseball game?
- I know there some people who might say "Oh curling is not a sport" and try to use that as a basis for deletion for this article. In response to that, I would point-out that NBC and its subsidiary channels (USA and CNBC) showed over 100 hours of curling during the Vancouver Olympics [9]. If that's not a sport, what is?
- Finally, I would ask you to look at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia and decide which side of that coin you want to be on. I thank you for your kind consideration and "voting" to KEEP this article.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have more to add
{{db-club}} is unreasonable and should be removed. "Club" appears in the name of 179 of the 190 local curling organizations listed on List of curling clubs in the United States. All local curling organizations are called "clubs" by the United States Curling Association. Just like country clubs are called "clubs" even though they are corporations. Prehaps the name of this page should be changed to "The Charlotte Centre Curling Club, Inc." since that is the full name of the entity and YES I can produce a copy of the Articles of Incorporation as I am one of the incorporators but I should not have to since the incorporation record can be found here [1] which I already referenced in the article. If this page should be deleted simply because it has the word 'club' in its name, then Augusta National Golf Club, The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews, Congressional Country Club and Merion Golf Club should all be flagged with {{{{db-club}}{{ and summarily deleted as well. Thank you again for your attention. --WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have explained on the user's talk page that the word "club" is not the issue. However, this is irrelevant here, since this is a discussion on the AfD proposal, not on {{db-club}}. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore
I also want to point-out the prominent mention of the Charlotte Centre Curling Club on page 2 of the Spring 2010 newsletter of the Grand National Curling Club (http://www.gncc.org/images/v22n3may2010.pdf) already referenced in the article. The GNCC is the regional governing body of the sport of curling for Maine, Florida, and all states in between. This newsletter, published by a large organization, is a good citation as well as the USCA newsletter article I mention above. Please KEEP. Thank you. --WaxonWaxov (talk) 04:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Most of WaxonWaxov's comments unfortunately do not address the reasons put forward for deletion. For example, nobody is likely to suggest deletion because "curling is not a sport", and if they do they will be ignored, as this has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looking, however, at those parts of WaxonWaxov's comments which attempt to give sources, we have the following:
- A link to Curling News which, unfortunately, is not working, so it is impossible to assess it.
- A link to a video which is restricted to viewers in the USA, and I am not: perhaps someone else can assess it and see whether it indicates notability.
- A link to a snip from a television show in which the point is more or less "Ha, ha, we had ago at curling and it turns out to be more difficult than you might think, so you can all have a laugh at us." It seems that the show used the Charlotte Centre Curling Club to film this.
- A fairly long article at the end of which appear the words "Source: The Charlotte Centre Curling Club", followed by four sentences in which a member of this club is quoted.
- A pdf newsletter in which the Charlotte Centre Curling Club receives a one-sentence mention.
Pending information about the two links I have not been able to see, I do not think that this constitutes substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the effort you took to look at my references. The video is similar to the one you were able to see in which you concluded that the the club was 'used'. As the the May US Curling News,it's working for me. (Windows Xp, Internet Explorer 8) I'm guessing you might not be able to see it for the same reason you can't see the video (not in USA). Meanwhile, [User:Tkfy7cf] has gone about dumping on a number of my submissions. I posted to his/her talk page a very well intended and nice message that basically said "please help me do better instead of dumping on everything I do." His/her response was to delete the post and otherwise ignore it.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Users are perfectly entitled to delete messages from their talk pages (with the exception of a current block notice) and are not obligated to reply. – ukexpat (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes and I am perfectly entitled to cut a loud fart in the middle of a funeral but being entitled to do so does not make me any less of a jerk if I were to do it.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable new local club. This has nothing to do with any anti-curling prejudice; but we're not exactly talking the Milwaukee Curling Club here. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As noted above, well-written but not containing sufficient notability to meet any relevant standard. As near as I can tell from the article, this is a sports club that has not yet played a single game; hard to imagine how that could be notable. Some day, perhaps, but not yet. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and Speedy Delete. Well-written enough not to lose text altogether. Delete per Accounting4Taste, above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and delete per TransporterMan. Doesn't fit notability guidelines. Amphy (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources that is required to demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Curling clubs are inherently notable, and should be kept, especially clubs in the U.S. which are few and far between. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. I can't locate a policy reference that says that curling clubs are inherently notable (not even a suggestion at the portal page for the curling project). Is there something you could point us all to? Accounting4Taste:talk 22:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can only assume that "Curling clubs are inherently notable" is intended to be a joke, though I don't see the point of it. If it isn't then it is a strange view. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I think Earl Andrew's point is that since curling clubs in the U.S. are relatively scarce compared to other local groups for other sports, they are notable.
- For example: I looked up skating clubs on US Figure Skating's website (http://www.usfsa.org/ClubSearch.asp) and serached for local figure skating clubs in a few states and found the following: New York (state)= 69, Ohio=31, Minnestoa= 51, and New Jersey=18 for a total of 169 figure skating clubs just in four states compared to about 170 curling clubs in the entire country.
- Another example: I went to the US Tennis Association's website (http://www.usta.com/finder/findprogram.aspx) and searched for tennis facilities within 95 miles of zip code 10023 (which is in Manhattan) and found well over 100 results... just within 95 miles fo Manhattan.
- Finally, I decided to look at gymnastics on USA Gymnastics' web site (http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/pages/finda/club.html?prog=w) and searched for State=California, Programs Offered=All and got a 231 results.
So I think the point is that since curling clubs are so scarce in the USA and because the sport received so much attention during the last Olympics, curling clubs in the USA are notable.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that curling clubs being uncommon makes them notable is perhaps an interesting one. However, to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in any of Wikipedia's notability-related guidelines to support that view. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe there should be.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the key word in your sentence isguidelines. Interestingly enough, on this page is says "By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory..."--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that curling clubs being uncommon makes them notable is perhaps an interesting one. However, to the best of my knowledge there is nothing in any of Wikipedia's notability-related guidelines to support that view. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and the Five Pillars
Would someone please point-out to me where notability is on the Wikipedia:Five pillars page? I can't see to find it anywhere. Jimmy Wales once said "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge." How exactly is Deletionism in that spirit? I know inclusionists like me say all the time that "Wikipedia is NOT made of paper." Maybe they say it because it's true.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- assuming that this is a good-faith query - see Wikipedia:Notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- assuming that this is a good-faith query (1) Not everything about Wikipedia is in the "five pillars": you have to look elsewhere for much of it. (2) The very first pillar says that Wikipedia is not "an indiscriminate collection of information". (3) Jimmy Wales's comment cannot reasonably be taken literally, or we could have an article about what time I put my socks on this morning. (4) In other places at other times Jimmy Wales has made it abundantly clear that he is in favour of deleting unencyclopedic material, and that he did not intend "all human knowledge" to be taken in the absurdly literal way some people try to use it. (5) Jimmy Wales's opinion is just one person's opinion. Wikipedia works by consensus, not by the authority of a particular person. (6) This is the place to discuss applying existing policies to the question of whether or not to delete a particular article. If you want the policy on notability to be overturned then there are other places to start a discussion on that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'only one in town' Argument
In continuation of the 'curling clubs are rare and therefore notable' conversation, I'd point out that the vast majority of curling clubs in the US are the only curling groups that are within their geographic area. For example, one could argue that the Dayton Philharmonic is notable because it is the only professional orchestra in the Dayton area. Some might try to say that they are not notable because they have never received a Grammy, or because they hardly ever record anything, but that would be unreasonable. Now take into consideration that the Charlotte Centre Curling club is the only club for a 100 mile radius (maybe more).--WaxonWaxov (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Sports in Charlotte, North Carolina.--PinkBull 01:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. Not a pro sports team.--WaxonWaxov (talk) 02:38, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kristin Harmel[edit]
- Kristin Harmel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN author. Toddst1 (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no reason to delete, as she appears to meet the ramifications of what would be considered notable. Also contributes to a popular television show. NorwalkJames (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:AUTHOR. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there is plenty of independent coverage available in the G-News Archives. The article needs improvement and careful editing, not deletion. Kristin Harmel is not the most famous writer in the world, however, in my opinion she meets WP:AUTHOR #3, as she has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep easily meets WP:GNG--Sodabottle (talk) 08:42, 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) 02:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Promo 2007[edit]
- Promo 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Demo albums are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: as the article says "not much is known about this demo". A demo could be notable if it was covered by multiple reliable sources, I see no evidence of that here and can find no evidence of it either. --JD554 (talk) 08:17, 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 redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saffron Coomber[edit]
- Saffron Coomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page was deleted after an AfD in January 2010, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saffron Coomber. Recently a prod and a CSD G4 tags were contested by an anonymous IP. As far as I can see, an actress with a few minor roles, insifficient coverage to pass WP:BIO. Also, given the article's history, perhaps protecting against recreation is warranted. Nsk92 (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, or redirect to Tracy Beaker Returns and protect. The IP that recreated the article is now blocked as a sock of User:Anna2123456789 who has been recreating deleted articles out of process and undoing redirects arrived at by consensus. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not tag the page under CSD G4 since I don't have access to the previously deleted version and was not sure if the current version is "sufficiently identical". I am fine with speedy deletion of the page, but I also think that salting it to protect against recreation may be appropriate in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Arbitrarily0 was the admin who originally deleted the article after the first AfD, we could always drop them a note to check the two versions....Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Protect as seems to be the custom with these problematic articles by now. Fails WP:N. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:51, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Children's Past Lives[edit]
- Children's Past Lives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DEFINITELY fails WP:BK. A non-academic book with no independent reviews or notice outside of the woo-woo reincarnation believing community. Previous attempts to establish notability in the last AfD failed. Being in a library does not qualify as a reasonable standard for inclusion and the one review found by the writer of the article is done anonymously! Don't be fooled by the poor arguments in that discussion.ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction. The review is not anonymous. It is written by Jeffrey L. Geller, professor of psychiatry and director of public-sector psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center, hardly part of the "woo-woo reincarnation believing community". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Book has been reviewed = notable. --Michael C. Price talk 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whether or not we could write an article, it would make more sense to include this in the article about the author. This should be the default way of handling nonfiction that is not especially notable. It has the advantage of bringing related material together and avoiding duplication. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:NBOOK. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Currently the article has no reliable sources to attest notability. I have tagged the article for rescue so that any existing good references can be dug up. __meco (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliably sourced review: [10]. Their conclusion is appros here:
- "Bowman’s arguments and evidence are, if nothing else, fascinating. The book is worth the read if for no other reason than to understand a belief system that is rapidly spreading."
- --Michael C. Price talk 16:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliably sourced review: [10]. Their conclusion is appros here:
- Weak delete - As per the "Sources" section of WP:NOTE, "Multiple sources are generally expected." Acknowledging the one source cited above, that is still only one source. Have no objection to merging either the author bio or book article into the other, based on other discussion here, however. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable enough for an article, per WP:BK and WP:N. The book is mentioned and/or cited in at least 67 other books according to a Google Books search that eliminates books by the same author and uses of the phrase not associated with this book: [11]. Noted author Deepak Chopra recommends the book on page 265 of his book Life After Death: The Burden of Proof (Random House, 2008). There have also been newspaper mentions of this book, here's one example: Daily Mail - UK, more can be found in the Google News archives. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per citations, reviews and news reports about the book and her research. Also the point raised in the earlier AfD: See [12] for a partial list of libraries that hold this book. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources are adequate. Johnfos (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References offered appear to meet notability requirements. — goethean ॐ 21:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've reviewed the sources Jack-A-Roe has dug up. Keep, given those sources. LK (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of the additional sources. --LordPistachio talk 06:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click on the Google news search link at the top of the AFD. [13] Do none of those 15 results look credible to you? Dream Focus 10:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to author article per DGG. It's unlikely that this book is going to receive sudden, major coverage from reliable sources that would warrant its expansion from a stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BK as it has been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 22 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Life Before Life[edit]
- Life Before Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails our notability for books. In short, the only reviews are done in locations where the credulous have patting-each-other-on-the-back parties. The Journal of Parapsychology, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Philosophical Practice, and PsycCRITIQUES are fringe journals who cannot be established as independent with respect to this guideline. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Translated into ten languages = notable.--Michael C. Price talk 20:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whether or not we could write an article, it would make more sense to include this in the article about the author. This should be the default way of handling nonfiction that is not especially notable. It has the advantage of bringing related material together and avoiding duplication.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Keep per Michael C. Price. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Book has been translated into ten languages, and I would expect that there would be reviews of the book in many of those languages. Johnfos (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nominator's quixotic war on reincarnation-related articles has now gone over the top with frivolous nominations of books that clearly are notable and thus only serve to waste other editors' time. __meco (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly fails notability criteria. Fringe reviews and small pressings in other languages that have attracted no attention do not equal notability. This is a clear delete. Verbal chat 20:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet notability criteria. See also: WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. — goethean ॐ 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above. Mitsube (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jim Tucker. It's unlikely that this book is going to receive sudden, major coverage from reliable sources that would warrant its expansion from a stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:59, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Old Souls[edit]
- Old Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails our notability guideline for books: WP:BK. There is a single review from Publisher's Weekly which is not enough to establish the book as being encyclopedic. All other reviews are not from independent sources and the lack of critical reception and outside notice makes the article on this book worth deleting. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies WP:BK and WP:N. To be clear: my response here is not about the topic of reincarnation, it's about a biographical report by an investigative journalist and editor of the Washington Post. Notability of the book is sufficient for an article. It has been cited in more than 30 other books [14]. The book has been mentioned in multiple articles about Ian Stevenson, who was an academic psychiastrist and was the subject of the book, examples include the New York Times and Psychaiatry Online. The book is listed with non-trivial commentary in the New York University School of Medicine Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database. In Australia, ABC National Radio's Late Night Live ran a program featuring an interview with the author about this book. More examples are available if anyone wants to search, but I stopped at the above because they are sufficient to establish notability.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sources do not have themselves have to be encyclopedic. Ridiculous gibberish.--Michael C. Price talk 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge whether or not we could write an article, it would make more sense to include this in the article about the author. This should be the default way of handling nonfiction that is not especially notable. It has the advantage of bringing related material together and avoiding duplication. I recognize this is a different sort of book than the two above, but I think it still should be handled that way. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources appear adequate to establish notability. __meco (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources are adequate. Johnfos (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete poor sources and does not meet notability criteria. Verbal chat 20:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet notability requirement. See also: WP:BATTLE. — goethean ॐ 21:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good sources for notability. Mitsube (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ian Stevenson article per DGG. It's unlikely that this book is going to receive sudden, major coverage from reliable sources that would warrant its expansion from a stub. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:58, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allan's Mill[edit]
- Allan's Mill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally it was a copyvio copy and paste from a library site, the CSD was removed twice by the creator and then once by an IP. No evidence of why this is notable, has not received extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources, and is still very similar to the page it was first copied from. Sources are a smattering of town sites, personal sites and passing references in books. The "major force in the town's economy" line is unsubstantiated, there were many flour mills during this time and there is nothing to show why this one is significant. Terrillja talk 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I spent 10 minutes on the article and it looks a lot better. The mill itself is notable ... there are good resources on the subject out there. The original author will probably expand the article (he contested the speedy delete). Onefinalstep (talk) 00:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the wording is the same as the wording in the references other than key words like "Canada" The mill is a landmark in the town of Guleph, and the mill is responsible for Guleph's economic development during the 19th century, Guleph currently is a city of over 100,000 residents. This article was also a requested article -Sopher99
*Keep* Notable landmark, still essentially plagarism of the original copyvio though. [15] in town history book or something explaining how it came about. Would suggest someone write about it on a "Landmarks of Guelph" type page or something if more sources cant be found.--Savonneux (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As the article still reads as a close paraphrase mirroring the structure of the original source, I have blanked it as a continuing copyright problem. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you please reference the source that you say the paragraph is infringing? Also could you add to the articles discussion page the the comparative sections so that we can see if you are correct? Onefinalstep (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 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, JForget 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Relist comment: I was tempted to close this as keep with no arguments other then the nominator, but the article is close to an A1 candidate after the content before the AFD was removed for potential infringement. So I will keep the discussion open - give the chance for the article to be rebuilt as well. JForget 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not even close to an A1--the context is obvious. It's a particular historic building in Guelph. Just needs to be properly expanded on the basis of the sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
New sudden fiction[edit]
- New sudden fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two mens' theory about a "new and emerging" fiction genre. No obvious notability beyond their own book. Rather self-promoting. — e. ripley\talk 12:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but you're terribly mistaken. Who are the two men you're talking about? Robert Shapard and James Thomas? NO! They didn't write the article! Who wrote the article was me: José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães. Robert Shapard and James Thomas are notable university professors, PhDs, editors and literary critics. They are usually published by W.W. Norton & Company - a fine publishing house. You should read the article again. You must have just skimmed it. Maybe, you think they are not notorious because they are not in the Wikipedia; but I'm sorry to tell you that most notorious people, great scholars, do not even care about the Wikipedia; they might not even know what Wikipedia is. Robert Shapard and James Thomas are going to be in the Wikipedia VERY soon. Do not worry. Not only him but the great Danish Gitte Mose, too, who is quoted in my article Short-short story. Sorry if I was harsh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 12:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite. This appears to be a single, straightforward collection of short stories (a 2007 book titled "New Sudden Fiction", a sequel to "Sudden Fiction") rather than any sort of established or recognised genre. The thesis musings of a university student who considers "new sudden fiction" to be a literary genre fails WP:RS. --McGeddon (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would perhaps be better if rewritten to focus on their book rather than trying to cast their book as shedding light on a nonexistent new genre of fiction writing, but even then I'm not sure the book would pass WP:NOTE. However it'd be a step in a better direction. — e. ripley\talk 13:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RECOMMEND DELETE. My name is Robert Shapard, one of the co-editors of "New Sudden Fiction" published by W.W. Norton in 2007. We did not intend to create or attempt to create a new sub-genre of short-short fiction, via the title and introductory comments in the book. I wrote the introduction (my co-editor James Thomas, approved, as did our editor at Norton, Carol Houck Smith.) "New" is simply meant to identify the book as another--a sequel--in the series of "Sudden Fiction" books. My apologies to Jose Flávio Nogueira Guimaraes if the introduction was misleading; I am grateful for his interest. The introduction meant to say that in the first two books of the series the term "sudden fiction" covered short-short fiction of any length; a few years later the anthology "Flash Fiction," co-edited by James Thomas (and which I had an early part in) claimed short-short fictions under 750 words long. The next "Sudden Fiction" volume therefore collected stories longer than the "flash" length, and "sudden" became identified with "longer" short-short stories (!). So Mr. Nogueira Guimaraes is that the implied definition of the "sudden" length changed. But, again, there was no intention to create a new sub-genre. (The co-editors of both series have always been aware that we are not creators or controllers of sub-genres; writers will write what they will, and readers will call them what they like. We're observers and collectors and glad to help bring attention to the writers.) A last note: a new anthology, "Sudden Fiction Latino," edited by me, James Thomas, and Ray Gonzalez, has just been published by Norton--and the stories in it run from micro (under 250 words) to flash (250-750) to "longer" stories (750 up to as much as 2,000 words)--which brings "sudden" back to its old, all-inclusive stance.15:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertshapard (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- THANK YOU FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO DELETION, MR. SHAPARD. This is José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães. I do not disagree with you nowhere. But you do call the short-short story a genre in the 2007 collection named "New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from America and Beyond," as well as in the "Flash Fiction Forward: 80 Very Short Stories" from 2006. In 1986 it was not called a genre and in the Afterwords of "Sudden Fiction: American Short-Short Stories" (which I read a dozen of times, the Afterwords)writers tried to define what this emerging type of fiction was. I understand and I agree 100% that nobody creates genres or sub-genres. I challenge you to read my thesis and understand my analyses and thoughts more fully. I am very well grounded theoretically. There is a link to it in the article new sudden fiction as well as in the article short-short story from Wikipedia. Anyway, if you type "The Short-Short Story: a New Literary Genre" at Google, you will find two links to it: one is from an office on higher research projects from the Education Department from the Brazilian government and the other is a Brazilian literary site where amateur writers and students post their creative and academic works. I do not believe the introduction of your book was misleading, but for the time I had and the material I had on my hands, I saw the "new sudden fiction" and the "flash fiction" as sub-genres of the short-short story since you and James Thomas "decided to search for a distinction within the GENRE (capitals are mine)...[and] split the child (sudden fiction) into two new children... "new" sudden fiction [and] flash...
Those were your words on page 15 of the "editor's note" of "New Sudden Fiction: Short-Short Stories from America and Beyond". My view might not be adequate. I'm thousand of miles away from the U.S.A. and things happen very fast. I cannot follow such speed. Furthermore, I buy books on the amazon.com and they take 40 days to get to Brazil and as I've already said my time was limited to research and write my thesis. I apologize for the poor contribution. I'm sure an American will do better. I bet. Yes, I've seen the "Sudden Fiction Latino" at the amazon.com. Nevertheless, at the moment I'm preparing a research project for my Ph.D. and the field of study is very different. I'm researching in the field of Jewish Studies, homosexuality and Judaism. I've changed completely. Then feel free to delete everything I've written. I'm very sorry for attempting to help, Mr. Shapard. I'm not good enough, I'm not an American! And don't worry, I'll stick to the Brazilian sites. Moreover, my Ph.D. dissertation will be written in Portuguese; then there is no need for concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 04:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete still a neologism. It may become a received concept, but it is not yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Agreed, the term may gain significance down the road, but it doesn't have that yet. The author (of the article, not the book) notes that the subject may become more notable soon, and that's great - when it does, a narrowly-tailored article backed by reliable sources might work. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism for short-short story. Article consists of original research based on a complete misunderstanding of the title of a work of short stories by someone so unfamiliar with the topic they think short-short stories are something new instead of a term that has been used for decades. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm so sorry for you. YOU'RE SO TERRIBLY MISTAKEN! I assure you I know much more about short-short stories than you. The term has been used for decades and some authors state the genre dates from the 19th century. It was the topic of my master's thesis. Why don't you read it before stating SUCH NONSENSE?!http://66.228.120.252/e-livros/2164970 I guarantee the Someone you refer to is much more knowledgeable on the short-short story than you. I challenge you to read his thesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by José Flávio Nogueira Guimarães (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please do not !vote twice. I would strike your second !vote (but not your comment) but the new setup doesn't seem to allow that anymore. BTW, how can you both claim this is a "new and emerging genre" and admit that "The term has been used for decades and some authors state the genre dates from the 19th century." Edward321 (talk) 15:43, 23 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) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Athanasiadou[edit]
- Maria Athanasiadou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Artist with no discography. Fails notability in music. Imperatore (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I could not find an article in the Greek Wikipedia at el:Μαρία Αθανασιάδου, and a Google search for "Μαρία Αθανασιάδου" site:wikipedia.org gives only the page in the English Wikipedia. If you are working on a biography of someone who works mostly in a language other than English, it is usually a good idea to check the other language's Wikipedia. Eastmain (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't really see how this article meets notability guidelines. Greekboy (talk) 06:33, 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, JForget 15:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are a few links on the web concerning her but nothing notable. Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:43, 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 redirect to Mimasaka, Okayama. JForget 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aida Junior High School[edit]
- Aida Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no notability, nothing to distinguish it from every other junior high doing what junior highs do Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to the article Mimasaka, Okayama per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:39, 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, JForget 15:11, 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) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hussain Al-Qemzi[edit]
- Hussain Al-Qemzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing really notable, he just holds some executive offices. Can't find much coverage from Google, and the article just lists out his resume. —fetch·comms 02:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nom. Doesn't really look notable; refs seem to be unreliable. moɳo 03:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 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, JForget 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Not notable. Traxs7 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional puff piece WP:RESUME -- Ϫ 09:55, 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 merge to Newfrontiers. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything Conference[edit]
- Everything Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this one time conference. Joe Chill (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the site [16] has literally nothing between the <body> tags and the Internet Archive has no archives of the page. Furthermore, the two references are to the site, which has no content at this time (therefore practically a dead link). --Brandon5485 20:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, the official website is currently down. Other coverage of the conference can be found at:
- Newfrontiers' Everything Conference article
- Newfrontiers' UK eNews Report May 2010
- Newfrontiers Videos: Everything Conference
- Everything venue 2011
- ChristChurch London: Everything Conference
- Hope Church Newham: Everything Conference
- Grace Church Nottingham: Newfrontiers' Events
- Rugeley Community Church: News Jan 2010
+ further non-web publications with more information which can be sourced.
Also, hopefully the website should be up and running soon. Apologies for the confusion. If you still deem this page to not have significant coverage, please let me know and I will write it up again when more information is available. --Cheesy Yeast (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- those sources are mainly primary sources. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The references have now been updated using multiple sources. --Cheesy Yeast (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- This seems to be a confernece of the Newfrontiers network of "new" (charismatic) churches. I would thus suggest that it be merged to Newfrontiers. The rather more prominent Stoneleigh Bible Week events are covered in that article, so that the inclusion of this conference would be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's a conference of the same name in Las Vegas but not much else in terms of coverage [17]. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Newfrontiers, the organization behind the conference. Not much secondary coverage. An annual 1,000 person conference attended by mostly non-notable people (no indication that it's even for clergy), should not be enough for a stand-alone article.--PinkBull 07:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep ..... Should probably be merged if an adequate array of sources can't be found. Dr. Blofeld White cat 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Pinkbull. SnottyWong talk 01:42, 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. JForget 14:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jacqueline Chooljian[edit]
- Jacqueline Chooljian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not meet notability guidelines and is proxy for one notable act Bbb23 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is the ONLY Wiki article for a United States Magistrate Judge in the Central District of California. It would appear that the article's only claim to fame is a significant ruling by Chooljian in 2007 involving a particular lawsuit. Otherwise, it has very standard biographical information about Chooljian. With respect to that lawsuit, the article simply quotes (without quotation marks) a newspaper article about how no court has ever done this before. To the extent the lawsuit, Chooljian's ruling, and other related collateral events are notable, there is already an article that discusses the lawsuit. Thus, the Chooljian article is duplicative and less descriptive.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reading up on these Magistrate Judges makes it quite clear that they are a long way down the judicial hierarchy. She may have presided over a notable case, but that is essentially a WP:BLP1E and does not confer separate notability on Chooljian. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Chooljian did not "preside" over the case. Judge Cooper (since deceased) presided. Chooljian was assigned as the discovery judge, which is standard procedure in the Central District for general civil cases. However, the "controversial" ruling was a discovery order and therefore issued by Chooljian.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just being one of about 500 Magistrate Judges doesn't give enough notability for an article. One ruling in one case surely must trigger WP:BLP1E.First Light (talk) 22:19, 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. Sandstein 09:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sara Zandieh[edit]
- Sara Zandieh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The prod was contested because of Google hits. I can't find significant coverage for this director. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - As per WP:ANYBIO, this individual has won a notable award in the form of a 2009-2010 grant to the Fulbright Program. ----moreno oso (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a major award. "The Fulbright Program awards approximately 6,000 new grants annually." Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ANYBIO criteria one. It reads notable award as per my debate. Being a Fulbright Scholar is very notable. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just an educational grant that is given to 6,000 people annually so that they can study abroad. Do you think that all those thousands upon thousands of people are notable? How is it a notable award? Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, if you knew anything about the Fulbright Program, it is exactly as described in the article here on Wikipedia. The article read, The Fulbright Program is one of the most prestigious awards programs worldwide.----moreno oso (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer my question: Do you think that all those thousands upon thousands of people deserve an article? And if it's so major, what about this debate? Joe Chill (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The truth is, that alone is not enough to be notable. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, Joe Chill. But not all of those Fulbright Scholars have achived a Special Jury Mention at the Tribecca Film Festival.The Fulbright Program adds to the credibility (and the notability) of the ostensibly already notable subject. Evalpor (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A special mention doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to be argumentative, but that depends entirely on the film festival in question. The Tribecca Film Festival is a pretty big deal, with huge competition. Any distinction given a neophyte film maker at such an event seems notable to me. A festival like that gets thousands of submissions, especially in the short film category, so it might even be argued that acceptance alone is notable (but I won't push that particular notion). Evalpor (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A special mention doesn't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, Joe Chill. But not all of those Fulbright Scholars have achived a Special Jury Mention at the Tribecca Film Festival.The Fulbright Program adds to the credibility (and the notability) of the ostensibly already notable subject. Evalpor (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, if you knew anything about the Fulbright Program, it is exactly as described in the article here on Wikipedia. The article read, The Fulbright Program is one of the most prestigious awards programs worldwide.----moreno oso (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just an educational grant that is given to 6,000 people annually so that they can study abroad. Do you think that all those thousands upon thousands of people are notable? How is it a notable award? Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ANYBIO criteria one. It reads notable award as per my debate. Being a Fulbright Scholar is very notable. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a major award. "The Fulbright Program awards approximately 6,000 new grants annually." Joe Chill (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:ANYBIO has a specific criteria regarding notability. #1 states notable award. Let's not get into WP:OTHERSTUFF. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Say what you want, but it's just an educational grant (albeit well known). Joe Chill (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - she seems to have done one short movie which won some minor awards (second place at some relatively unknown film festival, special mentions...) and got a grant (like 6000 other people every year). That is not sufficient to pass WP:N.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sara Zandieh won Special Jury Mention at a major New York film festival, an honor which received ample coverage online and in print. That in and of itself sets her apart from the pack. I consider that to be a notable achievement. As I said above, Ms. Zandieh's scholarship simply adds further credibility to her achievement. Evalpor (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Tribeca film festival mention. IMO, that satisfies WP:ANYBIO--Sodabottle (talk) 08:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also as per the award from the Tribeca Film Festival, which has become one of the most prominent film festivals in the world. NYCRuss ☎ 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons I cited above. Evalpor (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. SnottyWong talk 23:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [18] Won an award. Dream Focus 07:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Shouldn't this have closed? ----moreno oso (talk) 17:13, 23 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. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 03:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Koch[edit]
- Richard Koch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NN author. This looks more like liner notes than an encyclopedic article. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails WP:CREATIVE. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources that I've added to the article, including reviews of all of the subject's books. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Author of multiple notable books. JulesH (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks goes to User:Phil Bridger. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sourcing found by Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 00:40, 22 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. This is a difficult one, but it does appear that a case that the term exists and is not a neologism can be made (esp. the Humble reference). On the other side, the fact that the GHits reduce by 90% when wiki-mirrors are removed suggests that the term is at best obscure. I would suggest that more research is probably needed here and the no-consensus close allows for a re-nomination if necessary. On a more trivial note, Nev1's comment that "Alan Titchmarsh is not a reliable source about castles" made me laugh for a very long time (it's a Brit thing, I think). Black Kite (t) (c) 22:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linear castle[edit]
- Linear castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The term "linear castle" is not one I have come across while reading about castles. None of Allen Brown, Cathcart King, McNeil mention "linear castles", and Friar's Sutton Companion to Castles doesn't have an entry for the term (see Castle#References); considering the book is over 300 pages long and covers everything from argent to plas, I'd say that's pretty much conclusive proof that what we have here is a neologism. Pastscape, run by English Heritage has never heard of the term, despite the article claiming Tintagel is a linear castle (not something I noticed in the guidebook). You get about 2,000 results from Google, but these dwindle to less than 200 when Wikipedia is taken out of the equation (ie: Wikipedia and sites getting their information from Wikipedia). The result of all this is that "linear castle" is not a term recognised in castle studies and its article needs to be deleted as it's clearly confusing matter. Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Fortifications task force notified. User:Dweller (article creator) notified. Nev1 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. (Perhaps this discussion should be listed under Technology rather than Society?) Perspicaris (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Let me elaborate. It can indeed be verified that the term "linear castle" is used in the tourism industry and by people like Alan Titchmarsh. What has not been verified is this supposed "theory of linear castles" in contradistinction to the (well-established) concept of concentric castles. The claims about Margat and Krak are particularly bizarre, as they are both concentric (albeit not circular...). Perspicaris (talk) 11:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as verifiable. (BBC), English Castles (Richard Humble, Artus Books 1984) defines a linear castle (p148) as "Castles with baileys or wards arranged in a chain, instead of inside the other as with concentric castles. The usual development of castles sited on ridges of high ground", which seems a good definition to me. And I suppose that pair should suffice for Wikipedia. I'm surprised the nominator hasn't come across the term in his reading - it's hardly an obscure one, and it crops up often enough in discussions of concentric castles as a counterpoint. --Dweller (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sceptical of the use of the BBC when there are higher quality sources available relating to the subject. First of all, its definition of a concentric castle is dubious; if it was simply a matter of being "defended equally around its circumference", then tower houses would be considered concentric castles as they are generally equally (poorly) defended around the circumference (see the plan of Nunney Castle, Somerset, as an example). A concentric castle is one with two or more circuits of defence within each other (concentrically as it happens) with emphasis on the curtain walls for defence as opposed to the keep in earlier castles. The later phase of Krak des Chevaliers was one such example. Secondly the example it gives of a linear castle is not supported by the guidebook written on Caernarfon by Cadw. Caernarfon is not a great example of this concept, unless you include the town walls; it's a better example of an enclosure castle (admittedly, a very general term). As for Humble, I confess I've never heard of him and have not encountered his work; neither have I heard of Artus books, what kind of publisher are they? Sadly, I'm not infallible and may well have missed the term in my reading, but even English Heritage don't seem to use the term "linear castle". While Google books is of course not comprehensive, it certainly indicates that the suggested frequent juxtaposition of the terms "linear castle" and "concentric castle" isn't correct (2,370 results for concentric castle, 9 results for linear castle). I am familiar with the concept being explained in the article, Chepstow Castle is a particularly good example, but have never come across the term before. As explained in the nominating statement, if this term isn't used by the heavy-weights of castle studies, it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It looks like a neogolism (in the sense that neogolism for fortifications could still be 30 years old) by the BBC and whoever wrote one DK book on castles. It's going to be a permanent stub because it is just concentric (concentric in terms of fortifications does not mean circular, it just means high curtain wall behind lower outside walls) defenses in a line and only occurs in 9 books. Directing attackers along a specific path was well known at the time and a lot of "non-standard" castles took advantage of terrain by directing them into various troughs and whatnot (L-plan castlecomes to mind).--Savonneux (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is not a neologism because these are not new words and they are used in their ordinary sense. I have added some references. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding sources, but as I've explained above, using the BBC is perhaps not the best idea, and Alan Titchmarsh is not a reliable source regarding castles. Nev1 (talk) 12:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Does not appear to be a well established and accepted term. Nsk92 (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Invalidating the BBC seems bogus to me. It's a reliable source using a term that's clearly not a neologism (neo means new). I can see what you mean about Titchmarsh, perhaps, but the "DK" comment about Richard Humble's book is out of line and uncalled for. There's two solid references there and I can't understand the continued press to undermine them and call for deletion, because some people have yet to come across the term in their reading. --Dweller (talk) 18:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of better sources, I would agree that the BBC meets Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources, however it's not reliable enough when there's better out there and there clearly are. If you're worried by my use of the word "neologism", feel free to ignore it, perhaps that was poor phrasing on my part that is confusing the issue, but the bottom line is that this term is not generally accepted. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this change your opinion? Nev1 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it persuades you, perhaps you're lining up an AfD for Hill fort, Hoarding or Machicolation, as they're not mentioned either. No-one is claiming it's a universally-used term, merely that it is notable. I no longer have access to a university library - I'm dependent on the few books I have and the web, which is, as pointed out, full of back references to our article, rendering it impossible to trawl properly. I'd start by looking at Prestwich and Taylor, the two most prominent names (especially the latter) in English castle writing, neither of whom is mentioned in your litany at the top. In the absence of this, and with my Wikipedia time severely limited (see my contribs) I've found two reliable sources that discuss the term fully, which passes our usual bar. --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevance of hill forts to this discussion is beyond me, and your comments regarding hoarding and machicolations are facetious. Please do not put words into my mouth and remain focussed on the topic. The sources listed at the top are a sample of those who do not use the term, again not comprehensive, but sufficient to demonstrate that the term is not generally accepted. You have provided one decent source, although haven't responded to a request for more details of the book, and dismissed out of hand the argument that the BBC should not be used. I refer you again to the exclusion of the term from Friar's wide-ranging book; indeed some criticised him for being too inclusive, for example choosing to have individual entries on "keep", "Great Tower", "hall-keep", "donjon", "clustered donjon", "keep-gatehouse", and "shell-keep" rather than a single one for "keep" encompassing all the above. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re hill forts and the other terms, you asked me to reconsider my position because "linear castle" didn't appear in the source you presented. But it also omits a host of other terminology - my reply wasn't trying to be facetious, but to reply to your point. As for facetiousness, there's only been one appalling comment in this AfD and I didn't make it. There was a comment about a source I presented being a "DK", for which I understood a demeaning reference to it being a children's book, which was a low blow. I've not until now seen your request for more info on the book - like I say, my time here is limited, but I've seen the question now. I've no idea how to respond to the question what kind of publisher they are - they published the book and it's on my shelf. Other than that I've no idea. I don't have Friar's book, but his omission of a term does not render it not notable. Neither does it obliterate the fact that I've presented two reliable sources, each of which deals with the term in a non trivial manner. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw this just as I was about to log off, and while I don't have time to deal with all your points immediately (my time here isn't unlimited either), I want to make sure that you do realise that a hill fort is an Iron Age structure which has pretty much nothing to do with castles, right? The two shouldn't be confused; a castle on a hill is not the same as a hill fort (I recommend consulting Darvill's Dictionary of Archaeology). The term has a specific definition and, understandably I think, I assumed you were joking. There is an interesting correlation that some castles were built on the site of hill forts (Beeston Castle and Liddel Strength spring to mind), but that's a completely separate issue to a hill fort being a castle in the same way that Roman forts were not castles although some castles (Lancaster, Portchester, the Brough etc) were built within them. Nev1 (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re hill forts and the other terms, you asked me to reconsider my position because "linear castle" didn't appear in the source you presented. But it also omits a host of other terminology - my reply wasn't trying to be facetious, but to reply to your point. As for facetiousness, there's only been one appalling comment in this AfD and I didn't make it. There was a comment about a source I presented being a "DK", for which I understood a demeaning reference to it being a children's book, which was a low blow. I've not until now seen your request for more info on the book - like I say, my time here is limited, but I've seen the question now. I've no idea how to respond to the question what kind of publisher they are - they published the book and it's on my shelf. Other than that I've no idea. I don't have Friar's book, but his omission of a term does not render it not notable. Neither does it obliterate the fact that I've presented two reliable sources, each of which deals with the term in a non trivial manner. --Dweller (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevance of hill forts to this discussion is beyond me, and your comments regarding hoarding and machicolations are facetious. Please do not put words into my mouth and remain focussed on the topic. The sources listed at the top are a sample of those who do not use the term, again not comprehensive, but sufficient to demonstrate that the term is not generally accepted. You have provided one decent source, although haven't responded to a request for more details of the book, and dismissed out of hand the argument that the BBC should not be used. I refer you again to the exclusion of the term from Friar's wide-ranging book; indeed some criticised him for being too inclusive, for example choosing to have individual entries on "keep", "Great Tower", "hall-keep", "donjon", "clustered donjon", "keep-gatehouse", and "shell-keep" rather than a single one for "keep" encompassing all the above. Nev1 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it persuades you, perhaps you're lining up an AfD for Hill fort, Hoarding or Machicolation, as they're not mentioned either. No-one is claiming it's a universally-used term, merely that it is notable. I no longer have access to a university library - I'm dependent on the few books I have and the web, which is, as pointed out, full of back references to our article, rendering it impossible to trawl properly. I'd start by looking at Prestwich and Taylor, the two most prominent names (especially the latter) in English castle writing, neither of whom is mentioned in your litany at the top. In the absence of this, and with my Wikipedia time severely limited (see my contribs) I've found two reliable sources that discuss the term fully, which passes our usual bar. --Dweller (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's probably worth bearing in mind that Wiki's mission is verifiability, not truth, and so if RS's mention it, so should we. The BBC seems like a good source, although I do wonder how old that page is, and where they gleaned their info from (it reads a little too much like the wiki article to me, but that might just be me - I'd welcome anyone else's tech know-how to find out when it was created). I'm afraid that in this context I don't consider Mr Titchmarsh a qualified source. He's very good at what he does, but there are far better sources to guide us on this than a single throwaway line in a general history book, so I'm afraid I'm going to ignore that ref. I can't comment on the other source mentioned here, but I can say that Ian V. Hogg doesn't appear to use the term in his relevant books (despite extensive references to concentric castles), nor have I heard of the term before (or find it in my mistmatch of other texts). I'd be inclined to say redirect to spur castle for this article, but I must confess I can't find much info about that term either! In many ways this article seems to read like a mix of that article and Defence in depth and I wonder if the sources mentioned are using it as an alternative description for the same thing. Ranger Steve (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the term is simply obscure rather than a hoax, then it seems to me that the AfD rationale is without merit. Even if the term is exceedingly rare, it would be better to rediect and merge it, rather than delete outright... the question is where? (thus why I have not enetered a !vote yet). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The BBC site linked to in the article confirms this is a real thing. Google book search shows three books that feature it: Britain's Best: The Nation's Favourite Historic Places, Great Castles of Britain & Ireland Lise Hull - History - 2009, The Cambridge cultural history of Britain: Modern Britain. Dream Focus 11:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Claiming that because the BBC has used the term means that such things must exist is a bit of a false argument. The BBC article lists no sources, no author, and almost certainly cannot be considered an expert source. Given Nev's experience with Castle articles and his undoubted familiarity with the subject and sources, I can't fault his argument. Parrot of Doom 15:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Parrot of Doom. SnottyWong talk 22:42, 21 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) 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2010 Puerto Rico Earthquake[edit]
- The May 2010 Puerto Rico Earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Negligible seismic event. Pichpich (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Joal Beal (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:EVENT Mikemoral♪♫ 02:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems there are two other articles for this event 2010 Puerto Rico earthquake and 2010 Puerto Rico Earthquake. RapidR (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then they should be included in the AfD. As this is headed towards snowball delete, the closing administrator should take care of those as well.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late to add them here, as this AFD has gone on for several days. If they merit deletion, they'll need to be nominated and judged on the merits. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right though, it doesn't make sense to keep both - so I redirected the Capital-E Earthquake article to the lower case e earthquake article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Aditya Ex Machina 08:24, 21 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 Pcap's work on the article has convinced me that it meets the minimum for inclusion. Thanks for assessing the references like I requested, Pcap. Joe Chill (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AXFS[edit]
- AXFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are sources on the talk page, but I'm not sure if they show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, just barely. Although the article doesn't say it, the author of this embedded file system is an Intel guy, Jared Hulbert, so there are a bunch or presentations and papers either by him or other Intel guys at various embedded systems or Linux conferences [19] [20] [21]. It has received a little independent coverage as well, a paragraph in [22] Linux Journal, an overview [23] in lwn.net, and in a round-up of other file systems for embedded devices [24] in LinuxDevices.com, which appears to have an ok editorial policy [25]. The author of this last paper, Justin Treon, also works at Intel in the embedded group, and he collaborated with Hulbert on this stuff [26], so it's not terribly independent coverage. This file system is a pretty new contender, and so far there's no mention of it in any Linux or embedded systems book. (Thanks to User:Tothwolf for listing the sources on the article's talk page, and to Joe Chill for pointing me to them.) Pcap ping 16:18, 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) 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Goth[edit]
- Re-Goth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable movement, no reliable independent relevant references. Fails WP:GNG, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be an invention of the article creator. The reference doesn't mention "re-goth", and I can't find any sources that do. Fences&Windows 15:45, 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. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bree Jasmine Samuel[edit]
- Bree Jasmine Samuel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I PROD this and it was deleted since this is an article which is filled with factual inaccurate material. The created again after it was deleted. So I'm talking it as a contested PROD. Back to why it doesn't belong, this article says she is born in Germany then in the next section Spain. The References are fake. One is a dead and the other says nothing about this person. Google gives nothing either. Not even IMDB has anything, yet IMDB as every actor/actress ever in existence. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence that this person exists. Rotten references can still be valid for verifiability if they're properly cited, but this isn't, and anyway the fact that it was supposedly accessed just two days ago (the article was created two days ago) makes it less likely that it was a valid link, since it's not likely to have rotted just in the last two days. Nyttend (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence that this person even exists (especially with link 1 not working and 2 not mentioning her). As the nom says, IMDB's never heard of her, and they have seemingly every actor/actress. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note They are two songs that was created that are 'supposedly' Samuel's. They are Electronic Cruella De Vil and You Say What Now and both should be deleted if this get's deleted. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing verifiability in spectacular fashion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 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. — Scientizzle 06:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TinyIDS[edit]
- TinyIDS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established, simply created by author/manager of software (see project page and page history) Simeon (talk) 09:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Simeon (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 10:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous. I am deeply skeptical here about the real intentions of the person who suggests the deletion of an article about an open-source software because he cannot google enough information about the software. I am the author of TinyIDS. Its development has cost me a big amount of free time and effort. Nevertheless, I provide the software to you people for free! You can use it, copy it, distribute it, build upon it and, generally, do whatever you like with it as long as you comply with the Apache license. This is not commercial software. What exactly did you expect to find on the web? My release announcements in forums/mailing lists? Software reviews in magazines? My own spam messages to forums to let people know about the software? An ad campaign maybe? I seriously wonder what exactly you expected to find on the web while searching about TinyIDS and, apparently, you did not find. I have submitted the software to one or two open-source software directories. Also, I created an informational page in Wikipedia as a summary of the software's functionality. There are numerous such articles in Wikipedia. I seriously do not see anything wrong here. The software exists. The software is released as Free/Open-Source Software. The software is functional and performs exactly as described. You can get the source code and check it out yourselves. Also, the informational article was written with special care to provide only the absolutely necessary information about the project. I was surprised by the deletion message and I expect a serious reason for the deletion of the article, because what you have provided so far does not make any sense. If you want to find more info in google about the TinyIDS open-source project the next time you search the web, you can simply donate some money to the project so I can invest some more time to run an advertisement campaign. Thanks for reading. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I'd like to share with you my exasperation about my open-source software related article being judged/moderated by someone:
- who hides himself behind a nickname (Joe Chill), while being an article moderator in Wikipedia,
- who publicly admits that he uses his second account due to harassment and personal attacks he receives on his first account,
- who is not talented enough to download an open-source software and rely upon the source code in order to verify the information that exists in the Wikipedia article, but wishes to rely upon other resources (of undisclosed type) on the web.
Excuse me, but I refuse to be judged by that person. I already have wasted about two hours with this situation and I do not want to waste any more time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeNotaras (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not judging you. I'm not judging your software. I'm judging your article. Here's a few reasons why it should be deleted: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for already notable topics. You said that other articles like this exist. Well, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you read WP:N, you'd see why it's being debated for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly the problem. You judge an article, which is a functional overview of a computer security open-source software, without being able to check on the software's source-code in order to verify the information that the article contains. You expect to verify the article relying upon other information you expect to find on the web. In my opinion, this is fundamentally wrong. The only accurate method to verify the article is to check the software itself, because this is what it is about. I insist that the article contains 100% accurate and up-to-date information. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please be polite in the discussion, and assume good faith. GeorgeNotaras, as the developer you have a conflict of interest and wikipedia policy encourages editors to stay away from topics in which they have a direct interest. Also, please take a look at WP:RS and WP:N for wikipedia guidelines for what constitutes a reliable source that can be used to establish notability. Articles must be notable, and the only question here is whether or not there is significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability according to wikipedia's guidelines. Please post any questions you may have, especially if you are not familiar with this process. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I have been impolite. I'd like to repeat that this is not an article about history or politics or a biography or an advertisement of a commercial piece of software. It is a functional overview of a computer security Free/Open-Source software. There is no other way to verify the article content except for checking the software it describes. If the article is accurate, I do not see anything wrong about it. Finally, I'd like to express my respect to what you do here in Wikipedia, but I have the impression that there is little value in the reason behind the deletion suggestion. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe me, I understand where you are coming from--and since I work as a net admin, I can take a look at the source code, it sounds like an interesting piece of code. Unfortunately, how interesting it is, or how well it performs, or how well it is documented, or how accurately the article describes the software, is here, for the purposes of this discussion, irrelevant. What you need to establish notability are references--reviews of the software in reliable magazines and newspapers, in paper or on line, discussion of the software in depth in books, that kind of thing. For FOSS projects, that's a high bar, since most people interested in FOSS projects tend to eschew such and stick to forums or blogs, repositories such as sourceforge, and the like, which are not considered reliable sources by wikipedia. Please do not take this personally, it may well be that your project is not yet notable, but will be at a later date. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I have been impolite. I'd like to repeat that this is not an article about history or politics or a biography or an advertisement of a commercial piece of software. It is a functional overview of a computer security Free/Open-Source software. There is no other way to verify the article content except for checking the software it describes. If the article is accurate, I do not see anything wrong about it. Finally, I'd like to express my respect to what you do here in Wikipedia, but I have the impression that there is little value in the reason behind the deletion suggestion. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 01:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a copyright violation of http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=9177. Toddst1 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a copyvio, since George Notaras was the author of the text on that site, and just copied his own words here. Torchiest talk/contribs 03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The user Toddst1 is absolutely clueless about how the internet works and I consider him dangerous for the Wikipedia community. Information is reproduced in every possible way on the net and I have no way to interfere in this process. Moreover, the software's initial announcement was released in the Public Domain by me, so it can be legitimately reproduced in any way other people see fit. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- George, with all due respect, you are clueless about how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict rules regarding which subjects which deserve articles. Being a programmer, you should be familiar with following rules. Why don't you go read a few of them before thrashing your ego around here like an idiot. SnottyWong talk 23:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a software directory. I understand you want to spread the word about your software, which I'm sure you worked really hard on, but this isn't an appropriate venue for that. Torchiest talk/contribs 03:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find an independent review from a mainstream S/W reviewer or other publications which refer to it. Sorry, but it's a niche product and fails on any notability test. -- TerryE (talk) 09:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:SOFT. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More Time. I've been through the Wikipedia:N document. I think this particular article falls into the category of an article about a specialized field and should have been flagged with the {{expert-subject}} tag as recommended in the Wikipedia:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines section. Apart from that, the TinyIDS article is a functional overview of a software, the source code of which is publicly available for inspection and verification. Please, do not get me wrong, but, although I do not question your ability to judge articles on Wikipedia, I consider that the vast majority of the commenters here do not have the right qualifications to judge this particular type of articles (functional overviews of software), because such a process would require the verification of the software's functionality and the only safe method to do this is to try the software or inspect the source code, if it is available. Apart from all the above, I can understand the problem about notability. But, if we can agree that the article presents accurate and up-to-date information without misleading the public and that its presence in Wikipedia does not constitute a form of commercial advertisement, I think you could give me some more time in order to make the software more known to the public. Please understand that I do not have plenty of free time to invest on something like that. Also, please understand that being in the field of Health Care I have absolutely no benefit from the promotion of this software. I have written the software to cover the special needs of my servers, but I also decided to release it as free software, which means you can get the result of my hard work for free. There is no commercial organization behind the software and I have no financial benefit from it since it is provided to you for free. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you get no commercial gain from it, couldn't you just post all this information on a blog site or something similar elsewhere? As long as the information is available online somewhere, it seems like your goal would be achieved. Perhaps somewhere down the line, if and when the software received enough coverage to pass the notability guidelines, you could recreate the article here. Torchiest talk/contribs 17:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I can make the software more known to the public, but please understand that this is a low priority for me, since I do not have much free time. When will the article be deleted? I need some time. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Zero hits in google books/news/scholar for this particular software. The chances are overwhelmingly against it passing the WP:N test. Pcap ping 16:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move move the page to a user subpage. That will give them more time to fix it. After the user is ready he could submit it through Wikipedia:Articles for Creation for review. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy. It looks as if the software was just released a month or so ago, so it's unlikely that there exist reliable secondary sources yet. (I can, however, verify the content of the article. I hope that it will receive some coverage -- I like it, but that's not a criterion for keeping, unfortunately. For such a specialized area, I'd say even one solid source would be enough to wait and see what develops, but with none, I can't justify a keep.) Shimeru (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userspace incubation isn't going to help here; the problem isn't just that the article doesn't sufficiently assert its notability, but that the subject does not actually appear to be notable. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have written in the article's discussion page, I come to the conclusion that, in order to keep the article in Wikipedia, I will need to spend more time or even money in order to advertise the software, despite its source code being provided for free in its entirety and despite the fact that I have no financial or other benefit from it. I finally think that trying to keep the article in Wikipedia is not worth the effort/time/money. Rules are rules and I have to comply, regardless of the fact that I consider the rule about notability to be in direct contradiction to the fact that free/open-source software can be perfectly verified by inspecting the source code without requiring a third party to declare the software valid. Anyway, I find this whole conversation quite educational and constructive and thank all who have participated. Please feel free to do whatever you consider right with the article. --GeorgeNotaras (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to note one thing that you repeatedly bring up: it's not about the article's contents, the specific details of the software or our ability to read the source code. The point is that the software is, at the moment, relatively unknown and Wikipedia is not a place to make software more known to the public. The software should first become more known/used and then it could be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. You don't need to spend more time on advertising or more money, but it does need more time to let the public notice and use your software. You should keep in mind that there are many software projects like this and we've set the bar a little higher than just having an article about any software out there. I hope you will find this explanation acceptable and that it'll motivate you to spread the word about your software so that we can include it later on. It needs time. Regards, Simeon (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No google hits for this particular computer program... as the above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of notability. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although I sympathize with the author the system is not yet known. Userfication will not solve the problem anytime soon BUT it is not due to the subject not being notable.Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While the program is interesting, interestingness is not a requirement for inclusion in WP. Someone (hopefully without a conflict of interest and a fragile ego) can recreate this article when/if the software gains some degree of verifiable notoriety. SnottyWong talk 23:18, 21 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. Based on the sources listed by Tyrenius. Sandstein 09:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Dixon (mathematician)[edit]
- Robert Dixon (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No real evidence of notability; single good reference shows some involvement in a somewhat-notable event four years ago, but this seems to fail WP:ONEEVENT. The book he is cited as being the creator of doesn't have a wikipedia page, and the reference is to a dead googlebooks link. I nominated for speedy deletion but the nomination was removed by another user, so I've brought it to AfD instead. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google books link now corrected - I'd missed out a leading underline character and for once didn't check the link after I'd added it. Sorry about that. PamD (talk) 10:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. The refs are there, but his contributions aren't worldwidely recognised. Minimac (talk) 11:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Robert Dixon has received coverage on two different occasions, 2003 and 2006, after accusing Damien Hirst of copying his work. There were articles dedicated to this, as well as ongoing mentions subsequently, when the issue of Hirst's practice of "appropriation" was discussed. See Evening Standard (2003),[28] The Times (2003),[29], The Daily Telegraph (2003),[30] Evening Standard (2006),[31] The Times (2006),[32] The Guardian (2006),[33] Channel 4 (2006),[34] Metro (2006),[35] RTV, Slovenia (2006),[36] RTV Slovenia (2006),[37] Daily Mail (6 June 2007),[38], Daily Mail (11 June 2007),[39] El Universal, Mexico (2007), [40], RTV, Slovenia (2007),[41] Evening Standard (2007),[42] The Guardian (2007), [43] The Times (2007).[44]
- This is on record, will continue to be referred to, and is strongly associated with Dixon himself. It is quite inappropriate to delete the article, as the material is verifiable and a summary included in Damien_Hirst#Appropriation already, so at the minimum there should be a merge and redirect. However, there is not space in the article on Hirst to fully explore the issue, and this can be done at more length in the one on Dixon.
- I am not familiar with his work in mathematics per se, but a quick search shows he is mentioned in Computers in Art, Design, and Animation (1989),[45]. He has a chapter in Fivefold Symmetry (1992).[46] He has articles in New Scientist (1982),[47] New Scientist (1983),[48] New Scientist (1985).[49] There are Google Books results for Mathographics,[50] which also has 13,500 Google hits.[51]
- Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. WP:PROF doesn't even come into play: he clearly doesn't pass. But we have no independent biographical information about Dixon himself: the sources are only about a claim of plagiarism by someone else. It's worth a brief mention in Damien Hirst, but that's already there, so there's nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you advocate Damien Hirst as the suitable location for the information, then this article should be a redirect there, as we are not deleting, but keeping, the content on wikipedia. It's not WP:BLP1E regarding the copyright dispute. For a start, there were two incidents, the first was in 2003 and the second in 2006. Furthermore, coverage has been enduring. The 2003 event was still being referred to three years later (before the second took place), as in The Times. Dixon's dispute has continued to be cited subsequently, e.g. in an article on intellectual property law: Wade, Alex. The Guardian (London), p.1, 10 March 2008. As well as Mathographics (Google Scholar), Dixon is the author of The Baumgarten Corruption (Google Scholar, Google Books, Google hits). He has also written for Leonardo,[52][53][54] and Times Higher Education. The article should be moved to Robert Dixon (computer artist) per sources. Ty 10:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We only need a redirect if we are merging the information from here to there. But the information is already there; there's nothing to merge. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per information provided by Tyrenius above, seems an ongoing issue...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on sources listed by Tyrenius. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination per Tyrenius: notability has been demonstrated beyond the original scope now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:19, 23 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. WP:CSD#A7 JohnCD (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rejected From Evolution[edit]
- Rejected From Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New band with no evidence of notability. Listed for speedy but the authors keep removing tags despite warning. Dmol (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete tagged again and warned creator. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:41, 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) 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bella Treats Trinidad and Tobago[edit]
- Bella Treats Trinidad and Tobago (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable product. References do not mention the product, external links are to facebook and the companies own web site. Google searches do not show any independent sources. noq (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although it sounds like Debbie Does Dallas, this is actually like Little Debbie Snackcakes. However, the only links are to the corporate website and the company's Facebook page. The references to BBC News and Master Bakers do not mention Bella Treats at all. Mandsford 18:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS. Joal Beal (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above, and my having no wish to see "Debbie does Cupcakes". WuhWuzDat 01:46, 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) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talmadge Blevins[edit]
- Talmadge Blevins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was previously deleted at AfD in June 2006 following a contested CSD, and recreated a week later. It has never had any references, and was tagged as being unsourced in March 2008. Since that time, it has been the subject of regular vandalism, including but not limited to blatant BLP violations and hoax-like material, and BLP violations have in some cases been left in the article for months. Google search showed mainly mirrors of the Wikipedia article. The only significant independent references I identified were the two articles in the external links section, in which he is quoted, but is not the subject of the article; therefore I do not believe he crosses the threshold for notability. Risker (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage in depth, as required by WP's notability policy, just some media sightings. As a result (but not in themselves reasons for deletion) the article is uninteresting and tells us almost nothing about the person.Steve Dufour (talk) 07:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Removed once before in 2006, and doesn't demonstrate any notability now. Mandsford 18:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The Edge magazine listed this person as one of the gaming's top 50 journalists. He is occasionally quoted in reliable newspapers/magazines, but I can't find any substantial and independent coverage indicating notability to meet WP:PEOPLE guideline. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:12, 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 keep. enough consensus that it is notable JForget 14:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CDisplay[edit]
- CDisplay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm having trouble locating independent coverage for this software article. The title does not make it easy (false positives abound). It has been tagged as lacking sources for two years now. CDisplayEx has already been deleted in another AfD, but that was easier to search for. Pcap ping 13:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The application is in a class by itself. It was hosed on Geocities until that shut down. [email protected] is the author. While not as notable as other image readers and display applications its ability to read comic book files makes it unique. I heard about it for the first time today. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Software is the only notable reader for .cbr .cbz .cb7.cbt and .cba files, all of which are popular with comic book readers. --Iron Chef (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [citation needed] Pcap ping 04:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm aware of the program and I use the program and I know it's notable... but... wikipedia articles are based upon verification and I cannot find reliable sources for this article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 05:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, it doesn't have to be covered by PC Magazine. The sources need to be reliable for the purpose of documenting comic book usage in the undernets, because I assume it was mostly used for pirated material. (Otherwise there would be mainstream refs for its format if it were adopted by mainstream publishers, I suspect). There must be some equivalents of TorrentFreak and Slyck for comic book material. I just don't know them... Pcap ping 07:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoever covers it, that source has to considered a RS for our purposes and I can find nothing of that type,even though I know how popular this product is so that's why I am saying delete. Bluntly, if we can't source it, we don't cover it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The only notable DCP-Comic-Reader for Windows. Still used by everyone who wanna read cbr cbz cb7 cba cbt. --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 03:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine saying "it's notable" but can anyone provide any reliable sources that provide any evidence of that? At the moment, I'm simply seeing a lot of votes and not a lot of !votes...--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakest keep - there are a couple of online sources that give it some mention; ZeroPaid, NetEase and PC-Actual. I'd be willing to withdraw this !vote if the above sites are shown to be unreliable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:19, 16 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 06:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very commonly used program (even if it is discontinued) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pushsense (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I checked its archived home page [55]. The problem is that not even its own home page makes the claims it has introduced all these file formats. So it's really 0 sources right now for the main claim to notability... Pcap ping 15:55, 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) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet Leaf Tea List of Grannyisms[edit]
- Sweet Leaf Tea List of Grannyisms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable, almost-empty list of corporate product trivia. No reliable, independent references. Fails WP:GNG, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not the place for this, better put on the company's own site or a fan site. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, and the table appears to be fake too. Minimac (talk) 11:44, 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. JForget 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current & Previous aired shows on Australia's Boomerang[edit]
- Current & Previous aired shows on Australia's Boomerang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate lists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletei agree with what alan said. Dwayne was here! ♫ 04:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepSince all these shows are notable, the list is not indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment an indiscriminate list is a list that would not have a countable number of member components. This list can not be considered indiscriminate, because you can define exactly what the member components are, and they are of a known quantity. riffic (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The American Boomerang doesn't have this indiscriminate and unsourced list, and it's the same here. We're Not a TV Guide. Nate • (chatter) 07:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A list of "currently aired" shows is clearly wrong since WP is supposed to be for lasting material. A list of shows that have been shown is, in my opinion, too trivial for WP but that's a judgement call not a matter of policy. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Truly an indiscriminate list, a list of items with one common denominator (they air now or used to air on the Cartoon Network's "Boomerang" channel in Australia), and no additional information to discriminate (distinguish) between one item and the next. One can have non-notable entries on a discriminate list, and one can have notable entries on an indiscriminate list. The obvious solution for the author would be to put this into the article Boomerang (Australian TV channel), or to link the channel's schedule to that article. If it's anything like the American version, the answer to the question of "When is Scooby Doo on?" is "way too often". Mandsford 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with Alan Liefting. Redundant topic. -Reconsider! 13:36, 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.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Hamid (poet)[edit]
- Abdul Hamid (poet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was first proposed for deletion earlier this year and the tag for it had been removed by a user named "Macpl", who objected to the deletion, but DID NOT PROVIDE A REASON WHY. Though Wikipedia does not declare that you must provide a reason for objecting, it is very unclear why he/she wishes to keep an article that has such obvious issues with the lack of citations. Of the two links provided in that article, one is already dead, and the second links to a 'newspaper' that includes a short blurb on the author's accomplishments. The second link DOES indicate that Abdul Hamid seems to be a real person, but the problem lies in the fact that it is only one source, and his poems are NOT peer-reviewed. In fact, a simple Google search of one or more of his poems leads back to ONLY a personal webpage that contains his poems, though the author claims that his works are "published". I'd like to add that several attempts had been made (mostly by whom I think is the original author) objecting the deletions in the past. Why do I believe that? Because before that original article (which contained absolutely no sources) was finally deleted by the admins here, it was previously salvaged by a contributor of Wikipedia who did not sign in, therefore providing ONLY his ip address. That one article was the ONLY article he seemed to be interested in. Though this does not necessarily indicate that it was actually him or her doing it, the timing of the intervention is uncanny and suspicious. I suspect this same exact individual much later on used a different IP to block another attempt at deletion.
The question is: Why are some of these people (if indeed several other people are involved) are trying SO HARD to save this article? I sense that the article is personally important to them, and by that, I feel that they are trying to protect an article that was created to immortalize the mediocre accomplishments of a person who would not normally be recognized in any other way but Wikipedia. There is most definitely a personal agenda attached to this article, which gives it further reason for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AWDRacer (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i see no reason why this decision should not be followed through on. no new material was added. however, i think this page i am writing on may be incorrectly formatted, i dont see previous afd's here. ill check the main log.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Normally i would say since he is a Manipuri poet, there will be Manipuri sources etc. But he has published only two volumes of poetry and in regional languages that is usually very thin. Without any awards - state and national or local language sources, this article is a delete.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:51, 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) 00:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yakov Feldman[edit]
- Yakov Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a non-notable artist, failing WP:ARTIST. This search yields only 76 ghits, not all of them relevant, so it's highly unlikely that notability could be established. andy (talk) 09:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A misplaced comment (moved from the article):Due of time delay and the fact that I (article author) new in Wikipedia and still don't know how to contact administrator's that proposed deletion, i choose the shortest way to avoid deletion today by removing the date|prod in the beginning of the article - i know it is not the right way to proceed but until i know how to answer in the discussion page or talk page to object the proposed deletion, i opted for this "bad" solution. (not again, promise).
So, about the reason of deletion and my object, please consider the following: first, if you make a research in Google with '"Jacob Feldman" artist' as keywords you will get more answers (1700 in google.com against 164, all the answers on the first page is about him in this research) it may be not enough still but it's more... Second, this artist (Jacob Feldman/Yakov Feldman) expose in many places around the world (mainly Europe, USA and Israel), notable personnality has paintings of him in their private collections. Third, hoping it'll help also regarding notoriety question, he is 'grant cousin of Chagall' (his grandmother was a cousin of the artist). Last, he makes wonderful paintings, original and high technic( I will add some pictures (3/4) if you let me do so ) Best Regards, Daniel Attal.
- moved by --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that (a) if you go through the results of that search page by page you'll find there are actually only 412 hits and (b) many if not most of the hits are for other Jacob Feldmans. There's a tenor, a computer programmer, a guy who wrote a book about property valuation and a whole lot of dead people. And then there's all the hits off facebook, youtube, wikis and the artist's own site. Sorry. andy (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've found one link in Russian: http://www.newsru.co.il/rest/18oct2006/vistavka.html. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:39, 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) 00:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing in the google news archives. Notability is not conferred by his relationship to other artists, nor by who collects his work, nor the quality of his work, as good as it is. The external links in the article are unsourced listings of his exhibitions or gallery websites (and thus promotional, and possibly spam). I do not think the one paragraph in the russian article meets the threshold of notability either in the general sense or for artists. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:49, 14 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lack of sourcing do not back up any of the points shown in the article. Minimac (talk) 11:40, 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 Deleted and Salted. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blood on the dance floor (band)[edit]
- Blood on the dance floor (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Author has twice restored a speedily deleted article. There is no reliable, independent referencing and no indication that the band satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. WWGB (talk) 01:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 01:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: And Salt. This was already speedy deleted multiple times under a different name and salted. Plus, the list of members is a hoax even though the band does exist. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete with SALT Not notable, not a single chart, not a single ref. ..:CK:.. (talk2me) 03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete tagged as A7 and possible salt. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and serve with salt - No evidence can be found that this band exists (once you've made your way through all the pages about a Michael Jackson album and song from the same. The "serve with salt" is because it's already been speedily deleted twice. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Actually the band might survive the speedy delete gauntlet because they have quite a bit of material available for official sale, even at Amazon (see this: [56]). It helps to do a search of the band name in conjunction with an album title or name of a band member, to get around the Michael Jackson album. Regardless, even with so much material I can find no evidence that the band or their many songs have been covered and/or reviewed by anyone beyond blogs, social network sites, and do-it-yourself retailers. Also, I agree with the SALT treatment until the band achieves something for real or until the article creator learns how to write. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt per the suggestions above. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted and salted per discussion. Someone please close this AFD; I can never remember how to do it. Nyttend (talk) 12:20, 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) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Secret Life of Evan Dando[edit]
- The Secret Life of Evan Dando (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bootleg per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 02:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was pulling for this, as I like the Lemonheads, but there is zero significant coverage for this bootleg; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 05:40, 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. JForget 13:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Science Fiction (album)[edit]
- Science Fiction (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bootleg. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 02:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We've been here before - it isn't a bootleg. And it has been the subject of significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Indeed. Not a bootleg. Has been the subject of significant coverage in Allmusic. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 06:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How is this not a bootleg? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bootlegs are illegal releases. This isn't.--Michig (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Not all bootlegs are illegal, not all illegal albums are bootlegs, and nothing in this article says that the album is legal--if anything, its status as an "unauthorized" recording would suggest the opposite. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All genuine bootlegs are illegal. Record labels and bands have capitalized on their popularity by releasing 'official bootlegs', but these aren't genuinely bootlegs. As for this album being 'unauthorized' it depends by whom. Since several legit labels have released it it clearly isn't violating any law - perhaps it's just not authorized by the artists, but if they don't own the copyright then that doesn't make it a bootleg any more than thousands of other non-bootleg collections.--Michig (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not true If I go to a concert and record it, that is a bootleg. That might be legal or illegal. Bootlegs are not universally "illegal albums." That having been said, you still haven't shown me how this isn't a bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All genuine bootlegs are illegal. Record labels and bands have capitalized on their popularity by releasing 'official bootlegs', but these aren't genuinely bootlegs. As for this album being 'unauthorized' it depends by whom. Since several legit labels have released it it clearly isn't violating any law - perhaps it's just not authorized by the artists, but if they don't own the copyright then that doesn't make it a bootleg any more than thousands of other non-bootleg collections.--Michig (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No Not all bootlegs are illegal, not all illegal albums are bootlegs, and nothing in this article says that the album is legal--if anything, its status as an "unauthorized" recording would suggest the opposite. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bootlegs are illegal releases. This isn't.--Michig (talk) 06:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How is this not a bootleg? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, oh please keep Alice, notable artist=notable album!. --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 19:21, 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) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uptown Secrecy[edit]
- Uptown Secrecy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The speedy was contested. I think that it was contested because it says that its a Youtube show by Selena Gomez which is understandable. Now, I think that this is a hoax because I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can see why the speedy was declined, but I can also see that even Google is unable to fill a whole page with relevant hits, nearly all of which are from Youtube. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:07, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reign of Terror (demo)[edit]
- Reign of Terror (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Fails WP:MUSIC. Demos are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, please keep, this is one of most best demo of Death, --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What do you mean by "most best demo"? Whether or not someting is the best is subject to opinion, and can't be a factor as to what pages can be saved. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 01:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or redirect to band, if anyone thinks "Reign of Terror (demo)" doesn't meet WP:CSD#R3). No evidence of notability of demo-album (not surprising, seems to be their actual demos before becoming a notable band, not demo/mixtape/promos in the course of their citedly-notable career). Does appear to be mentioned in the band's article as part of their history, but albums can't ride notability-coattails ("important to the band" != "notable enough for own article"). Template:Death (band) has a whole list of demo tapes that are in various stages of PROD, and I'd say they can all delete per same rationale. Heads-up for socks in this process. DMacks (talk) 05:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Death's demos have been widely covered in the metal press, including by such notable genre authors as Ian Christe, Garry Sharpe-Young, Martin Popoff, etc. The demos themselves are all being released within the year, as per a press release by Relapse Records on May 10, 2010. I agree that, if deleted, should be incorporated into a section within body of artist page. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's been widely covered can you please provide some of the coverage? Then add it to the article? Rehevkor ✉ 12:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death Metal (Possessed demo) (3rd nomination) for another demo by same band. DMacks (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the same band, leading me to believe that those wanting to purge these demos are actually editing in areas in which they have either no expertise or interest, with all due respect. The other band you're referring to is called Possessed, which is also a pioneer in the genre death metal. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, it could be an honest and minor mistake. Rehevkor ✉ 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - DMacks comes to this discussion shortly after blocking a sockpuppet who was doing a poor job of "protecting" both of the articles (Reign... and Death...). Assuming good faith, this was an honest mistake. One does not need "expertise" in the band/genre to see that we do not currently have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. If you have them, please add them to the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. However, we as editors are essentially commandanded not to trust each others' word about notability (my interest and expertise are irrelevant, just like other editors'). Verifibility means says that claims of notability must be supported by independent reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As these Death demos have been written about in the established metal press, I will try and get to adding references by Friday, if that is cool. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the same band, leading me to believe that those wanting to purge these demos are actually editing in areas in which they have either no expertise or interest, with all due respect. The other band you're referring to is called Possessed, which is also a pioneer in the genre death metal. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as demos are generaly not notable and no reference indicates otherwise. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would point out a couple of things - these demos have all been distributed as independent releases (individually and as part of the Zero Tolerance CD, 2004), and secondly they are all being included on an upcoming Relapse Records/Sony CD. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There seems to be notable souces put on the page since it was tagged for deleteion. Due to the two sources being published books, that constitutes as "notable coverage" on wikipedia, if I am correct. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 05:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure what you mean by "notable coverage". We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yes, published books appear to be both "reliable" and "independent of the subject". However, is the coverage "significant"? That is: do we have sufficient coverage to write a reasonably detailed article? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentFans of the genre certainly are aware of the immense importance of these demos. I will soon start giving quotes from all of the metal mags of the era - that is if you eager beavers haven't deleted it by then (and of course there isn't the consensus to do so). Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure what you mean by "notable coverage". We need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Yes, published books appear to be both "reliable" and "independent of the subject". However, is the coverage "significant"? That is: do we have sufficient coverage to write a reasonably detailed article? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's claim to notability, that the demo "influenced the Death metal scene tremendously", appears to be a mistake. The cited and linked book appears to be referring to another album. --PinkBull 01:32, 24 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) 02:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Arica earthquake[edit]
- 2010 Arica earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Nothing to say that this one is particularly notable. —fetch·comms 00:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Fails WP:EVENT also and gives no historical significance Mikemoral♪♫ 00:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is an encyclopedia, not a log of earthquakes. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's been a misconception lately that all earthquakes which cause damage are inherently notable. This is not true at all, in fact, the majority of earthquakes are not notable whatsoever, like this one. The Earthquakes WikiProject members, including myself and Mikenorton, are trying to install a general notability guideline. ceranthor 11:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --DAI (Δ) 12:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Earthquakes are pretty damn common all around the Pacific. Unless it's The Big One, it's just a blip on the radar, thus not notable.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. However, we need some sort of guideline on what natural phenomena can made it as an article.Pxtreme75 (talk) 21:49, 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 no consensus, having assigned appropriate weighting to new and unregistered users' comments. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greyson Michael Chance[edit]
- Greyson Michael Chance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nomination on behalf of anonymous user 24.189.90.68; subject of the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). The original nomination follows:
"Yeah, ok, he just got signed. But beyond being a YouTube sensation, is there any reason for him to have his own article already? He hasn't released an album or even a single yet. I think it would be best to wait until an actual career of some sorts flourishes so that there can be a REASON for this article to exist. The hype from his YouTube video will die down very quickly, and this article will look pointless as a result." — Preceding text originally posted on Talk:Greyson Michael Chance (diff) by 24.189.90.68 (talk⋅contribs) 00:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My submission of this nomination is purely procedural as a result of the inability of anonymous users to create pages and does not imply that I support 24.189.90.68's views. Xenon54 (talk) 00:29, 16 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Redirect to Interscope Records for now. He has gained a lot of media coverage, but it's only been a week. Only time will tell if he's just a fad or will turn out to actually be notable. –Chase (talk) 04:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Greyson Michael Chance has gained a great deal of publicity very quickly, mostly due to the quality of his performance both on youtube and on the Ellen show. One of the amazing things about Wikipedia is that it is capable of responding just as quickly. The general public is interested in knowing the kind of information that is found in this article and on that basis alone, this article should stay. It will be interesting to see how this article changes over time, but for now, it serves as a record of how Chance gained immense popularity in an extremely short period of time. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Oh please ... get over it there's a wiki page for everything useless and useful ... why is anyone wasting their time caring??? I mean why are you so obsessed with hating on a 12 year old. Grow up and get a pair! The idea that the page would be taken down DISGUSTS me. There are FAR more offensive articles here on wikiddywack so read what ytou want and DON'T read what you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.15.34 (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And note that well-reasoned, carefully thought out !votes are much more persuasive than "grow up and get a pair"
- not least because because editors who came here to offer weak support might very well end up replying to anonymous IPs instead... TFOWRpropaganda 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)TFOWRpropaganda 11:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And note that well-reasoned, carefully thought out !votes are much more persuasive than "grow up and get a pair"
- Keep Internet phenomenons are notable by itself. And being featured on internationally broadcasted show like Ellen DeGeneres Show counts as media coverage for sure. Monni (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
(from a non-!voter who's leaning towards agreeing with Monni1995):The subject's appearance on the Ellen DeGeneres show was covered by, for example, the BBC: "Lady Gaga phones 12-year-old YouTube star". TFOWRpropaganda 11:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC) TFOWRpropaganda 11:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Keep He has actually already made it to the swedish newspapers, so he is not just a Youtube sensation any more. Dagens Nyheter is the largest swedish morning newspaper and here is the article - just as an example of the worldwide coverage he has got. So he is quite notable. Lova Falk talk 11:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per above, but needs more sourcing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep strong Hi, I am probably writing this in the wrong place and I am not sure how to add a signature so I am very sorry. Just to let you know my thoughts. I think this article should definitely exist. It is true that at the moment he is only a YouTube sensation and it is true that soon the hype may die down but this is history in the making. Yes, in honesty it may be a speck in History but it is still History. What if someone thought the Doomsday Book was worthless and should be deleted? (well, binned). In 100 years time, if someone is looking back into history on the the effect of YouTube and creating overnight sensations (that perhaps only last overnight or continue to become stars), they can easily do this by looking at articles such as this one! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.174.248 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment: (I signed for you: you can sign by typing four "tildes" after your post, like this: "~~~~") Even if the hype over the article's subject does die down, that wouldn't necessarily be a valid reason for the article to be deleted. If the editors here, yourself included, can demonstrate that Greyson is notable then it's quite likely the article will be kept. TFOWRpropaganda 11:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this being considered to be deleted? He has OVER 15 Million views! He is the biggest thing in the media right now and has been signed by the biggest record label out there! He has appeared on world-wide television already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.249.9 (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - per the news articles indicating notability. PrincessofLlyr royal court 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - I don't think he passes WP:GNG, as the coverage seems to be all about one event at this point. However, I'd bet that very soon he will be notable and receive press coverage for something other than his Youtube video. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 22:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete In general, when it comes to people notable only for one event, as appears to be the case, the important policy here is WP:BLP1E and the guideline WP:SINGLEEVENT. WP:BLP1E states: "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I'm glad the kid got his 15 minutes of fame, but it does seem like a Media circus, and I think it'll fade into background noise in a short time. :) Just my thoughts. Avicennasis @ 02:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep strong - I got a random youtube link from a friend, and I came here seeking more information. Maybe the kid will fade from history tomorrow, maybe not, but you cannot argue that the kid isn't a notable phenomenon right now. The article should exist right now. "Deletionists: Lobotomizing Wikipedia one article at a time" Lhoriman (talk) 03:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want "right now", head on over to Wikinews. That's where "right now" news is better suited for. Also see WP:DEADLINE. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense, WP:DEADLINE is irrelevant here, this is not a news story. This is something sufficiently notable that people are virally emailing links all over the internet. It fits the very definition of "worthy of notice" - many millions of people are people are noticing it. It might not be notable sometime in the future, but that is pure speculation and prediction. If you want to delete the article as irrelevant next year, make that fight then. This kid is notable right now, and when people come to Wikipedia looking for encyclopedic information about this email they keep getting, they should find an article. Lhoriman (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Having over
1517 million views in itself demonstrates notability. And since this AfD started, he signed with Interscope Records (same label as Lady Gaga). Oh yeah, and he's had very in-depth coverage from reliable sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. At this point, editors crystal ball speculation of the future non-notability of this person is willful ignorance. --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No, having 15 million views on YouTube in of itself does not demonstrate notability, unless said video is covered extensively by the media. And even then, there's WP:RECENTISM, so it's not always a good idea to create an article for everything that gets mentioned on TV or on the web. No one is saying for sure that Greyson will go back to being a nobody six months to a year from now, it could easily go either way. But more often than not, people that become famous due to internet hype tend to fade into obscurity just as quickly as they became huge, so waiting to see if this kid will remain on the public's radar isn't exactly a crime. Also, signing with a major label doesn't count either, until that person releases a song or an album, because it is not uncommon at all for artists to get dropped by labels before any project of theirs gets a chance to be released or even recorded. Wasn't Gaga signed to Arista Records or something a few years ago, until L.A. Reid dropped her? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 06:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: to help prevent our wilful ignorance, are you able to cite the future notability of the subject? ;-) TFOWRpropaganda 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this kid has shown up in a popular youtube video, mass media, and virally transmitted email links, your position seems to suggest that no subject can possibly be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article until a couple years after the fact. Since there is no deadline, why not propose AfD sometime in the future when/if the subject is no longer notable? Lhoriman (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, wikipedia would be much smaller than it is now as quite a few people (particularly actor's and singers) aren't notable after the spotlight goes away from them. The kid is 13, he MIGHT have a long career ahead of him but it is doubtful that he will do anything until after high school. In my case, I am for a Weak keep.--Hourick (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete strong: My reason for deletion is simple, who is he? 15 million view on youtube means nothing. What constitutes how many views it takes? What about the kid with 14.9 million views who doesn't have his own page. He's released no albums, no singles, nothing. All he has is a home video of a recital on youtube. Being signed means nothing. Interscope probably signed 150 people this month. Doesn't mean they get their own page or even a cd will be released. The arguments saying we should keep because he's notable as of this moment aren't credible. What constitutes notoriety? A 5 minute segment on Ellen? Wikinews would be perfect for trending topics. I say delete for now till he does anything, and when he does, bring it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.53.157.204 (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC) — 206.53.157.204 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Whether it's enough is a matter of opinion, but our rule on "what constitutes notoriety" is coverage in reliable sources, as explained at WP:NOTE. Basically, it's whether newspapers, magazines, books, and certain websites write about a subject. Just so you know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's plenty of coverage, and he's been signed. Even if he doesn't do anything more, there will be coverage of that too. Plus there's interesting speculation of his rise[57], that means the info should be merged to whatever article talks about internet marketing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is appearing on television shows, and there are now articles about him on CNN, BBC, etc. --Flask (talk) 05:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appearance on a talk show plus tons of youtube hits. Not clear to me this is widespread enough to be notable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- He has had considerable national and international news coverage, his case is much like susan boyle's, he is signed to one of the largest record companies in the world, it would be a waste to delete him on the grounds he hasnt released a record because he will be releasing records and then someone would be writing his article all over again.--Joebengo (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep strong Even though he might only be on youtube now tommorrow hes going to be huge,he has talent and you shouldnt take this page away when he already has millions of fans from youtube which means when acctully gets famous he will have even more. Musicrockz (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC) (This was copied from the talk page by Lova Falk talk 14:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep- There isn't a real reason why this should be up for deletion. Seeing has been on many TV shows, people are going to be doing web searches on him. And the fact people can use this wikipedia article to find out more about him may contribute to his popularity or success in some way —Preceding unsigned comment added by S73W1E6R1FF1N (talk • contribs) 22:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep -- I first heard of him on an MSN Internet news feature, so he does meet the general notability criterion for Wikipedia. Plus he's already a household name. Wiwaxia (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete/redirect/merge per WP:GNG, WP:SINGLEEVENT and WP:BLP1E. The subject is currently notable solely for his performance on YouTube, a performance which has gained him some international coverage - but purely for that one event (YouTube performance). My preference would be for this article to be merged into List of YouTube personalities, and this article recreated if/when the subject releases something. Assuming that the subject will eventually meet our notability requirements is inconsistent with WP:CRYSTAL (and the onus is on those proposing future fame to provide verification...), and regrettably I can see plenty of policy reasons to delete/merge/redirect, and only enthusiasm as a reason to keep. TFOWRpropaganda 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, WP:BLP1E is explicitly clear it is for "a low-profile individual." This is not in any manner a "low profile" person. As for WP:SINGLEEVENT, this is another example of a user throwing this guideline sub-clause up as if WP:NOTABILITY forbids articles of people who were known for single event. It doesn't. WP:SINGLEEVENT even states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This person's performance has garnered heavy worldwide attention and the person's role within the event was large. And besides, it's more than one event. Being in on national talk shows are other events. Just because the person became famous from one event, doesn't magically mean all subsequent events didn't happen. Your arguments are reminding me of the AFD for Levi Johnston when most of the delete arguments were to the effect of "notable because of one event, the act sex with Bristol Palin." Of course that was nonsensical as he was famous and a very public person. The outcome was a solid "KEEP." --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, if it was in anyway unclear why I feel that WP:BLP1E and WP:SINGLEEVENT apply here the best thing to do would have been to ask me to clarify, rather than second-guessing my reasons for citing these policies. I'm happy to discuss my !vote elsewhere; if I feel that my arguments above are not clear I will clarify my !vote above - so discussion in that respect would be very helpful. Cheers, TFOWRpropaganda 12:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, WP:BLP1E is explicitly clear it is for "a low-profile individual." This is not in any manner a "low profile" person. As for WP:SINGLEEVENT, this is another example of a user throwing this guideline sub-clause up as if WP:NOTABILITY forbids articles of people who were known for single event. It doesn't. WP:SINGLEEVENT even states "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." This person's performance has garnered heavy worldwide attention and the person's role within the event was large. And besides, it's more than one event. Being in on national talk shows are other events. Just because the person became famous from one event, doesn't magically mean all subsequent events didn't happen. Your arguments are reminding me of the AFD for Levi Johnston when most of the delete arguments were to the effect of "notable because of one event, the act sex with Bristol Palin." Of course that was nonsensical as he was famous and a very public person. The outcome was a solid "KEEP." --Oakshade (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, unfortunately. Technically he is verifiable and notable according to our guidelines. Hammering a keyboard and yammering out a song on Youtube was not notable. Doing it on a major TV show and getting signed to a record label for it has turned this low talent child into a notable property. Pity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This is no longer for "a single event", simply because he has also appeared on the Ellen show (which is a second event). It has already been announced that he will appear on the Ellen show a second time, the 26th of May, 2010; furthermore, the Ellen show has already filmed him in his last day of school, as announced at his Twitter account. Besides which, as others have stated, not only his one YouTube performance, but also the Ellen appearance, have been noted by major news outlets around the world. Justin Bieber was recently asked in a radio interview about Greyson Michael Chance; so, that's another reference, and not just to the single event but to the general phenomenon of Chance's rise. (Bieber thought it was good for Chance to get the attention.) It might be important here to separate the consideration of Greyson Michael Chance, the person, from Greyson Michael Chance the phenomenon; but the phenomenon has gained widespread coverage, and with it the person. Cgweeks (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)— Cgweeks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep- worldwide sensation, Swiss TV too crazy --Chris.urs-o (talk) 16:51, 23 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rusty: A Dog's Tale[edit]
- Rusty: A Dog's Tale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep With respects to the nom, I have begun cleanup and expansion of the article. The sheer number of notables involved in it has led to my finding sources in English and also in other languages as well. And admittedly no, not all sources are "in-depth", but there are multiples that are "more than a trivial mention even if not the main topic of the source material"... multiples that appear to meet WP:NF#General principles and WP:NF#Other evidence of notability. I believe it can be improved to serve the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 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) 00:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Searching for the name it was released in America under, shows some results. [58]. Most require a paid subscription to view though. This [59] shows at least some it was reviewed though. Google Book search has it mentioned in many books that appear as well [60]. Dream Focus 02:21, 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 per consensus. (non-admin closure) Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 01:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appusami[edit]
- Appusami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find notability (or even existence) of this series of novels and short stories. Search in google news for Appussami and any of the pseudonyms listed comes up empty. Web search also isn't turning up notability. Given the age of the series (first appearing in 1963), it's possible a dead tree search will turn up something, and language issues may be hindering my search, but I've come up empty. Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Per nom. Article expresses a POV tone; see my edit to the intro phrase removing POV statement. moɳo 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Appusami series is a highly popular one is Tamil Nadu. It has been in continuous publication in Tamil print media for four decades. A lot of them have been made into TV Shows. Here are a few reports in RS The Hindu1, The Hindu2, Screen Magazine etc. There are many more Tamil print sources available to source. I will clean up the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 05:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job on the refs -- thanks! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Another editor has provided references. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 20:37, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 15: The War of the Ember[edit]
- Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 15: The War of the Ember (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability, fails WP:BOOK WP:NBOOK, no references to independent reliable sources. Prod removed with edit summary: "remove prod, notable book". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile (2nd nomination) for a similar case. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (amended) –– Jezhotwells (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –– Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a book from a very notable series of books. It is widely available and has been the subject of many independent reviews. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile (1st nomination) for a similar case. Gorrad (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide some reliable sources, if you can. I can't find anything out there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Clearly not notable under criteria specified in WP:NBOOK. Ohiostandard (talk) 06:54, 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) 00:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NBOOK.
- Question Why nominate just this book and not the other 14 in the series (which has its own category)? Is it just because it hasn't had any references yet? That alone is a valid rational? It would seem odd to have articles on the first 14 and not the last. I guess this translated to a Keep vote: although I agree that two years is a long time to wait for references, I think Wikipedia can afford to wait longer. Stephenb (Talk) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Book 14 was deleted per afd [61]. It now has been recreated as a redirect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually all 15 of them were prodded along with the main article for the whole series. I was able to source about 12 or 13. The newest ones 14 and 15 seem not to have gathered that much attention.--Sodabottle (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Book 14 was deleted per afd [61]. It now has been recreated as a redirect. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [62] There is plenty of coverage of this series of books, and no reason to think the newest one wouldn't be reviewed as well. When I add in "book 15" to the search, I get a result [63] showing them covering it. The full article is accessible only to paid subscribers though. It is surely talked about. This is the final book in a notable series. Dream Focus 10:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But still no substantial coverage as per WP:NBOOK. It isn't a matter of beief that there must be sources, it is just simply so that none have been provided. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Asserting that coverage exists somewhere isn't sufficient. You've got to WP:PROVEIT. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 24 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. However, if someone wishes to further discuss the notability of the non hijacked version of this article then they are free to renominate at any time. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rich picture[edit]
- Rich picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content essentially duplicates Mind map, and openly asserts that it is not about the subject in the title. "This description refers to Mind Maps and not Rich Pictures". Only content concerning "Rich Pictures" is the fact that they were developed by Peter Checkland and two external links. Also probably a violation of WP:OR. Claritas (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert The content of the original Rich picture article was replaced by the Mind Maps stuff on 30 September 2006. If we were to revert to the 13 August 2006 version by User:Bitsaremissing, we'd at least have an article that matched its title, and then that could be examined instead -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake - I didn't look at the article history enough. Claritas (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Be bold - OK, I've been bold and reverted to the last version before it was hijacked and replaced with all that Mind Maps stuff. But in that state it's unreferenced and has a {{POV}} tag, so I think it's still worth continuing the discussion here to see whether it's thought to be salvageable in that state -- Boing! said Zebedee 17:27, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep many relevant refs in just the simple G Scholar search in the heading: Methods & tools: the rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context and Towards an SSM toolkit: Rich picture diagramming and Rich picture building in the soft systems methodology, the first three hits, all by different authors in different good journals, even have it in the title. Obviously many of those 7330 hits are other meanings, but at least 30 of the first 50 hits use it. Searching "Rich picture" SSM (SSM=Soft Systems Methodology), which is very specific , gives 856 G Scholar items. I admit to having a considerable degree of skepticism about articles on management terminology, but some of those articles do turn out to be well justified. I never heard of the concept until today, and expected to say delete--until I looked for references. I don't trust my own prior knowledge: by experiment with random articles, I find I have never heard before of about 90% of WP content. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm more neutral about this since I realized that the page wasn't originally a simple duplicate of mind map, but I'd still prefer a merge and redirect to Soft systems methodology than keeping the article. It seems to be notable by the standards of WP:NOTABILITY, but I share your skepticism concerning management research. Claritas (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources available confirm this is a notable concept rather than just management jargon. (I covered these in my Business degree.) Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:32, 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 redirect to some appropriate topic. More discussion may be needed to determine the appropriate target article. Consensus is, however, taht this should not be a separate article given the (lack of) currently available sources. Sandstein 09:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Registerware[edit]
- Registerware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not cite any references and is an original research. Possibly not notable. Fleet Command (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepComment While the article doesn't have any references for the term, it is a term that is in fairly common use - I'm just not sure how mainstream/official/notable the term actually is though. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- A term in common use? Wikipedia is not dictionary. Articles that merit inclusion in Wikipedia must have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If it is a term, transfer it to Wiktionary. Fleet Command (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, sorry, I meant the above only as a comment - not sure I got "Weak keep" from. I've changed it now -- Boing! said Zebedee 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. I didn't mean to be biting either; just mentioning it.
Anyways, this article could use a source. You see, I myself have never heard "registerware". But I have downloaded trail software a lot. It seems to me that every application needs registration, commercial or otherwise. Times and again, I have escaped registration by downloading them from CNET! Fleet Command (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a further comment - although it's a term that I thought was fairly common (I'm familiar with it myself), I'm surprised that I can't actually find much in the way of references to it. So maybe it is a non-notable neologism -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the term can be sourced somewhere, merge and redirect to freeware. This is just a minor variation, not enough for a separate article. Even if the term can't be sourced, the variation itself is worth adding to that article, perhaps without insisting on giving it a name. Pcap ping 11:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... but assumption is a dangerous thing. I've searched prior to proposing; a lot of result came up but nothing that address notability issue. So, good luck trying to find source, although I am not optimistic. Fleet Command (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. First we're not a dictionary. Second, this neologism seems to be virtually non-existent anyhow and lacks requisite non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:21, 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) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. Armbrust Talk Contribs 00:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid form of software distribution. I would not consider this a dicdef, nor a neologism. -- Ϫ 10:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so this reference and the one above, as well as a couple others I've found from InfoWorld magazine that mention the term "Refisterware" are actually speaking in context to product activation rather than the type of freeware this article is about. But still, at least it's not a neologism! :) Anyways, maybe a better alternative would be to Redirect to Product activation. -- Ϫ 10:22, 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 keep. just enough consensus on notability JForget 13:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pet Supplies Plus[edit]
- Pet Supplies "Plus" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article says the chain has over 200 stores. According to the website it is a 30 year old franchise. Onefinalstep (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that makes it notable for a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's hard to figure why such a large (according to them) chain has zero independent sourcing, but that seems to be the case. Nothing online except their own website and related items. Nothing in GNews except an occasional local announcement about the opening of an individual store. I could not even find out if they are privately held or publicly traded. There's just nothing significant out there about them that I could find. So, non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 02:31, 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) 00:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep - onefinalstep is correct. qö₮$@37 (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added a couple refs (Business Week and Crains). Hoover's, in its US Pet Store Industry Overview, says "Major companies include PetSmart, PETCO Animal Supplies Stores, Pet Supplies "Plus," and Petland." [64]. Novickas (talk) 00:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: Seems to be notable, passes WP:RS. Sego Lily (talk) 02:33, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mahale Chiniha[edit]
- Mahale Chiniha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find anything about this supposed town except Wikipedia mirrors. It's particularly difficult to comprehend, and if it does exist, it doesn't appear to be an actual town and could be merged into Gachsaran. —fetch·comms 03:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is an example of where the deletion sorting process can be particularly helpful. I am adding the discussion to the the list of Iran-related deletion discussions with the hope that someone will see it there and improve the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article title is simply the Persian for "Chinatown", so if this is kept it should be moved to Mahala Chiniha, Gachsaran or Chinatown, Gachsaran. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:27, 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) 00:02, 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. Discounting IP comment. The comment by DIRTSA8032170 does not address our notability standards. Sandstein 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astrid Bryan[edit]
- Astrid Bryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I searched and searched through the article, and though at first sight it might seem like she's notable (multiple sources, lengthy wording etc.), I didn't find any notability standard she could meet. The article needs a serious cleanup, and even if there's something notable about her, it should be written clearly and not shoved aside near unimportant details. Maashatra11 (talk) 09:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to Maashara11; First, i would like to apologize for not responding earlier. We just received your message about possible deletion. We do not agree that Astrid Bryan does not meet the notability standard and would request you give us more time to respond. I will prepare a response to your post by Friday, May 14th, 2010 if that is OK. In the meantime, can you explain where notable items are "shoved aside near unimportant details". While your comment seems unnecessarily churlish, I am sure you did not mean to sound less than civil. However, your comment is contradictory (it implies that the article does indeed contain notable elements, but they are made less notable because they are near "unimportant details"). Such a comment cannot be a standard as millions of notable elements are in close proximity to what might be regarded as unimportant details. Unimportant details do not, under any circumstances, make notable elements less notable. Perhaps you could clarify your opinion and tell us which elements that you think are notable and how they are tarnished by "unimportant details".
We will certainly consider re-writing the biography. Let us make an effort to correspond with civility; we would greatly appreciate it, and will return such kindness.
Watleymusic(talk) 09:30, 9 May 2010 - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've blocked the account above as it appears to be a group or company account, and added a COI tag as the article was created by Watley Music. If there is just one individual editing then they can create a new account. [65] and other sites show a clear connection. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Dougweller (talk) I would like to apologize for this misunderstanding but there is just one individual editing this article. 02:28, 14 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIRTSA8032170 (talk • contribs)
- 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, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources are not there to establish notability, just that her picture has been in some magazines but not enough to write an article on her. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Response to Steve Dufour (talk) I do not agree. Astrid Bryan is not just a model. She is also an artist who has an album [1] . She is notable enough for an article. DIRTSA8032170 (talk) 08:41, 16 May 2010
- Not notable under notability criterium #5 (Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Unimportant label & less than two albums.--Maashatra11 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is notable enough.Composed and co-wrote the song You Know I Would together with producer Peter Rafelson and is used for the soundtrack of the movie The Pool Boys[66] 6:45, 17 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.234.82 (talk)
- — 76.173.234.82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. IP also removed COI tag, categories, and hidden comment saying "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled". Dougweller (talk) 08:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has lots of sources, but none of them appear fit the WP:N requirement of being reliable and independent. If someone can point out some reliable, independent sources that are actually about her, I'll happily reconsider. Yilloslime TC 05:11, 24 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intercolegial de Baile 2009[edit]
- Intercolegial de Baile 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
notability not established since tagged in March 2009 Alan - talk 12:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia[edit]
- Swissôtel Tallinn, Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The hotel fails WP:CHAIN, no indication of significance for the building either. De728631 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well with any building this big, I would expect that there would be plenty of possible references, so without more checking I would say keep. I checked ghits earlier, but hotels always have an incredible number of links, so I don't know which ones are independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: For similar discussions of the same hotel chain see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swissôtel Chicago, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swissôtel Amsterdam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swissôtel The Howard. De728631 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 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 no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zafferano[edit]
- Zafferano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable restaurant Aiken ♫ 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are contesting this on ground of notability? Article's creator, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Aiken ♫ 18:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so not only has the Zafferano got a Michelin star (not a mean feat in itself; only 140 restaurants in the UK have one) and is listed in major food guides for London, but has also won a number of awards including the top prize at Tatler's 2009 Restaurant Awards for "Most Consistently Excellent Restaurant." Along with plenty of third-party coverage, of course, e.g. The London Evening Standard. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Aiken ♫ 18:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are contesting this on ground of notability? Article's creator, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Needs expansion thoughOnefinalstep (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 no consensus (leaning a bit towards the keep - but marked it as no consensus to delete). divided on the notability issue JForget 13:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elgiazar Farashyan[edit]
- Elgiazar Farashyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find significant coverage for this individual. —fetch·comms 01:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — (per nom) Nor can I. moɳo 03:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per fact that this singer and all the singers in 3+2 will on May 25th represent Belarus in the worlds biggest music competition the Eurovision Song Contest. Which gives them instant notability.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is to early to say anything about this persons notability in broader times. i mean in only a few weeks time this guy will represent a whole nation in a global music contest. ´To delete this article now would not be smart at all.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:52, 14 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) 00:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per eurovision coming up. and overall notability. taking part in a huge song contest gives notability enough.--194.30.146.154 (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keepas before. see earlier statments. its a definite keeper.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Stroke above vote as user already voted strong keep before the relist. JForget 13:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This singer has won several international competitions. Lova Falk talk 17:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keeplets close this discussion soon as a Strong keep.--195.84.41.1 (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isnt it time to close this obvious Strong Keep discussion soon. Eurovision is coming up on tuesday night so.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 11:22, 22 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) 00:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Intercolegial de Baile 2005[edit]
- Intercolegial de Baile 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no notabiltiy, no context in over a year since the article is created Alan - talk 12:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: it is just a few lines, not even an article. If somebody feels like writing an article about this subject s/he can just as well start over. (PS Maybe there are so few comments because there are guidelines disencouraging us to write "delete per Alan", and it is such an obvious case... ) Lova Falk talk 17:33, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup: no articles linking to dab page, no valid reason to keep it when Kimura exists. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
M kimura[edit]
- M kimura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Strange variant of name for disambig: M instead M.; kimura instead Kimura. For list of articles associated with the same title - Masahiko Kimura (disambiguation) (or possible large dismabig page Kimura) is enough. Alex Spade (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kimura: Completely unnecessary; the writer apparently just made the disambiguation because the article existed in the first place. Sorafune +1 01:42, 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.