Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 29
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Decision was DELETE per the various comments below. JodyB talk 22:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sports timeline[edit]
- Sports timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too confusing in scope with no criteria, what qualifies an entry in this sports timeline, there are so many sports a list like this is imposssible to maintain Delete Secret account 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is not cleat what "significant event" means and thus has no clear inclusion criteria. There is too many space for POV and article has no sources. I would say the 1985 World Snooker Championship final is very significant, why was this not selected for 1985? Why is the first Ryder Cup more significant than the first World Snooker Championship? (1927) Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article topic is simply too large and sprawling to be practical. It would need to be broken down into more manageable chunks. And that structure already exists as a set of articles. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - impossible to maintain, also it is difficult to determine which event per year to include without being POV.—Chris!c/t 22:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE per the above reasons. Heiro 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was thinking "keep" until I went through the article and realized how poblematic this article will always be. There is no criteria for inclusion into this list, and odd events will be included based on editor's American/European/Soccer/Football/Anti-steroids/Ancient history POV. I personally think that Tiger's boo-boo shouldn't even be big news within American sports, much less a worldwide history. Now, Wide Right I on the other hand... Plus, as Whpq said, there already is a category for it. Nolelover 21:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike (talk · contribs); rationale was "G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thmartinez.com/en/about.php." Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thierry Martinez[edit]
- Thierry Martinez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced biography or autobiography of non-notable photographer. Orange Mike | Talk 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I did WP:BEFORE before originally BLPPRODing this page, and I've looked again and still can't find anything that asserts notability such as having articles about him or having won any awards for his work. There is just the usual fistful of blogs and social network, and self published sites. Anyone can start an online image bank, and having taken pictures of (possibly) notable people does not make the photographer notable.--Kudpung (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sent by Ravens[edit]
- Sent by Ravens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication this meets the notability requirements for bands. Under an alternate title, this was deleted six times and salted. Courcelles 23:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt still fails WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I didn't request that the alternate title be unsalted and redirected here for nothing. The band is on Tooth & Nail Records and reached the Billboard Heatseekers chart; the article asserts as much, with a source. See also reviews such as Indie Vision, Absolutepunk, Jesus Freak Hideout, Decoy, Interview with Houston Chronicle, coverage by Alternative Press. Also, please note that five of those six deletions occurred before their album even came out; past deletion is not always a good indicator of anything. Chubbles (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, make that a Speedy Keep since the article was kept at AfD just two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sent by ravens. Did anyone take a look at the talk page? Chubbles (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete "Heatseekers" does not meet the defiinition of "a country's top chart" as required for WP:MUSICBIO. In fact, Heatseekers (a combination of nielson/soundscan) specifically states that Heatseekers entries MAY also feature in the actual Top 100 Billboard charts. This band most certainly did not - if it had, I would concur that this is a keep as per MUSICBIO. Unfortunately, this is a "wow, they were a heatseeker but could not cut it in the long run" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, several editors disagreed with this interpretation of charts in the last AfD; furthermore, WP:MUSIC does not state "a country's top chart", it states a national music chart, which Billboard's charts in general qualify. A band who charts a single on, say, the Mainstream Rock chart does not fail WP:MUSIC for not hitting the Billboard Hot 100; likewise, a Heatseeker would not be disqualified for not having broken the Billboard 200 (though a few Heatseekers do - it is defined as an act who has yet to crack the Top 100 of the Billboard 200). There is longstanding precedent for this chart being admissible under WP:MUSIC. In any case, I've updated the article with the sources listed above, so the notability argument doesn't rely solely on the Heatseekers chart anyway. Chubbles (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It was kept 9 days ago at an AfD. No reason to overturn that decision with a second AfD. If you think the close of the first discussion was flawed then DRV, not a 2nd AfD is the solution. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ...because the article was AfD's under a slightly different name, the original AfD might not have been easily findable. In fact, I only found this one because of a misplaced WP:RFPP at WP:REFUND (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An oldafd box for the original AfD was on the talk page of the article at the time the most recent AfD was initiated. It's a mistake, surely, but one that has so far been painfully difficult to rectify. Chubbles (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um. ok? I'm not asserting that anyone is acting in bad faith. Just that we have discussed this article recently and this discussion ought to defer to the decision made less than a month ago. Protonk (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Last AFD was far too recent; notability asserted through charting album on a Billboard chart. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Ten Pound and Chubbles.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 2-2 headcount; a number of sources presented that haven't been questioned; no consensus must be the result. It would be very helpful if the new sources and relevant material in the sources could now be added to the article. Mkativerata (talk) 01:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DataparkSearch[edit]
- DataparkSearch (edit | talk | 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 any significant coverage that shows that this software is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep DataparkSearch is discussed in the following scholarly articles:
- "Open source search and research" in Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Research issues in digital libraries. Abstract: "In this paper, we present a review of criteria for the evaluation of open source information retrieval tools and provide an overview of some of those that are more popular." Since this article is behind a paywall, I will quote the relevant part: "DataparkSearch is an GPL-licensed open source system for indexing and searching a Web site, group of Web sites, intranet, or local system. DataparkSearch is built on top of a relational database, which must be installed separately."
- "Open source libraries for information retrieval" in IEEE Software. I don't have paywall access to this article at home, but I do at work.
- Update I read this article at work. It is a dense five page article which compares and contrasts five open source search engines. It has a significant description of each engine. A notable characteristic of DataparkSearch is that it is the only engine of the five that can be used with Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Thai languages. Abstract: "We all use search engines to browse the Internet or our desktops. But how can we engineer such functions professionally into the applications and systems we build? Vesna Hassler of the European Patent Office has looked into several open source libraries for indexing and information retrieval, which you can use for application and system development. She compares a variety of criteria, such as query structure and ranking, and provides useful hints on installation and security as well." — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The need for website search engines: Choosing a software implementation" in IADIS International Conference e-Society 2007. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One of several open source web search engines. Being listed in lists of such search engines does not amount to substantial coverage. Open source does not get a free ride. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MILL is an essay. It is neither policy nor guideline. Its points are not accepted by many commentators. It is not a basis to delete anything. In any case, WP:MILL doesn't apply to open source search engines, because they aren't run-of-the-mill. First, there aren't very many. Second, each has significant features and differences as explained in the scholarly article I cited above, "Open source search and research" in Proceedings of the 2006 international workshop on Research issues in digital libraries. If there aren't WP articles for each of the engines in that article already, someone should add them. I believe that Smerdis of Tlön needs better ammunition to "kill[] the human spirit" in this case. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 core issue here is whether this type of drive-by shooting has received sufficient coverage by sources to allow for a separate article. Even after I discount four "delete" opinions (by Camillo Sanchez, Carrite, 78.100.225.75 and 68.45.109.14) that cite reasons unrelated to Wkipedia policy, such as allegations of racism, a substantial majority of participants (11 to 5) believes that the sourcing is inadequate. Also, two of the five "keeps" are simply "per X", leading me to give them slightly less weight. This leads me to conclude that we have a (if not overwhelming) consensus to delete. This can change if more sources become available, so I'll userfy this on request. Sandstein 06:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian drive-by shooting[edit]
- Palestinian drive-by shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is one of a number of WP:COATRACKs created recently trying to demonize Palestinians. It fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sources ABOUT the topic specifically. Drive-by shootings do not have nationalities. It also is a major example of taking unrelated topics to make an article, i.e. a WP:synthesis TM 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Nableezy has struck comments by AMuseo, because AMuseo is a sockpuppet account used to evade a topic ban. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Terrorism.AMuseo (talk) 20:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/IsraelAMuseo (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Palestine.AMuseo (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikipedia routinely covers tactics used in particular conflicts. For example, Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003, The Blitz, and Kamikaze. To save time for anyone who wishes to bring up Other StuffExists, I point out that “In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” [2] The discussion of the strategic deployment of a particular tactic (the Drive-by shooting) in a particular violent conflict is a legitimate topic.AMuseo (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- nableezy - 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There clearly are sources discussing this specific topic, as the discussion at the article talk page will reveal. See Talk:Palestinian drive-by shooting. The name of the article, coatrack issues, or general POV issues, are resolved with regular editing, not Afd.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the editors intended to create a dispassionate article, it might have called it Drive-by shootings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than trying to place all of the blame on Palestinians. Still, it is not covered directly by sources. Instead, one has to pull secondary information from several sources to prove a political point of view. There are easy to find examples of Israeli's using the same tactic[3]. I am not sure what you mean, Brewcrewer; Coatrack and heavily POV articles always come to AfD--TM 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The strategic and political considerations behind the Palestinian decision to use drive-by shootings as a frequent tactic are necessarily their own. Just as the strategic and political considerations that led the Nazis to launch The Blitz are separate form those that led to the British bombing of German targets. Articles that try to cover everything are generally motley or shallow. This is an article about the Palestinian use of drive-by shootings, which has been a notable Palestinian tactic. This does not preculde articles on, for example, the use of drive-by shootings by American Mobsters or Latin American drug gangs.AMuseo (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Tactics used in a war are not generally notable; no outside sources cover this topic in detail and there is no proof that drive-by shootings done by Palestinians are any different than those done by Israeli's, Albanians, Fijians or Wikipedians.--TM 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is a pretty ignorant statement. Just about every tactic used in war is notable enough for a detailed Wikipedia article, from Ambush to Zone defense. They are notable enough that we not only have a category with 71 individual pages for tactics, we have sub categories for Assault tactics, diversionary tactics, etc... There is a considerable differences between Palestinian drive-by shootings and gang drive-by shootings. If you tell me a bit more about Fijian drive-by shootings, perhaps we can intelligently discuss if they are different from Palestinians ones. Otherwise, if its just your personal impression, well then... HupHollandHup (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But we don't have American Ambush or German zone defense etc. - drive by shootings are a notable topic, but specifically Palestinian ones are not. Smartse (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But we do have Israeli checkpoint, and Israeli targeted killings, as well as Drone attacks in Pakistan (which despite its name, is specifically about American drone attacks). Perhaps Fijian drive-by shootings are not notable, but specifically Palestinians ones are, as documented by the numerous sources in the article. HupHollandHup (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But we don't have American Ambush or German zone defense etc. - drive by shootings are a notable topic, but specifically Palestinian ones are not. Smartse (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is a pretty ignorant statement. Just about every tactic used in war is notable enough for a detailed Wikipedia article, from Ambush to Zone defense. They are notable enough that we not only have a category with 71 individual pages for tactics, we have sub categories for Assault tactics, diversionary tactics, etc... There is a considerable differences between Palestinian drive-by shootings and gang drive-by shootings. If you tell me a bit more about Fijian drive-by shootings, perhaps we can intelligently discuss if they are different from Palestinians ones. Otherwise, if its just your personal impression, well then... HupHollandHup (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tactics used in a war are not generally notable; no outside sources cover this topic in detail and there is no proof that drive-by shootings done by Palestinians are any different than those done by Israeli's, Albanians, Fijians or Wikipedians.--TM 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the editors intended to create a dispassionate article, it might have called it Drive-by shootings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rather than trying to place all of the blame on Palestinians. Still, it is not covered directly by sources. Instead, one has to pull secondary information from several sources to prove a political point of view. There are easy to find examples of Israeli's using the same tactic[3]. I am not sure what you mean, Brewcrewer; Coatrack and heavily POV articles always come to AfD--TM 20:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a concept of its own - not different from regular drive-by shootings. Geschichte (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's clearly incorrect. There are numerous distinctions between the tactic as used by Palestinians (e.g: randomness of the targets, sophistication of the attack and subsequent cover-ups, reactions to the attacks such travel limitations) that clearly set it apart from gang-war related drive by shootings, for example. In any case, we have reliable sources discussing it as a separate concept, so your opinion or mine doesn't matter much. We go by the sources. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem being that you don't have a source which actually says that, ie, "that there are numerous distinctions between the tactic as used by Palestinians .... that clearly set it apart". That is just your original research thesis. Gatoclass (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's clearly incorrect. There are numerous distinctions between the tactic as used by Palestinians (e.g: randomness of the targets, sophistication of the attack and subsequent cover-ups, reactions to the attacks such travel limitations) that clearly set it apart from gang-war related drive by shootings, for example. In any case, we have reliable sources discussing it as a separate concept, so your opinion or mine doesn't matter much. We go by the sources. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The rationale given by the nominator - 'fails GNG' is false on its face, as evidenced by the numerous sources, including high quality academic publications such as Foreign Affairs, currently used as references. The second claim, that there's 'a lack of sources ABOUT the topic specifically' is equally false. There are at least two such sources, one of them a book by domain experts published by a mainstream press (which I discovered and discussed at length on the Talk page), the other the aforementioned article published in Foreign Affairs. Both of these analyze specifically the use of the tactic BY PALESTINIANS, contrast it with other guerrilla tactics used by groups like Hizbollah, and explain why it was initially a favored tactic, and why it was eventually displaced by suicide terror. The sources provide statistics about fatalities etc.. - and discuss the TOPIC, in detail. The nominator also suggests that 'Drive-by shootings do not have nationalities' - but then he'd be at a loss to explain articles such as Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in Foreign Affairs, an article by a former IDF Lieutenant Colonel, mentions drive-by shootings by Palestinians once. The book you say covers this topic also mentions drive by shootings by Palestinians exactly once. Neither of the sources discuss the topic, they say that drive by shootings is a tactic used by Palestinians. That is the whole of the coverage in either of those sources. nableezy - 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's simply false, as the discussions on the Talk page show. Both the article and the book discuss this and other non-suicide tactics used by Palestinian AS A TOPIC, analyze the reasons for their early popularity, provide statistics about their ineffectiveness, and explain the reasons that lead to them being displaced by suicide terror. HupHollandHup (talk) 23:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in Foreign Affairs, an article by a former IDF Lieutenant Colonel, mentions drive-by shootings by Palestinians once. The book you say covers this topic also mentions drive by shootings by Palestinians exactly once. Neither of the sources discuss the topic, they say that drive by shootings is a tactic used by Palestinians. That is the whole of the coverage in either of those sources. nableezy - 22:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename and revise the lede to accurately reflect whatever name is settled on. Neither the lede nor the article name properly reflects the contents. The article is about the use of a generic tactic in a particular context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How would you like American drive-by shooting? or German drive-by shooting? This article kind of scratches on the racist side!.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like them as much as I like Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings. Do you think those articles are on the "racist side" too? HupHollandHup (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they are different..they are tangible state policies. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And these are tangible quasi-state, or organizational, policies. What is the difference? How is an IDF decision to put up a checkpoint different from a Hamas or Fatah decision to conduct a drive-by shooting? More importantly, how is such a difference (assuming it even exists) relevant to the notability of a topic? HupHollandHup (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, they are different..they are tangible state policies. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - went through the sources, and could find no significant coverage of what would be particular about drive-by shootings by Palestinians compared to any other tactics or other drive-by shootings elsewhere. Often, it's just a passing mention in a list of tactics, sometimes it's about a specific event, but nothing covers drive-by shootings in and of themselves. As far as I can see, there is no other equivalent article for other tactics in this conflict, e.g. no Palestinian roadside bombings. There is a Palestinian suicide attacks but it redirects to a list of events. It has no content with respect to the significance or particularity of the tactic in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as opposed to any other conflict involving suicide attacks. So the article under AfD does seem to fail WP:GNG.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings and tell us what you think. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the sources for these two do address the subject of each article in detail and specifically, not in passing mentions or on particular single occurances.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You argued 'there is no other equivalent article for other tactics in this conflict' - I've shown that to clearly be a false statement. Are you ready to strike that out? Then we might start a discussion abut the sourcing for this article, which, contrary to your claim do address the subject of this article in detail and specifically.
- Comment - I will not strike it out because a) that is not my main argument, my argument is that it does not pass WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage b) I did qualify my statement as "as far as I can see", looking at Palestinian tactics in particular. None of the sources in the article under AfD cover the subject like, say footnote 20 of Israeli targeted killings does for its subject. Here, Israeli courts have looked into the legality of the tactic itself and made a judgement. So the subject, in and of itself, has a whole, has notability. For drive-by shootings, we have zero sources examining them as a whole, just passing mentions in a list of tactics, or reports of specific drive-bys. That is not evidence of notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you qualified it with "as far as I can see", and I've now shown that you have not looked closely or carefully enough - and yet you still won't strike out that plainly false statement. If it is not your main argument - all the more reason to strike it out when it is shown to be false. I can't compel you to do so, of course, but I can certainly call out your refusal to do so, in the hopes that those reading your argument will take your lack of integrtity into consideration. As to the rest of your comments - they indicate you have not bothered to actually read the sources for this article. Both the Luft article in Foreign Affairs and the book by Morgenstren examine the tactic, as a tactic, explain why it was originally often used, why it was ineffective, and why it fell out of favor. It is certainly not a 'passing mention[s] in a list of tactics'. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is still nothing particularly notable about this tactic compared to the other tactics used by the Palestinian side of the conflict. I do not have access to the Luft article you mention, but the sentence refering to it again says it's listed among other tactics. Of all the tactics used, it's a not a special one. There is not even a single mention in Palestinian political violence article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is clearly wrong, as this tactic is very different from the suicide tactics discussed in the same sources (Luft, Morgenstern). There is extensive discussion there that explains why drive-by shootings and other non-suicide type guerrilla attacks were used at first, then replaced with suicide tactics. Thus we have 2 very reliable sources that discuss, in detail, the differences between drive-by shooting and other similar tactics from suicide tactics. You are now (implicitly) changing your argument, conceding that the sources I mentioned do indeed discuss this tactic in detail, but claim that since they do so in the context of other similar tactics, all those tactics are similar, making this one not much different from them. That it true, and I'm open to renaming this article Non-suicide Palestinian guerrilla tactics, or some other less awkward name that accurately describes the concept, and expanding the article scope accordingly. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there is still nothing particularly notable about this tactic compared to the other tactics used by the Palestinian side of the conflict. I do not have access to the Luft article you mention, but the sentence refering to it again says it's listed among other tactics. Of all the tactics used, it's a not a special one. There is not even a single mention in Palestinian political violence article.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you qualified it with "as far as I can see", and I've now shown that you have not looked closely or carefully enough - and yet you still won't strike out that plainly false statement. If it is not your main argument - all the more reason to strike it out when it is shown to be false. I can't compel you to do so, of course, but I can certainly call out your refusal to do so, in the hopes that those reading your argument will take your lack of integrtity into consideration. As to the rest of your comments - they indicate you have not bothered to actually read the sources for this article. Both the Luft article in Foreign Affairs and the book by Morgenstren examine the tactic, as a tactic, explain why it was originally often used, why it was ineffective, and why it fell out of favor. It is certainly not a 'passing mention[s] in a list of tactics'. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will not strike it out because a) that is not my main argument, my argument is that it does not pass WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage b) I did qualify my statement as "as far as I can see", looking at Palestinian tactics in particular. None of the sources in the article under AfD cover the subject like, say footnote 20 of Israeli targeted killings does for its subject. Here, Israeli courts have looked into the legality of the tactic itself and made a judgement. So the subject, in and of itself, has a whole, has notability. For drive-by shootings, we have zero sources examining them as a whole, just passing mentions in a list of tactics, or reports of specific drive-bys. That is not evidence of notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HupHollandHup, your argument seems to be that other stuff exists, which is not a reason to keep an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartse (talk • contribs)
- Wrong on three counts. First, I'm not arguing to keep in the basis of "other stuff" exists, I am arguing to keep base don established notability - read my !vote below. Two, here I am responding to an argument to delete based on 'no similar articles exist", and showing that it is false. Three, as already written above, taken from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” [4] HupHollandHup (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Check out Israeli checkpoint, or Israeli targeted killings and tell us what you think. HupHollandHup (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yet another in an endless series of POV-driven articles aimed at demonization of the Palestinian side in the Israeli-Palestinian civil war. This is not even a news story, which cloaks most of the articles of this ilk, but rather a handy-dandy coatrack. Blatant POV trojan horse. —Carrite, Sept. 29, 2010.
- Delete - Rather comical POV pushing attempt here. Does anyone have a good explanation for how a Palestinian drive-by shooting is significantly different and notable beyond a Drive-by shooting? NickCT (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, i can give you several ways in which they differ: (1) Drive-by shootings typically do not have repercussions in the form of travel restrictions on the general population (2) Drive-by shootings, at least those types noted in the main article, are typically not random acts of violence designed to instill terror, but rather focused on specific targets (rival gang members, military targets, political opponents) (3) Drive-by shootings typically do not receive pubic praise from members of ruling parties of foreign nations as do these Palestinian shootings (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hezbollah-leader-praises-hamas-for-west-bank-shooting-attacks-1.312028). there are plenty more, but since you find the attempt to document an organized campaign to terrorize civilians 'comical', I doubt I will be able to convince you. HupHollandHup (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources have discussed the concept instead of individual incidents. This has been discussed on the talk page and it is poor form to ignore that. However, those sources do not give it much more than a line so it may not equal much. There are also sources that mention the impact in various years discussing various events (Increased security measurescaused "the Islamic group’s most brazen challenge yet to moderate President Mahmoud Abbas" Most of the sources that have been presented so far are about individual waves or incidents so most of the significant coverage is only related to the subject. I am too on the fence with this one to feel comfortable !voting either way. There is precedent for lists in the topic (bombings in the I-P conflict and rocket attacks in the I-P conflict). Those might be workable as articles instead of lists. I don't know. This article is more than a list. It is probably little more than start class but it is more than a list of different events. One thing I think is important, the AM is presenting some fine sourcing and this is ongoing. It should also be pointed out that the bulletted list could grow too long and shift this away from being an actual article. If the coverage of individual incidents and the handful of lines discussing the subject in other articles can couple to meet the GNG then it should be kept. If that is not deemed asa proper usage of GNG then it should be deleted.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Quite egregious POV pushing here. --78.100.225.75 (talk) 07:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)— 78.100.225.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Merge to drive by shooting article, expand it there. Kavas (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there are elements of this that could reasonably be merged over to the Drive-by shooting article, that would work - but I concur, there's a bit too much POV here for my taste. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this topic fails the GNG because there has not been significant coverage of the topic. As we have discussed on the talk page, and as Cptnono has summarised above, while there are obviously many sources which report that these have occurred, there are no sources which directly discuss the topic as a whole. The only sources which aren't reporting these shootings immediately after they have occurred (news) have only a tiny mention of drive by shootings. Many people have looked for better sources, but seeing the failure of these to appear I think that the article has to be deleted. Smartse (talk) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage of this as a topic. The sources used either are news stories about a specific shooting or mention drive-by shootings in passing. There are no sources that give any significant coverage to this as its own topic. nableezy - 15:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The only argument brought by the deletion advocates with any merit is the idea that the article's topic is not treated as a separate topic by reliable sources, so it fails GNG. At the time of the nomination, HupHollandHup had already convincingly shown on the talk page that this is not the case; he has continued to show this here, and to my mind the deletion advocates have not succeeded in refuting him. (It's noteworthy, by the way, that while arguing that there are no significant sources, they have apparently not made a good faith effort to look for significant sources.) What I'd like to add is that even if this weren't notable as a topic, it would still pass GNG, because many - if not most - of the individual drive-by shootings this article includes are notable events, and this article is a logical and useful way to collect and organize that myriad of individually notable events. Thus, the article would be similar to Suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 (adduced by AMuseo), which is a non-list article whose title is not a real topic, but whose value is in its collection and organization of separate incidents. The other arguments put forward by the deletion advocates are basically variations of attributing a nefarious motive to the article's creator or playing the racism card. Besides being baseless and extremely rude, these arguments cannot even in theory constitute a good reason to delete the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- HupHollandHup has shown no such thing, much less convincingly so. Each of the sources that he claims discuss this topic separately do not do so and he has been unable to quote what from those sources do save for one line from each. nableezy - 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "(It's noteworthy, by the way, that while arguing that there are no significant sources, they have apparently not made a good faith effort to look for significant sources.)" See Talk:Palestinian_drive-by_shooting#Notability.3F. I spent around an hour looking for suitable sources on google scholar and google news and found no significant sources. As we've discussed, the sources HupHollandHup noted on the talk page do not contain significant coverage - they contain single sentences about Palestinian drive by shootings. Smartse (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smartse, I apologize. You did note on the talk page that you looked for sources, and I missed that. Regarding coverage, I don't think the argument that the coverage is too brief to be significant was convincing, because the question is how the sources cover the topic, not how many lines they do it in. The sources show that this particular tactic in Palestinian political violence had a particular heyday, a particular tactical mindset behind them, and particular results in terms of Israeli West Bank road policies; but I'm repeating things that have already been said. In any case, for me the more important issue is my second argument, which is an independently sufficient reason to keep, and which remains unaddressed. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - firstly, I would recommend that users consider reading through the article talk page if the issues here are not clear to them. To summarize, the supporters of this article have been unable over the course of several days to come up with a single source that discusses in depth the topic of Palestinian drive-by shootings. The article as a consequence is virtually nothing more than a list of news stories reporting on individual drive-bys in an attempt to support the WP:OR presumption that "Palestinian drive-by shootings" is a notable topic. Gatoclass (talk) 23:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to be deliberate propaganda. I first heard of drive-by shootings in reference to LA gangs, but an article about "LA drive-by shootings" would be pretty silly. 68.45.109.14 has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep per Jalapenos do exist and Holland directly related to Israeli checkpoint. --Shuki (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have added a number of sources and rearranged others to make the strategic and tactical use of drive-by shootings by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas de-facto government of Gaza clear. This should answer the objections of the the several editors above who have argued for deletion on the grounds that they do not find the sources in the article sufficient. More to the point, an AFD is not about whether the present article is or is not the best possible article. AFD is queries whether the topic is notable. A google search on Palestinian drive-by shooting produces 1,140,000 results, with plentiful results on JSTOR, google scholar, and google books. Real Palestinians use drive-by shootings as a real political strategy to cause real deaths which have real political consequences. Editors commenting on an AFD have a responsibility to look at the scholarly and journalistic sources available, not simply the ones used in the article as they find, it. Certainly coming to an AFD and making false assertions about the nature of the sources available is not acceptable behavior. Anyone asserting that sources supporting the notability of this topic hass not made a thoughtful search for sources.AMuseo (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a number of sources and rearranged others to make the strategic and tactical use of drive-by shootings by the Palestinian Authority and the Hamas de-facto government of Gaza clear
- If the "strategic and tactical use of drive-by shootings" was "clear", you wouldn't need to "rearrange" sources to prove the point. You would have sources which made the point clear themselves. This comment of yours just underlines the WP:SYNTH basis of the article. Gatoclass (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per brewcrewer --Mbz1 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Classic example of WP:SYNTH lacking significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 13:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Free agency (philosophy)[edit]
- Free agency (philosophy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Irreparably POV content fork of free will. bd2412 T 20:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge as component of a broader philosophy category. Interesting, but reads like an essay/editorial. As always, taking the time to include a couple of refs when writing an article would help. The Eskimo (talk) 20:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - an essay covering teh same topic as free will. Not suitable as a redirect. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research on the subject of free will. A merge would be inappropriate, as the material does not meet WP:V. RJC TalkContribs 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The arguments for retention seem to outweigh the arguments for deletion given. –MuZemike 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Karunamayi[edit]
- Sri Karunamayi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam. Wasabi Attack (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to pass WP:BIO. Needs improvement of course, but that's beside the point.TheRingess (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can not find anything in Google news. Also, the opening sentence claiming she is known world-wise reads more like self-promotion and self-indulgence, rahter than based on anything factual. Especially since there are no news articles concerning her. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find any sources. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Google News has many articles behind pay walls. But this Columbus Dispatch article is available for free view and is a substantial writeup about her. She is also covered in Holy people of the world: a cross-cultural encyclopedia, Volume 3. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2010 European terror plot[edit]
- 2010 European terror plot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are many teror plots and Wikipedia is not for covering the news. TM 19:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is impossible to write a knowledge-type article, as opposed to a news-type entry, on a subject as recent as this one because of the obvious secrecy associated with warfare. This article belongs to a news website, not an encyclopedia. 07:15, October 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T0hierry (talk • contribs) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is possible to write articles dealing with obvious secrecy associated with warfare because there are public disclosures of information, deliberate background disclosures, and inadvertent disclosures. These can be summarized in encyclopedic form. This terror plot has lasting significance based on upon what's now on the record. patsw (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD is based on a misapplication or misunderstanding of NOTNEWS which in intended to screen out articles on routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities. Politically-motivated terror attacks that are part of a large, international campaigns of political violence are not routine news. This plot qualifies for Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Notability (events) because it received extensive international coverage.[5]. Finally, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. [6] "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. ... A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is ... the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). ... Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources..."AMuseo (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/TerrorismAMuseo (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:N --Wasabi Attack (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are too many "allegedly", "perhaps", "may" to be considered a real threat at this time. This could have simply been chatter. Pending new information which shows actual attempts or steps for a terrorist attack, the article should be deleted. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep we should be covering all of the terror plots, successful or not, if they are covered by reliable and verifiable sources as this one is. Alansohn (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Terror plots are regularly given Wikipedia articles, for example, 2004 financial buildings plot, 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot, 2009 Bronx terrorism plot. To save time for anyone who wishes to bring up Other Stuff Exists, I point out that “In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia.” [7]
- Keep reasoning doesn't seem to debunk the notability of the subject, it has multiple sources. WookieInHeat (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly meets WP:N and WP:V--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Personally, I think this article is premature, and we should wait for additional information. But the notability is obvious, and the sources are there, so we need to keep this one. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, notability established but as mentioned above, article is written with way too many words of doubt (WP:ALLEGED) and requires quite some rewriting to be presented in a more properly encyclopedic manner. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 01:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per the near-unanimous keeps above.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Wikireader41 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. I only see news coverage, but not notability. There are no suspects, no charges, no trials; there are only vague reports and lots of guessing. It is not even clear what stage the plot was in, or if it was even possible. News coverage does not equal notability. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I will try to stay neutral here, but I don't see this news as anything more than premature intelligence material. As Xanderliptak says, there's some news coverage but not notability. No proper investigative process or suspects are apparent. The result of course was a couple more cross-border and drone attacks, and that was it. The type of words used for the event like "risk", "threat" i.e. hardly differentiate it from other similiar past occasions. If these plots really had the heightened seriousness and propensity, I also don't think the country's own army would be vaguely dismissing it as "speculative" and "lacking credibility." The story has a missing substance. Mar4d (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this is serious enough for Panetta to visit Pakistan and give a stern warning to Pakistani establishment[8]. Pakistani army has been known to deny each and every plot that has originated in Pakistan including 2008 Mumbai attacks and may indeed be complicit in this.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Let's wait and see....andycjp (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per UltraExactZZ above. Keristrasza (talk) 08:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A terrorist plot that didn't even come to pass? So an article about a speculative attack that didn't occur? With no suspects, no trial, etc. Really? Yet again, as an WP:EVENT, there is no historical impact. This will be a useful sentence in an article on Al-Qaeda terrorism, but is otherwise non-notable. I would also note that if the article is deleted, the information is not lost, it can be WP:INCUBATEd, userfied, or just sit accessible only to admins until more info comes along. Of course, I appear to be the only person who reads WP:EVENT in this way! Bigger digger (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities, which is what NOTNEWS intends to exclude.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per UltraExactZZ. Needs a more precise title and serious copyediting. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But needs serious revision. Jmatz (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per brewcrewer.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since drone strikes based on this intelligence resulted in what can be arguably a turning point in the use of drone strikes. This is the year that drone strikes escalated heavily, and this is the key reason so far made public with the level of specifics released. Though qualified at this juncture, this will be made more substantiated and verified as more intelligence can be released. It is the best compilation of the coverage about this event that I have read thus far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.47.85 (talk) 04:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or rename Granted the article is well sourced, but event itself is wishy-washy as to what actually happened. Why does it warrant a page on itself. On can shorted it to 2 paras and add on to the Taliban pages. Alternatively, a less vague title would be good too.(Lihaas (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- Comment: I agree that the details are not all available but that is the nature of the plot. ( unless you think Al-qaeda keeps detailed documentation of its plots in the cave where its main office is - and that these may one day fall in to the hands of victorious coalition forces). I also think this is the first such plot which has led to a continent wide travel advisory and unprecedented increase in drone strikes which makes it cross the threshold envisaged in WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a notable event prompting travel alerts in several countries, likely higher notability than the Times Square plot, and connected to the drone attacks in Pakistan that killed European nationals. ~AH1(TCU) 22:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (defective nom.) The nomination is a form of WP:ALLORNOTHING. This story has significance beyond immediate news and this article does pass WP:EVENT. patsw (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even as the story is in multiple papers, the source is singular (all those cooperating agencies), they only publish stories (no evidence), and it is glued together with assumptions, theories, "belief that", "concern", "No further evidence". In The Guardian states already that there is a continuous stream of threats -- so it's only one of multiple. The only action taken is drone attacks, which are SOP in the region. Not notable, not even news, except for a PR-show Pravda style by the military. No need for this in an encyclopedia. -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's an argument for improvement, not deletion per policy. patsw (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The RS have one source: the joint press release by the Intel community. The next ten RSs we check will have published that same story. There is no more. And there is no checkable evidence for their statements, just guesses, conjunctions and so on. Then the Guardian paper writes: they say it's business as usual. (I wonder, do they know themselves why they printed it?). Nothing of substance for an encyclopedia. Now what is there for us to improve in an uncheckable, story? -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment multiple independent intelligence sources have said the same thing. even though the details are sketchy and may never be completely known the Impact is well established and that is what makes this plot notable. First the increase in drone strikes is unprecedented and has been linked by multiple RS to the plot. Second the Continent wide travel advisory is unprecedented too. you may not believe that this is real but looks like many governments do. The notability of this article is based on its impact. IMO it is immaterial if it is real or not per WP:TRUTH. clearly this has got intense media coverage as envisaged by WP:SIGCOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The RS have one source: the joint press release by the Intel community. The next ten RSs we check will have published that same story. There is no more. And there is no checkable evidence for their statements, just guesses, conjunctions and so on. Then the Guardian paper writes: they say it's business as usual. (I wonder, do they know themselves why they printed it?). Nothing of substance for an encyclopedia. Now what is there for us to improve in an uncheckable, story? -DePiep (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's an argument for improvement, not deletion per policy. patsw (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the article was created by a POV-pushing ban-evading sockpuppet. Later additions are are more of the same. -DePiep (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is a news story, at this early date there is no way to assess its lasting effect, as such it fails both WP:Notability (events) (albiet a guideline) and WP:What Wikipedia is not (a policy). J04n(talk page) 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please see my comment above for the Effect of this plot.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per WP:EVENT, the article should be improved though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a POV push. Key word is alleged in the lead. An ephemeral news story at best, quite possibly no more than self-serving propaganda of the multi-billiion dollar international "security" industry. —Carrite, Oct. 6, 2010.
- Comment No argument, the article should be improved. And there are some arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What we are here to determine whether or not this article is notable, per provided sources. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for deletion to say the least. Not a clear enough consensus for merging, but that can be discussed locally on the involved articles' talk pages. –MuZemike 22:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Primus (Transformers)[edit]
- Primus (Transformers) (edit | talk | 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 third-party sources and no notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : As per notability.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut down and keep or merge with the relevant list article reliable third-party sources seem to exist: [9], [10], [11]. There's definitely enough sources out there to support some amount of text, but not all that's currently in the article. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut down and keep The sources out there are not enough to support this amount of text, but it's still not reason to delete. --Divebomb (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (after trimming both) with Cybertron. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also merge Cybertron (The Transformers) and Cybertron (Marvel Comics) into the mix. --Khajidha (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I just added a newspaper article about the origin of the Transformers mythos, which went on about Primus vs. Unicron. Rise of The Fallen, New Straits Times, January 17, 2009 by Rizal Solomon. This covers the asserted lack of third party sources in the nomination. I also added a note from the book Transformers and Philosophy by John R. Shook and Liz Stillwaggon Swan, which talks about Primus' importance in the origin of the Transformers. Also, Boys Life Magazine made Primus it's top choice in toys for a boy in 2006. That should cover notability. Mathewignash (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe that could work, but, can the New Straits Times one be viewed online? NotARealWord (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being online or accessible for free is not necessary for verifiability. --Malkinann (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These Days (Dr M Album)[edit]
- These Days (Dr M 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)
WP:CRYSTAL, Facebook as exclusive source —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: db-album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Transformers: Energon characters. –MuZemike 22:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kicker (Transformers)[edit]
- Kicker (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD removed for a spurious reason. Still no notability asserted. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Transformers: Energon characters. --Malkinann (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to List of Transformers: Energon characters. We should always look for an appropriate place to merge non-notable character articles first, per WP:PRESERVE, instead of outright deleting unless the character is incidental (either having no affect on the main plot or appears in only one or two episodes. So far, none of those advocating deletion have not argued that this is an incidental character. —Farix (t | c) 11:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to character list for Energon, not really notable on his own. --Khajidha (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Genesis Village[edit]
- Genesis Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG, Non-notable retirement community with little (and 0 non-trivial) coverage CTJF83 chat 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - same experience as the nominator. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nom is correct, fails notability guidelines. ShepTalk 22:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nom. Dewritech (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. People disagree about whether the sourcing level suffices, so in dubio pro keep. Sandstein 06:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amalgamated Advertising[edit]
- Amalgamated Advertising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability for a full year. Sources are primary, trivial or don't mention subject. Some n00b tried to nominate this for AFD but didn't do it right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete, and the current text looks like a speedy delete candidate for blatant advertising: a full-service ad agency and brand consultancy with a "cultural branding" approach that agency partner Douglas Holt defined in his 2004 book, How Brands Become Icons.... Amalgamated has been used to exemplify "the new guerrilla ad guys" who first integrated social media and stunts within "viral" advertising campaigns. When you're an advertising agency, media coverage of your publicity stunts should not count towards notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - When you're an advertising agency, 'publicity stunts' is what you get paid to do, so coverage of these should go some way towards establishing notability, especially when the coverage explicitely references the agency. In this case, there's a fair amount of respectable coverage. I agree the article isn't particularly well written, but it's a long way from a speedy delete in my view. --Korruski (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Substantial coverage in multiple independent sources; doesn't that satisfy WP:COMPANY? When you're a widget factory, coverage of your widgets from independent sources surely counts towards notability; if you're an author, independent reviews of the books you write establish that you're notable; if you're an advertising agency that does publicity stunts, the same should apply... bobrayner (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Seems marginal. Figureofnine (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, while I find the approach advocated by Bobrayner and Korruski interesting, I do not believe they conform to policy. What I do not see is significant coverage in reliable sources, but rather passing mention and press releases. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no extensive third party coverage. [12]. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think that the first two hits for Amalgamated Advertising at AdvertisingAge [13] amount to trival coverage. This agency is the real deal and AdAge is a reliable industry source.--Mike Cline (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a bit early - as in addition to unanimous consensus for deletion at the AFD, the page is a completely unreferenced article on a BLP individual. -- Cirt (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demis Tzivis[edit]
- Demis Tzivis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable artist, fails WP:BAND no news coverage or Google results which appear to mostly be lyrics and social network sites CTJF83 chat 17:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 arguments for deletion outweigh and are more guideline/policy-based than the reasons for retention given. –MuZemike 22:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Gift of the Woodi[edit]
- The Gift of the Woodi (edit | talk | 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 television episode. Nothing particularly plot-worthy (such as a first episode/finale or introduction of new characters) is included in this episode. Only four episodes of the total 270 for this show have articles, and this episode does not meet the significance of at least two of the other three. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is the episode that introduces the Kelly song. Do a Google search and you can tell that lots of people know the song or want to about it. Additionally, in the past month over 500 people have visited the article. Perhaps the song should have its own article instead, but I think it makes more sense to leave it the way it is. Clerks. (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NY Times considers it a memorable episode.Clerks. (talk) 20:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article dated May 9, 1993 (not necessarily relevant in 2010), and includes a brief, one-sentence mention of the episode (plus one line of a song), and does not include any notation of why or how this episode is notable. There are likely many other lists like this from the time period in which the show was still airing new episodes. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also it doesn't appear to be an article, it looks to be the archived version of a page of photos, I believe those were just the summaries of the photos (lots of archived newspaper articles online don't include the photos). Staxringold talkcontribs 20:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an article dated May 9, 1993 (not necessarily relevant in 2010), and includes a brief, one-sentence mention of the episode (plus one line of a song), and does not include any notation of why or how this episode is notable. There are likely many other lists like this from the time period in which the show was still airing new episodes. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails the general notability guideline as a television episode. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Currently, as noted above, we only have articles for the first episode, the final episode, and What Is… Cliff Clavin? (an article with heavy ties to Jeopardy that have led to outside sources discussing it) which I created. What Is… Cliff Clavin? recently faced an AFD that I avoided (I created the thing years and years ago) and was honestly uncertain what the outcome would be. Editors confirmed outside sources to establish notability and satisfy GNG, however, the article was kept. Here I'm not so sure. The song which arises from it gets laughs, and people post it to video sites, but the episode itself does not appear to be discussed by any outside sources I can find. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a to-be-created season article. If no one wants to do that right away, redirect it to the show until such time as someone decides to. Jclemens (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Within a decade, all episodes will be rightly represented with articles. It is unstoppable. If you want to delete this article, you'd better get started { { AfD } } tagging these and these too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to LoE because it's a likely search term. There's currently only the song bit that may be mention-worthy in the LoE, but it's not enough to support an article. The rest violates WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:TRIVIA (the quotes). – sgeureka t•c 07:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon's Kingdom[edit]
- Dragon's Kingdom (edit | talk | 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 browser based MUD. Previously deleted as a copyvio, but OTRS permission has been established. Protonk (talk) 17:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, see article talk page for OTRS ticket details. Fæ (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the one who tagged it first for spam and then for copy-vio. I still think it's promotional, as the text used here is scattered over the web. I found the following comment in a forum (posted by 'Bones') in a thread headed "Dragon Warrior Beta is Release" (sic) and following the same text: "Wow, this game is a rip off of Dragon's Kingdom... ". That 'Dragon Warrior' game is at dragonwarrior.us. There is a site called dragonskingdom.com, which claims to be "An Old Dragon's Ramblings" and appears to be an unrelated blog. dragonskingdom.co.uk appears identical in content and text to dkrpg's, but uses a different page format and at the time of visiting had "Players Online: 2 | Most Online: 63 | Registered Players: 21,470", while dkrpg had "Players Online: 1 | Most Online: 50 | Registered Players: 23". As there is only a link to dkrpg here, I assume that that is the one intended, and that with 23 currently registered players, it is somewhat un-notable. Given the circumstances, I wonder if the dkrpg people actually can license the use of the text, as I am not certain to whom it belongs. I would think that a site called dragonskingdom had the name before one called dkrpg, but am not going to investigate tonight. I rest my case for the moment on the lack of participants at dkrpg. Peridon (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete ad? copy-paste? copyvio? Who cares? It doesn't have even the slightest assertation of notability anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My primary reasoning for starting a discussion rather than speeding it is be use wikipedia has a notoriously bad record for misjudging the importance of subjects which may be important to a particular subculture. Call that a bug or a feature, but we can live with some discussion before determining the disposition of this article. Protonk (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, if primary sources are not found within a few days. With the recently added section 'Original Concept', it is clear that this particular MUD is part of a family tree of MUDs based on Dragon Warrior. There seems to be scope for an article about the MUD evolution even if sources are too sparse to warrant specific articles for each MUD in the family tree. If a new article is opposed, then a merge of basic details to Dragon_warrior#Legacy may be a reasonable response. Fæ (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there's third party coverage, I'm not finding it. I'm also not finding anything to support identifying the game as a MUD; it self-identifies solely as an "online browser based RPG", and as far as I can find the term "MUD" does not occur on its official web site. So relevance to the evolution of MUDs is dubious. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under criteria A7 (web-based content). There are 4,232,102 browser games (approx.) so importance should be shown in the first instance. I could not find any reliable secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Frankly, this article is twaddle. Guy (Help!) 12:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no reliable, significant coverage found. --Teancum (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters. –MuZemike 22:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minerva (Transformers)[edit]
- Minerva (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod was removed without reason by User:Mathewignash. Prod reason was "not enough reliable sources to verify the info, let alone meet the general notability guideline." This is a followup to the removal. 陣内Jinnai 17:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - As much as I like her; without critical and cultural impact, she's is an unnotable character. Stands up better in the List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters. Sarujo (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters Dwanyewest (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters. We should always look for an appropriate place to merge non-notable character articles first, per WP:PRESERVE, instead of outright deleting unless the character is incidental (either having no affect on the main plot or appears in only one or two episodes. So far, none of those advocating deletion have not argued that this is an incidental character. —Farix (t | c) 11:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Sarujo. Not notable as an individual. --Khajidha (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
116th Street Crew[edit]
- 116th Street Crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Premise of article and article title are pure OR. There is no reliable sourcing which indicates there is or was such a thing as a "116th Street Crew," yet the term is used repeatedly throughout the article along with "Palma Boy Social Club Crew," another made-up expression. This is an apparent web- or editor-created neologism. Entire article is primarily sourced to non-RS website. Factual accuracy dubious. Many web references apparently originating with Wikipedia article, nothing on Google News. Article should be deleted entirely or, preferably, with neologisms removed, merged with Genovese crime family or Anthony Salerno ScottyBerg (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe the page should remain. The article is relevant, the title is correct and it is one of the oldest mafia crews in New York City. The page should have more references but to shouldn't be deleted.--JoeyBR (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joey, this article is about Mafia gangsters in East Harlem, specifically with the Genovese family. There's no question that there is such a history, and many books/articles written about it over the years. My concern is with the existence of a specific "116th Street crew." I have a number of Mafia books myself, and none refer to such an organization. Google News shows absolutely nothing. There is much on the web, but not from reliable sources. I think that "116th Street Crew" may be an invented term or "neologism" that gained currency on the Internet but has no historical basis. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment further examination of the sources in the article indicate just one source utilized in the article, a deposition by Vincent Cafaro, mentioning a "116th Street crew." That's a primary source and insufficient to justify use of that name for this article. What this article seems to be about is the extensive East Harlem operations of the Genovese family, with "116th Street crew" placed on it as a label. One alternative to deletion is to either merge this with the larger Genovese article, or frame a broader article on East Harlem mafia activities, but that would have to include other Mafia families. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The premise for deleting the page is that the title, amongst other things are OR. However one of its own members, Vincent Cafaro, has said that that was the formal name for the crew. See the second citation to see the declaration Cafaro made about the crew. Some of the Genovese family's most notable mobsters have run the crew. This along with enough third party resources makes it acceptable in my opinion. Needs a lot more citations, though. --Ted87 (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If the title is what ScottyBerg believes is wrong with the page then, if should be changed to "Genovese crime family East Harlem Crew" (but more accurate title is "116th Street Crew") the crew has also been reported as the "Uptown Crew" (see the reference I added on the page now). Top members within Genovese family and the New York City mafia refer to the Crew as the "116th Street Crew". Most books don’t give a title to a Crew but names are based on geography locations of each crew’s criminal bases. The point Scotty makes that the page should be just about East Harlem mafia members is confusing. There have been two separate crime families operating in the area since the early 1900s, the Genovese (116th Street) and the Lucchese crime family on (107th Street). The 116th Street page is broken down into section about the leader (or Capo) of the crew up until the new capo emerges. This 116th Street crew has maintained control over an illegal gambling racket in East Harlem known as the Policy games (that can be traced back to the 1850s or early). I’ve been working on improving the page and for it to be nominated for deletion is upsetting to me. I understand the page needs more references for verifications but I believe it should not be deleted. --Vic49 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What concerns me is the excessive synthesis and lack of sourcing to substantiate the article's constant reference to a kind of single Mafia organization in that region with the name "116th Street crew." This was the largest Italian neighborhood in NYC prior to 1950, and the sources suggest multiple and not single Mafia groups there, even within the Genovese organization. However, even if you remove the other families, a retitling to something like "Genovese Family East Harlem Operations" and removal of OR and synthesis may work. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that the page is OR is incorrect, in the book "The origin of organized crime in America: the New York City mafia, 1891-1931" by David Critchley he explains that in the early 1900s East Harlem was not controlled by just one criminal organization but various groups. The most powerful group was the Morello-Terranova brothers mafia gang. They began to merge smaller gang into there own based in East Harlem 116th Street, from Little Italy in lower Manhattan to areas in Brooklyn waterfront. From the 1920s- into the mafia war of 1931 (Castellammarese War) the 116th Street Crew remained under control of the Masseria family (Joe Masseria took over the Morello family). When Lucy Luciano becomes boss the family is name Luciano family (later Genovese family). The Crew remained under capo Ciro Terranova, but he would be removed and the group continued to operate in the same area in the same family under Michael Coppola. In the book "Five families: The Rise, Decline, and Resurgence of American Most Powerful Mafia Empires" by Selwyn Raab. Pg 223-226 (Goes into detail of Tony Salerno operating in 116th Street, under Coppola and emerging as the leader, his hang out the Palma Boys Social Club became the name of his crew) Defining a "Mafia Crew" – is a group of made-men and associates operating criminal activities in a designated area under control of one leader a (capo). A mafia crew operates under control of the family. In NYC the five families each have multiple crews each controlled by a capo. When the capo is killed, imprisoned or reties the crews remains within the same family. --Vic49 15:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're not correctly characterizing the three pages of the Raab book that you cite. There is no discussion of anyone operating "on 116th Street." It talks in general terms about these mob people but does not tie them to any particular "118th Street crew" or "operating on 116th Street," either by name or even implied The only physical locations cited in this book is to Pleasant Avenue, the Palma Boys social club at 115th Street, and more a general reference to Italian community clustering around First Avenue. There is no discussion here of a distinct 116th Street crew. It's essential that we not go beyond what is in the sources and add original research or personal opinions. You say that there is another book that supports your position, but given the incorrect characterization of the Raab book I'm afraid I just do not think that can be accept on good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Raab's book, the pages were not used to explain the title (116th Street) but who took over after Coppola retired it was Salerno operating from his Palma Club 115th Street. The title 116th Street Crew its can be seen in Cafaro's deposition, but is not explained in any books that Ive found. To toss my other book David Critchley Origins of organized crime is confusing its explains the early history of the Morello family. In Critchley book, he states that Ciro Terranova lived on 116th Street in East Harlem (see pg.117) but to use this as an explanation for the title 116th Street Crew is wrong and would be incorrect. I don't known actually were the title 116th Street Crew originated from but that it is used to describe this crew by members (like Cafaro). --Vic49 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just used by Cafaro, and I don't think that's enough to build an article around. We can't construct an article around one isolated use of the term and synthesis. As I said, I don't think this is an insoluble situation. We can reformulate the article but we have to be accurate in our terminology and not go beyond the sources. I'm already on record supporting a renaming and reformulation of the article as an alternative to deletion. We also need to keep in mind that the Pleasant Avenue area was the main nexus of mob operations, so that might be an even more accurate geographical name. But I think a better route is to be more general in title and concept. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point of using OR, there could be a better title for the page. "Genovese crime family in East Harlem", "Genovese crime family's East Harlem Crew", "Pleasant Avenue Crew", (but isn’t calling the page the Pleasant Avenue Crew considered OR) or "Coppola Regime" (stated in Valachi hearings 1963 See). Either "Genovese crime family's East Harlem Crew" or "Genovese crime family in East Harlem" are my favorite alternative names for the page (I still like 116th Street Crew the best), the intro can be changed to: The Genovese crime family's East Harlem Crew is one of the oldest mafia crews in New York City. Throughout time the name of the crew has changed from the 116th Street Mob, 116th Street Crew, Coppola Regime (regime is short for caporegime) and the Uptown Crew..... --Vic49 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Genovese crime family in East Harlem would be best because just characterizing it as a single "crew" would seem to go beyond the sources. There was more than one Genovese capo operating in East Harlem, as I understand it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, then we have a consensus the page will be named Genovese crime family in East Harlem, Would you like to move the page and change the intro? Ive have to go to work. Thanks --Vic49 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We really need to reach consensus on the talk page of the article, soliciting further comment there. ScottyBerg (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, then we have a consensus the page will be named Genovese crime family in East Harlem, Would you like to move the page and change the intro? Ive have to go to work. Thanks --Vic49 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Genovese crime family in East Harlem would be best because just characterizing it as a single "crew" would seem to go beyond the sources. There was more than one Genovese capo operating in East Harlem, as I understand it. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point of using OR, there could be a better title for the page. "Genovese crime family in East Harlem", "Genovese crime family's East Harlem Crew", "Pleasant Avenue Crew", (but isn’t calling the page the Pleasant Avenue Crew considered OR) or "Coppola Regime" (stated in Valachi hearings 1963 See). Either "Genovese crime family's East Harlem Crew" or "Genovese crime family in East Harlem" are my favorite alternative names for the page (I still like 116th Street Crew the best), the intro can be changed to: The Genovese crime family's East Harlem Crew is one of the oldest mafia crews in New York City. Throughout time the name of the crew has changed from the 116th Street Mob, 116th Street Crew, Coppola Regime (regime is short for caporegime) and the Uptown Crew..... --Vic49 17:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just used by Cafaro, and I don't think that's enough to build an article around. We can't construct an article around one isolated use of the term and synthesis. As I said, I don't think this is an insoluble situation. We can reformulate the article but we have to be accurate in our terminology and not go beyond the sources. I'm already on record supporting a renaming and reformulation of the article as an alternative to deletion. We also need to keep in mind that the Pleasant Avenue area was the main nexus of mob operations, so that might be an even more accurate geographical name. But I think a better route is to be more general in title and concept. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In Raab's book, the pages were not used to explain the title (116th Street) but who took over after Coppola retired it was Salerno operating from his Palma Club 115th Street. The title 116th Street Crew its can be seen in Cafaro's deposition, but is not explained in any books that Ive found. To toss my other book David Critchley Origins of organized crime is confusing its explains the early history of the Morello family. In Critchley book, he states that Ciro Terranova lived on 116th Street in East Harlem (see pg.117) but to use this as an explanation for the title 116th Street Crew is wrong and would be incorrect. I don't known actually were the title 116th Street Crew originated from but that it is used to describe this crew by members (like Cafaro). --Vic49 16:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you're not correctly characterizing the three pages of the Raab book that you cite. There is no discussion of anyone operating "on 116th Street." It talks in general terms about these mob people but does not tie them to any particular "118th Street crew" or "operating on 116th Street," either by name or even implied The only physical locations cited in this book is to Pleasant Avenue, the Palma Boys social club at 115th Street, and more a general reference to Italian community clustering around First Avenue. There is no discussion here of a distinct 116th Street crew. It's essential that we not go beyond what is in the sources and add original research or personal opinions. You say that there is another book that supports your position, but given the incorrect characterization of the Raab book I'm afraid I just do not think that can be accept on good faith. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The discussion on the 116th Street Crew page between Rogermx and ScottyBerg should be brought into this debate. --Vic49 00:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Joey, your support is already recorded above. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The title as is, It seems everyone is confused with the 116th Street Crew there has never been a split! When Salerno took over in early 1960s he became the leading figure of 116th Street, promoted to Consigliere in 1972 losing his "capo title". Saverio Santora became capo of the 116th Street crew in 1974, while Salerno moved up in the ranks to underboss, Front boss, many soldiers reported to Salerno but he wasn’t the a capo. (Vincent Cafaro says he was made in 1974 into Santora’s 116th Street crew while he worked for Salerno) there are remarks to Bellomo reuniting the 116th Street crew – meaning when Salerno was imprisoned in the Commission case in 1986, Bellomo was the only leader (the true capo). --BronxTom (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: it seems like the discussion is mainly about the title of the page. One point is how not all the mobsters were active on 116th Street of Manhattan; some were active around the area. The reason I support the title 116th Street crew because it has recognition. In the early 1920s the group was called 116th street mob. The early mafia was smaller then today’s mafia and the area has become a crew not a family. --LibertyZip (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enhanced Machine Controller[edit]
- Enhanced Machine Controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unremarkable software package. It has no third-party references to support notability. Borderline advert. Wizard191 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, your way off base here. This is an open source project and is a very remarkable software and is activity being developed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.65.78.60 (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We believe we have over 3000 users worldwide using this software. It is hard to count, as many of them never contact us once they are up and running. I sell hardware that is supported by EMC2, and have sold close to 200 of these systems.
- Strong keep If you look at the history of this project, you will see that it is more than just a software application- it is a project that is similar to Gimp, Firefox, or any other large scale project with a lot of momentum going towards it's development. The community of developers and users behind it have learned to work together in a remarkable way, that promotes continuous improvement. The project also has influenced other open source projects (and closed source projects for that matter) in the field of CADCAM software. --Ddfalck2002 (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Weak delete. I think this could definitely be notable in the future as development continues- and as more refs come available from the tech press- but for now, unless someone can provide independent refs (which I could not find in a cursory I-search) it should go. The Eskimo (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am okay with the refs now added. The Eskimo (talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EMC was first moved into the public in 1997, I was the second user outside of NIST. I have been using it in my shop since 1998. So, it has over a decade of history.
EMC is a very influential software package that is the grandfather of many machine controls and other machine control systems that is based on it. It has a large user base and a diverse development community. I would not consider deleting this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ichudov (talk • contribs) 14:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep This is an active open source project which is a continuation of a successful NIST development effort. It has continuing support from NIST [14]. There are plenty of GScholar and GBooks references to the project. Did the nominator even look for them? It is expected that nominators will supply available third party references instead of nominating AfD. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep did the nominator read the guidelines for nominating AfD. the article is new and just growing, its about a well established opensource project archivist (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A brief search on google-scholar returns at least 20+ scientific journal papers and conference proceedings in which the architecture of EMC is discussed, and in which EMC or EMC2 has been enhanced, modified, or used. I have added these to the references section of the article. I'm also told the EMC project has strong links to Robocrane, for which there are many more third-party references available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.61.165 (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: EMC is an influential Open Source package that has been used in the manufacturing industry in the US, Europe, and around the world (Argentina, Middle East, Vietnam). It has a dedicated user and developer community on http://sourceforge.net/projects/emc/ and http://linuxcnc.org . The article is a work in progress---it started without references and attributions, which was probably the weakness that prompted Wizard191's criticism; this is being addressed in the current version. Current tally has several keeps and strong keeps; could Wizard191 please reevaluate?
- Strong keep Not mentioned here is the very active IRC channel on #freenode The log (found here http://www.linuxcnc.org/irc/irc.freenode.net:6667/emc/) dates back to 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.218.48.3 (talk) 03:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep In the absence of any explanation from Wizard191 as to why he flagged up 'delete' on an article that was obviously work in progress when all that was required at that stage was to flag up what HE thought was missing - references. I think this flag should simply be removed as it has no relevance to the current content and a more appropriate direction flag added if that IS now required? Probably the main reason he could not find anything when searching for Enhanced_Machine_Controller was because everybody refers to it as EMC or EMC2, but THAT is not an appropriate wikipedia page title? Lsces (talk) 06:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep from a user of this software for several years. There is no other, and this includes the commercial offerings, that has the combined list of features this package has. It can control on-off channels of almost any count, limited by the hardware available in the computer for i/o, and can control 9 actual methods of motion to accuracies limited by the thermal characteristics of the machine being controlled.
An open source project under constant development for well over a decade, I have been running it 5 or 6 years myself. It needs to be included on wikipedia. --204.111.67.76 (talk) 10:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)Signed by Gene Heskett[reply]
- STRONG keep I currently use EMC2 in an industrial process, to control a guing machine for photovoltaic panel building. I really think EMC2 is a "must be considered" software for anyone that have any moving machine to control at low-cost but still with excellent performances and possibilities. It has a very good user community, active developpement, the article contains lots of references, I really don't understand why it should be deleted. Please consider let it alive ! I can make the french translation of it if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.206.218 (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Please, Wizard191, could you explain us why you wan this article to be removed ? It's a very new one, quite short for now, but sure it will be added lots of informations in the next days/weeks. For the moment, I think that the wikipedia 'run for references' way leads in an article containing more references lines to tech papers than explanation on the article purpose itself. Sounds a bit stupid, isn't it ? Moreover, I really do not understand how someone member of Metalworking group can ask for the deletion of a EMC2 related article, as this software is widlely known and used in the hobby machining/metalworking community, worldwide. And even used by proffessional metalworkers ! So please keep this article alive ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bricofoy (talk • contribs) 11:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep '"unremarkable software package"' I suppose that is why so many people use it? Perhaps Wizard191 is involved in the use/production of proprietary software the competes with EMC2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.153.165 (talk) 23:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a bit early - as in addition to the unanimous delete consensus at the AFD, it is also a wholly unsourced BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scotty bills[edit]
- Scotty bills (edit | talk | 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 lead singer of a non-notable band. No sources, no third party coverage on google. No evidence he meets any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC Rockpocket 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unremakable musician, neither the article nor the references provide any clues as to notability. Should probably have beed speedied as CSD A7 (and still can be).--Kudpung (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Probably should have been speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If a band doesn't have their own article, then surely individual members are automatically non-notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stanley Gets Stuck[edit]
- Stanley Gets Stuck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable book. No sources, hard to find anything about it. — Timneu22 · talk 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not sure whether the book exists. Fails notability criteria for books. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with above. The ISBN # does not lead anywhere that I can see. The Eskimo (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only confirmation I can find for the book is http://www.sigmafineart.com/illustration.php which shows three of Al Warner's illustrations. You need a password to access any more of this site, so I cannot say what else he has illustrated. Stanley's own site is inaccessible to me, as I do not have Flash on this machine and that is one of the sites where you are not given the option of non-flash entry. (Why, oh why do some web designers not accept that not everyone wants to use Flash?) Otherwise, P.A.D. Publishing bears a seeming family resemblance to the name of the author Paul Drummond. Could be co-incidence. Hard to find anything by them, as 'pad publishing' appears to be an activity as well as a firm. There is a PAD Publishing Ltd in London, but they publish Property and Development Magazine and are likely not to be involved with wandering sheep called Stanley. So, we have a self-published book with no outside coverage. Not even lulu or amazon coverage can I find. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources, thus it is a non-notable book. Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable book by a non-notable author. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G11 is also relevant, in addition to the unanimous delete consensus from the AFD. -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Socket Mobile, Inc.[edit]
- Socket Mobile, 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)
Non-notable small company. Doesn't appear to be any reliable sources writing about the company; just press releases, their own web site, product forums, and the like. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant spam about another small tech firm: a supplier of mobile computing, data capture, and network connection solutions for the business mobility market. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Sport Overnight[edit]
- World Sport Overnight (edit | talk | 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, unreferenced (only ref and 1 ext link are dead, station website has no page for it anymore) past radio show. Most presenter bios have been AfD'd already, as the redlinks in the article show. The-Pope (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find any significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the ref and external links are dead and I can't find it in any reliable sources. Happy to be proved wrong, though, if someone else can :) Jenks24 (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a little bit early - as a completely unreferenced BLP with unanimous consensus at the AFD for delete outcome. -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Moore (radio presenter)[edit]
- Craig Moore (radio presenter) (edit | talk | 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 radio host. Very hard to find references, as he worked on sports radio, but shares his name with a high profile Australian football (soccer) player. Does not appear to still be active, and no variation of -socceroos or similar could find anything. Note that a bunch of other SEN radio announcers created around the same time, by the same editors (who are generally no longer active here) have already been deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Marcato, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brett Phillips (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Erwin are 3 I've found. The-Pope (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. WWGB (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: He isn't notable. Not even the radio show is. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. Jenks24 (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaWarsaw[edit]
- EnigmaWarsaw (edit | talk | 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 has been here since 2007, with no independent sources, and nothing to indicate what makes this game notable. In fact, there was a prod tag put on it not long after it was created, and the prod was removed with the amazing edit summary of "hopefully this will improve". Well, it hasn't. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no WP:RS as to why this is a notable game. --Kinu t/c 06:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wanted to this content could be merged to Warsaw, Poland, but there it would probably be UNDUE. I'm not seeing a really good reason to keep it. Jclemens (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is this, but someone would need to find an english version/translation per WP:NONENG. Nolelover 12:18, 24 September 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) 12:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and for God's sake do NOT merge to Warsaw! Marketing gimmick used by a travel agency we don't have an article on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete'- Per above The Eskimo (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable. No reason to be merged. Joe Chill (talk) 22:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The arguments seemed to have centered on whether or not this person meets notability guidelines, mainly WP:BIO and related guidelines; neither side came out on top here. Note that this does not preclude any future merger discussions, which can be done locally on the involved articles' talk pages. –MuZemike 22:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abraham Jennison[edit]
- Abraham Jennison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. Person is mentioned in one book because one of his letters survived. "Letters which convicts wrote to their families in England were rarely preserved, but two are quoted here as examples of the messages that they sent. The first was from Abraham Jennison, a forty-four year old blacksmith[...]"[15] being mentioned in one book as an example, and not being noted in any other reliable source, nor having any indication as to why this person should be notable, is a clear sign of failing WP:BIO. Fram (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fram thinks Jennison not worth writing about. Respected historian Rica Erickson thought otherwise. And she did write about him; she didn't just mention him as an example, notwithstanding Fram's misinterpretation of a couple of Google Books snippets. Sorry, but it's Erickson's opinion that matters here, not Fram's. Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." This one's a keeper. Hesperian 12:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't state that he wasn't worth writing about. As an example, he is obviously worth writing about in a book about a subject he is an example of. An example, however, means that he isn't notable, but that he has been picked more or less randomly. It's like a newspaper that gives short bio's of some victims of some disaster, to make it more "real", more personal. The randomly chosen example victims aren't notable by being presented in a newspaper article, the disaster is, they are just examples. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worth writing about, only that they aren't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The fact that not a single other reliable source has written about Jennison is a clar indication that he was used as an example, not as a notable convict or migrant. Fram (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It doesn't say anything about being the subject of enough published secondary source material to satisfy Fram. It just says that he has to be the subject of published secondary source material. Well, he is. And all this guff about him being nothing more than a passing example to Erickson is a myth, built on Fram's personal interpretation of the few tiny snippets of the source that s/he could get out of Google Books. The fact is, Erickson doesn't just use him as a passing example; she discusses him, and gives his biography. Hesperian 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you then perhaps enlighten us why he is discussed, if not as an example? What sets him apart? Has he received media attention during his life or at the time of his death? Has his extensive correspondence or other writings been published? Has he done anything that would give Erickson reason to give him extra attention as something else than an example? And if so, why has not one single reliable source spent even a second of their time on him? Fram (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <shrug> The book is a collection of biographies of convicts. Some convicts get an entire chapter. Others get a paragraph. Jennison got a few pages. The "example" text you're making so much of is a lead-in into a full biographical treatment. Who are you to second-guess Erickson's reasons for doing so? She did. And I don't know where you got the idea that there are no other sources that mention him. That's an utter fabrication. He also has an entry in The Dictionary of Western Australians 1829-1914 2: Bond 1850-1868. Hesperian 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was written by the same author as the other source, so doesn't count... Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- refer to WP:AUTHOR oh hang on that would be to simple. pt 1 Person is regarded as an important person, has created a major significant work(the letter is that) and the work is in the perminent collect of a museum oh its that too. Gnangarra 04:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The single letter is far from significant. ARTHOR can't apply here. --MASEM (t) 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please drop the dismissive tone because it's not as simple as you state. As it falls under the sub-heading of "creative professionals", it's not clear that "author" in the context of WP:AUTHOR was intended to refer to the subject of the Afd. Location (talk) 06:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- refer to WP:AUTHOR oh hang on that would be to simple. pt 1 Person is regarded as an important person, has created a major significant work(the letter is that) and the work is in the perminent collect of a museum oh its that too. Gnangarra 04:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was written by the same author as the other source, so doesn't count... Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <shrug> The book is a collection of biographies of convicts. Some convicts get an entire chapter. Others get a paragraph. Jennison got a few pages. The "example" text you're making so much of is a lead-in into a full biographical treatment. Who are you to second-guess Erickson's reasons for doing so? She did. And I don't know where you got the idea that there are no other sources that mention him. That's an utter fabrication. He also has an entry in The Dictionary of Western Australians 1829-1914 2: Bond 1850-1868. Hesperian 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you then perhaps enlighten us why he is discussed, if not as an example? What sets him apart? Has he received media attention during his life or at the time of his death? Has his extensive correspondence or other writings been published? Has he done anything that would give Erickson reason to give him extra attention as something else than an example? And if so, why has not one single reliable source spent even a second of their time on him? Fram (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:BIO, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." It doesn't say anything about being the subject of enough published secondary source material to satisfy Fram. It just says that he has to be the subject of published secondary source material. Well, he is. And all this guff about him being nothing more than a passing example to Erickson is a myth, built on Fram's personal interpretation of the few tiny snippets of the source that s/he could get out of Google Books. The fact is, Erickson doesn't just use him as a passing example; she discusses him, and gives his biography. Hesperian 13:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't state that he wasn't worth writing about. As an example, he is obviously worth writing about in a book about a subject he is an example of. An example, however, means that he isn't notable, but that he has been picked more or less randomly. It's like a newspaper that gives short bio's of some victims of some disaster, to make it more "real", more personal. The randomly chosen example victims aren't notable by being presented in a newspaper article, the disaster is, they are just examples. However, that doesn't mean that they aren't worth writing about, only that they aren't notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The fact that not a single other reliable source has written about Jennison is a clar indication that he was used as an example, not as a notable convict or migrant. Fram (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question How substantial is the coverage on him in Jennisons book exactly? Are we talking a single page, a few pages or and an entire chapter? Yoenit (talk) 13:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few pages. Hesperian 23:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is interesting that in the most obvious Australian location to check this issue is the National Library Trove database (google does not reach into Australian libraries, yet - and the (Find sources: "Abraham Jennison" – news · books · scholar · images) at the top of this afd is the inherently a classic case of american exceptionalism which wikipedia could do without) - and when entering the name of the individual - http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21416223?q=Abraham+jennison&c=book - there is an obvious context to the range of individuals who are covered by (a) Erickson, Rica, (1983) The Brand on his coat : biographies of some Western Australian convicts. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, W.A. ISBN 0855642238 (pbk) and if one reads carefully there - Wikipedia: Read associated articles: Abraham Jennison, Alfred Chopin, Convict era of Western Australia, etc - so what we have is the process by which Trove/NLA - consider such items related to the book by Erickson as notable - I for one would consider that to take any one article listed there by the trove capture process - and single it out for any particular reason would be missing the point - the trove entry suggests that the collection of articles at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Convicts_transported_to_Western_Australia are all valid records of individuals that either Erickson or other researchers consider adequately or inherently notable in the era that they existed. SatuSuro 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't anything of your reasoning. Trove takes the book by Erickson, the sole source we have for this article, and looks at Wikipedia to see where this book is used as a source: every article that lists thios book is then automatically mentioned in the article. How does any of this give any extra notability beyond the Erickson book itself? You may agree with Hesperian that the Erickson book is sufficient, fine: but the whole argument tyou are building here is that because a search engine from the NLA links the books in the NLA to Wikipedia articles that source that book, the book (no, the subjects in the book!) somehow become more notable? This is a very peculiar circular reasoning... Fram (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is interesting that in the most obvious Australian location to check this issue is the National Library Trove database (google does not reach into Australian libraries, yet - and the (Find sources: "Abraham Jennison" – news · books · scholar · images) at the top of this afd is the inherently a classic case of american exceptionalism which wikipedia could do without) - and when entering the name of the individual - http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21416223?q=Abraham+jennison&c=book - there is an obvious context to the range of individuals who are covered by (a) Erickson, Rica, (1983) The Brand on his coat : biographies of some Western Australian convicts. University of Western Australia Press, Nedlands, W.A. ISBN 0855642238 (pbk) and if one reads carefully there - Wikipedia: Read associated articles: Abraham Jennison, Alfred Chopin, Convict era of Western Australia, etc - so what we have is the process by which Trove/NLA - consider such items related to the book by Erickson as notable - I for one would consider that to take any one article listed there by the trove capture process - and single it out for any particular reason would be missing the point - the trove entry suggests that the collection of articles at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Convicts_transported_to_Western_Australia are all valid records of individuals that either Erickson or other researchers consider adequately or inherently notable in the era that they existed. SatuSuro 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A few pages. Hesperian 23:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Basic criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't understand why this is even being discussed. –Moondyne 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, because, despite how it is written in the text, WP:BIO is often understood to require mulitple sources, as do all the notability guidelines. You can see this at WP:N, with things like "Multiple sources are generally expected". Here, we have only one source, with not even passing mentions in other sources, indicating that the person is not notable but just an example. Fram (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennison also has an entry in The Dictionary of Western Australians 1829-1914 2: Bond 1850-1868. Fram's claim that "not a single other source about this person exists" is another myth. Hesperian 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was written by the same author as the other source, so doesn't count... WP:N: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability". Apart from that, this is a genealogical telephone book, an attempt to list everyone who lived there in that time period. So, I repeat, there is not a single reliable independent source about Jennison, establishing that he is indeed notable, apart from the Erickson one. Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennison also has an entry in The Dictionary of Western Australians 1829-1914 2: Bond 1850-1868. Fram's claim that "not a single other source about this person exists" is another myth. Hesperian 23:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, because, despite how it is written in the text, WP:BIO is often understood to require mulitple sources, as do all the notability guidelines. You can see this at WP:N, with things like "Multiple sources are generally expected". Here, we have only one source, with not even passing mentions in other sources, indicating that the person is not notable but just an example. Fram (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Convict era of Western Australia for several reasons:
- The person doesn't meet WP:GNG notability clearly (no significant coverage in multiple sources).
- Of course, there's WP:BIO, but here the only criteria Jennison could meet is #1 of WP:BASIC. But I stress: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. As best as I can tell from the book, the book is not about Jennison, but only includes him as one example of a convict. That is not being "the subject of" the work.
- The claim to fame seems to be the letter itself. This almost screams WP:BIO1E, and suggests that a better place for this information is at Convict era of Western Australia as an example of a convict from that era. -- User:Masem 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Jennison is not the subject of the source; he is an example of the subject. I understand the argument being made for Jennison being the subject, or one of the subjects, therefore fulfilling a loose interpretation of the guideline...but even if you convinced me to change my mind on that argument, it still just barely might pass the very basic requirements for notability; and I just don't think there is enough here to warrant a stand alone article. Needs at least another good source. The Eskimo (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is a collection of biographies of convicts. Some convicts get an entire chapter. Others get a paragraph. Jennison got a few pages. For those few pages, Jennison is most certainly "the subject of published secondary source material with is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." You might feel that a few pages isn't enough, but don't be mislead by the fact that Erickson led into Jennison's biography by referring to him as an example of something. That's a mere literary device, and cannot be construed as reducing all this biographical coverage to the status of a passing reference. Hesperian 23:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Masons argument. The wording of WP:BIO aside, I do not think this guy is truly notable and needs a separate article. His use as an example at Convict era of Western Australia seems an excellent idea Yoenit (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Clearly a case of WP:BIO1E. Also WP:BIO is indendent to be a short cut for when additional secondary sources can be assumed to exist. It does in no way imply that multiple sources is not needed, rather it lists several cases where one can usually presume that those sources exist. Because Person uses Jennison as an example of a broader subject, and that inclusion is rather arbitrary, we can not in this case assume that other sources exists. Hence Jennison does not meet our notability criteria, and should not be treated in a seperate article. Taemyr (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename as per WP:BIO1E - "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." While Jennison is mentioned, it is the letter that achieves any notability from the sources provided. Jennison's coverage is incidental as the author of the notable letter. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hesperian found a second source above. Also, the guideline about multiple sources is more of a protection from hoaxes (in the present day) and from propagating factual errors that have entered a single source (for historical content). I'm not sure what sort of expectations editors have regarding sources for subjects like this one. Rica Erikson's interest in him and the entry in a biographical dictionary I believe satisfy the criteria for a stand-alone article. Let me also comment that AfD was inappropriate for handling this: The correct action would be to put a merge proposal in the article's discussion page. patsw (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the nominator did not suggest the merge. He thinks it should be deleted, hence AFD is the appropriate place for this discussion. Yoenit (talk) 04:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesperian forgot to mention though that the "second source" is a genealogical book by the very same author of the first source. This, as established in WP:N, doesn't count as a second source. Fram (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Theres the letter itself, and then theres passengers list for the vessel while this is a reproduction obviously the originals are available on paper. another source Convicts in Western Australia, 1850-1887 by Erickson & O'Mara UWA press 1994 isbn:0855642785. WP:BIO1E isnt applicable because isnt Jennison isnt notable for an event, he's a convict who's been documented in reliable sources. Gnangarra 09:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, that's all only one secondary source. There are two primary source, the letter and the passenger list, which are goodfor verification (which was not disputed). And there is one author who has written about Jennison, which is Erickson. That that was done in two books is irrelevant, per WP:N. And you are right, Wp:BIO1E doesnt apply, it's WP:BIOZEROE in this case... Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to grant that probably only one author has made Jennison the subject of secondary source material. I don't see this as an issue. A well-respected historian wrote a few pages of biography on this guy, and it was published by a highly reputable university publisher. The topic is notable enough; it unambiguously meets WP:BIO, and it meets a natural, reasonable, non-wikilawyering reading of WP:N :— An attempt is being made here to elevate the deliberately wishy-washy "multiple sources are generally expected" into a firm rule determining whether we have significant coverage, but the significant coverage dot point merely states that "sources address the subject directly in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material....", and those conditions are clearly met here. Hesperian 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree here about your reading of WP:N. It is quite clear by using "reliable sources" throughout the entire policy to show multiple sources are expected. The footnote after the "wishy-washy" multiple sources line says: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.", which is exactly what several people are suggesting. The article has no hope of ever expanding beyond a stub. To be honest I am also quite worried that a keep here will be seen as a precedent that everybody given some coverage in any reliable source (like, obituaries from newspapers) while be seen as notable. Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not precedent setting WP:OTHERSTUFF, this article isnt based on an obiturary, its based on published works. Gnangarra 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be grand if everybody given significant coverage in any reliable source was seen as notable. NOTPAPER, "sum of all human knowledge", etc; I can't think of a single reason to exclude such articles. Hesperian 11:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesperian, you may well have missed it between my other replies, but in those pages spent on Jennison, do you get any indication why Erickson chose to zoom in on Jennison instead of on any other of the numerous convicts? What sets him apart for her? Why did she consider him notable? Fram (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that, in the course of compiling bare bones biographical information on all convicts for the Bond volume of the Dictionary of Western Australians, Erickson identified a small subset of convicts about which there was a great deal more to be said. Therefore she put together a book of greatly expanded biographies on a small number of convicts, each of whom were, in her opinion, of sufficient historical interest to merit such treatment. In the case of Jennison, the existence of an extent letter written by him—an immensely valuable document from a social history point of view—rendered Jennison of sufficient historical interest to her, for her to delve into the records and provide a brief biography of him.
All of this is irrelevant, however. You don't get to judge Erickson's decision to write about him. You don't get to decide whether her rationale was good enough. A reputable historian published biographical information on Abraham Jennison. That is all that matters. Hesperian 13:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My understanding is that, in the course of compiling bare bones biographical information on all convicts for the Bond volume of the Dictionary of Western Australians, Erickson identified a small subset of convicts about which there was a great deal more to be said. Therefore she put together a book of greatly expanded biographies on a small number of convicts, each of whom were, in her opinion, of sufficient historical interest to merit such treatment. In the case of Jennison, the existence of an extent letter written by him—an immensely valuable document from a social history point of view—rendered Jennison of sufficient historical interest to her, for her to delve into the records and provide a brief biography of him.
- Most convicts were illiterate(probably spelt better then me though) Jennison wasnt, very little personal documentation is available on convicts of the 293 that arrived on the Pyreness in 1851 Jennison is the only one known to have any personal writting still in existance. Gnangarra 12:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hesperian, you may well have missed it between my other replies, but in those pages spent on Jennison, do you get any indication why Erickson chose to zoom in on Jennison instead of on any other of the numerous convicts? What sets him apart for her? Why did she consider him notable? Fram (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to disagree here about your reading of WP:N. It is quite clear by using "reliable sources" throughout the entire policy to show multiple sources are expected. The footnote after the "wishy-washy" multiple sources line says: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic.", which is exactly what several people are suggesting. The article has no hope of ever expanding beyond a stub. To be honest I am also quite worried that a keep here will be seen as a precedent that everybody given some coverage in any reliable source (like, obituaries from newspapers) while be seen as notable. Yoenit (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to grant that probably only one author has made Jennison the subject of secondary source material. I don't see this as an issue. A well-respected historian wrote a few pages of biography on this guy, and it was published by a highly reputable university publisher. The topic is notable enough; it unambiguously meets WP:BIO, and it meets a natural, reasonable, non-wikilawyering reading of WP:N :— An attempt is being made here to elevate the deliberately wishy-washy "multiple sources are generally expected" into a firm rule determining whether we have significant coverage, but the significant coverage dot point merely states that "sources address the subject directly in detail.... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material....", and those conditions are clearly met here. Hesperian 10:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, that's all only one secondary source. There are two primary source, the letter and the passenger list, which are goodfor verification (which was not disputed). And there is one author who has written about Jennison, which is Erickson. That that was done in two books is irrelevant, per WP:N. And you are right, Wp:BIO1E doesnt apply, it's WP:BIOZEROE in this case... Fram (talk) 09:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I want to endorse Hesperian's argument that it is WP:WIKILAWYERING to emphasize the word multiple from Wikipedia:Notability when that guideline itself explicitly defers to Wikipedia:Notability (people) to guide the criteria to be used for the inclusion of biographical subjects. Frankly, I don't know, and I do want to know, what greater goal the advocates of deleting this article are pursuing. Any one-of-a-kind first person accounts for a part of history where there had been believed to be none is significant. In this case, there's no sense that this is a hoax or that other accounts are already in Wikipedia for this subject area at the level of detail of this article (thereby making this one a trivial addition). If there's any doubt the inclusion of this type of history in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Notability (people) itself should be modified for clarity about this. patsw (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the letter, I have to say that I expect something quite different when I read words like "first person accounts for a part of history". The article as written doesn't get its information from a first person account, but from extensive genealogical research. No one has argued that it is a hoax, so I have no idea why you bring this up. There is a dispute whether one source is sufficient or not; some people feel it is, some think it doesn't. It was, in my view, a civilized and rational discourse from both sides. Nothing to get worked up about. That you believe that we have here is sufficient to warrant a stand-alonearticle is a defendable opinion, which is shared by some people in this discussion and not by a few others. That's really all there is to it. Fram (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On that basis of what you have just said - noting in your contributions that you are going through the alphabet (You are still in the A's...) in relation to sources - I would say such a trawl of articles has its pluses and minuses - there could well be another article that you put up similar arguments and no-one comes to the afd - and in that you may well get some afds through on the basis of less convincing arguments simply because some articles have few defenders - it is quite concerning that 'testing' the issues around sources and articles like here - is problematic. To have a literate convict in early Western Australian history is in itself a notable item - regardless of how much is known about the person - SatuSuro 14:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at Ex-convict school teachers in Western Australia, it wasn't that rare to have a literate convict (although the number of illiterate ones was much higher). This list includes John Hislop, who was at the same ship as Jennison. Fram (talk) 14:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On that basis of what you have just said - noting in your contributions that you are going through the alphabet (You are still in the A's...) in relation to sources - I would say such a trawl of articles has its pluses and minuses - there could well be another article that you put up similar arguments and no-one comes to the afd - and in that you may well get some afds through on the basis of less convincing arguments simply because some articles have few defenders - it is quite concerning that 'testing' the issues around sources and articles like here - is problematic. To have a literate convict in early Western Australian history is in itself a notable item - regardless of how much is known about the person - SatuSuro 14:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having read the letter, I have to say that I expect something quite different when I read words like "first person accounts for a part of history". The article as written doesn't get its information from a first person account, but from extensive genealogical research. No one has argued that it is a hoax, so I have no idea why you bring this up. There is a dispute whether one source is sufficient or not; some people feel it is, some think it doesn't. It was, in my view, a civilized and rational discourse from both sides. Nothing to get worked up about. That you believe that we have here is sufficient to warrant a stand-alonearticle is a defendable opinion, which is shared by some people in this discussion and not by a few others. That's really all there is to it. Fram (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I had a brief look through the cited book at the library today. The book appears to be a vehicle for presenting Western Australian convict biographies (a small number of the 9500 transported) in a readable form. What is known about the biographical detail of Jennison is given along with the full content of the letter in a few pages. Despite being introduced as one of two examples of rare surviving letters sent "home", this introduction appears to me to be a literary device to tie and introduce two small biographies rather than presenting biographical fragments incidental to the narrative. Melburnian (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Convict era of Western Australia or delete. The guidelines can be parsed all day, however, in the end they are just guidelines. I am not convinced that a minimal biography in one source based upon one letter the subject wrote is enough to establish notability for a stand-alone article. Location (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This, to me, is a very strong argument. Can this article ever reasonably expand further particularly if the claim to fame is being one of the few surviving letters from that period? All this information can be kept in the Convict article, a redirect added, and nothing is lost save that we exhaust one article to this guy. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is based on the assumptions that (a) the current article is too short; and (b) fewer articles is better. I disagree with both of these assumptions. Hesperian 05:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is too short. It can never be able to be expanded unless new sources emerge, and again, given that the claim people are making is that this is one of the few surviving first-hand accounts of the Convict era, it is highly unlikely more will appear. There is plenty of space (per WP:SIZE) in Convict era to still cover every detail mentioned about Jennison that's given here. We need fewer articles that have zero chance of becoming quality articles. --MASEM (t) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is based on the assumptions that (a) the current article is too short; and (b) fewer articles is better. I disagree with both of these assumptions. Hesperian 05:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This, to me, is a very strong argument. Can this article ever reasonably expand further particularly if the claim to fame is being one of the few surviving letters from that period? All this information can be kept in the Convict article, a redirect added, and nothing is lost save that we exhaust one article to this guy. --MASEM (t) 04:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per the arguments of Hesperian. Also clearly passes all of the basic criteria of WP:BIO and I'm failing to see why this is even being discussed, to be honest. Jenks24 (talk) 08:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is your Delete vote based upon the present state of the article which only cites Rica Erickson as a secondary source for the subject, and there was one other secondary source cited now, you'd vote Keep? patsw (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Convict era of Western Australia. Loath though I am to wade into these already murky waters, this seems to me the most compelling solution and something in the nature of a compromise. The main arguments seem to hinge on whether the coverage given to Jennison is substantial and non-trivial, and whether WP:BLP1E applies. Whether the coverage is significant is debatable and, I think, unanswered; however, the unavoidable fact is that Jennison's notability relies on his writing the letter. As an unusual occurrence (i.e. convict literacy) this event warrants coverage, but the subject of it does not. Merging allows the content to remain but alleviates the notability concerns. Frickeg (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm, that's what WP:ONEEVENT is for - when someone is covered by reliable material (it makes no reference to being the subject of) but is only notable for one thing. Like Jennison, in other words. Frickeg (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have, as far as I can tell, no evidence at all that he was literate, though. It was very usual for the illiterate to dictate letters to those who were literate, and to have the literatie read out letters to the illiterate. Composing and sending a letter doesn't mean that the author of it was literate. This doesn't mean that the letter isn't for all practical means "by him", or that it isn't unusual, but it shouldn't be used as an argument that Jennison was in some respect unusual, as we have no evidence of that (nor any to the contrary, of course). The letter is unusual, the author isn't. Fram (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- how would you suggest the Bio of one person be incorporated into Convict era of Western Australia, or do you propose that the target article be expanded to incorporate bios for all notable convicts out of ~9700 who were transported to Western Australia. Gnangarra 07:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Daymaker[edit]
- Daymaker (edit | talk | 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 indie film, fails WP:GNG. Only coverage is a single news article. Prod removed without explanation. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability has not been established through significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I looked through the various google links above and came up empty. The coverage consists of primary sources, along with press releases and portals to watch the film online. The one reference provided in the article is simply a "local boy does good" and does not equate to disinterested, independent coverage. While the film received an award at the "Cleveland Indie Gathering" Film Festival, this is not a major film award and cannot be used to establish notability. The article was previously deleted at least twice (2007? and 2010) due to lack of notability and copyright infringement. It was then immediately recreated with copyvio removed, however, still fails notability per WP:NF and WP:GNG. Respectfully, Cindamuse (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt I cannot find anything other than the already cited source in the article, and a single source does not make for notability. A third place award from a non-notable film festival doesn't really add to the cause, especially as it is only sourced from the festival's self-published web site. Already deleted twice, it may be time to salt this to avoid further recreations. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 14:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt as above and per WP:NF. Clearly made no impact whatsoever when it was made 3 years ago and unlikely to anytime soon either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above The Eskimo (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOPE. I found out that the best this one did in festivals was 3rd place "Best Feature Film - Drama/Comedy" at the "Cleveland Indie Gathering".[16] Not enough. Sad to say, but there is fishing boat somewhere called "Daymaker" and it has far more press than does this film... and then there is a hair salon on wheels that hosts a "Project Daymaker" which also has more press.[17] And while the one in-depth article about this film is quite decent,[18] the "one" is not nearly enough.
And really folks... this one does not qualify for a rather bitey WP:SALTING... unless this brand new artcle had been recreated a number of times or is somehow a hotbed of dissention... and neither seem to be the case. It's simply a several-hours-old article about a film which has no sourcable notability. No need to over-react. Sheesh.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is (at least) the third creation of the article following previous deletions. Cindamuse (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I saw only this work of a newb editor and was not aware of any previous discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep No idea what you're shooting for, Jimbo — you file an AFD just because the article has a broken source, and then vote "keep" in the same. I'll just go ahead and close this since it's clearly not a deletion issue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy Noland[edit]
- Lucy Noland (edit | talk | 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 biography is sourced mostly to a 404 not found page, please see talk for discussion. Issue was raised there more than two weeks ago and no one came to the rescue. Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no good reason for deletion has been given, and nominator is supposed to do some checks before starting a deletion discussion (or, worse, a ProD). Reliable sourecs like this one validate much of the info in the article, and are available through a simple Google News search. Fram (talk) 12:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You can find plenty of coverage in the G-News archives. No one came to the rescue? Nothing unusual. I've noted that a lot of talk page comments is left unanswered for years. The article needs competent editing, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but there is a broader problem not really acknowledged in the comments above. We have hundreds of similarly unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles, and if leaving a question on a talk page gives rise to no improvement and no discussion, that's a problem.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you of all people should know that we are unpaid volunteers. We simply can't always rush to the rescue, especially when it's only noted on a talk page. Most talk pages are not read more than twice a year. That's why we use templates like {{BLPunsourced}} and {{BLPrefimprove}} - so that people can find those articles via a category. Seeing that it was never placed there, it's no surprise that noone came to the rescue. Don't forget, several drives over the last year have reduced the amount of such problems drastically. I doubt there is any way to make it go faster, unless we can either a.) drastically increase our community or b.) pay people to do it. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course, we are all volunteers here. I'm not complaining about anyone's performance, just pointing out a systemic failure. You are right, of course, that one way to resolve the problem is to increase the number of people working on it, in some way or another. You are also right that templates of the kind you mention are helpful tools. Another way, though, is to delete articles that we cannot responsibly maintain.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you of all people should know that we are unpaid volunteers. We simply can't always rush to the rescue, especially when it's only noted on a talk page. Most talk pages are not read more than twice a year. That's why we use templates like {{BLPunsourced}} and {{BLPrefimprove}} - so that people can find those articles via a category. Seeing that it was never placed there, it's no surprise that noone came to the rescue. Don't forget, several drives over the last year have reduced the amount of such problems drastically. I doubt there is any way to make it go faster, unless we can either a.) drastically increase our community or b.) pay people to do it. Regards SoWhy 19:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hundreds? That would be a day for a celebration, not for declaring a problem... We have needed a speedy deletion clash before many people started tackling the three-year old unsourced BLPs, never mind waiting two weeks on a sourced BLP that could do with more and better sources. Thanks to a number of dedicated sourcers and the deletion of new unsourced BLPs after seven days, we only get some 1,000 new unsourced BLPs a month. Many pages are totally unwatched, meaning that no one will know if a question is asked on a talk page. Leaving a tag to the article itself will at least have the twofold benefit of adding the article to some maintenance categories, and alerting the casual reader that the article may have some problems. Fram (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
December 6 (novel)[edit]
- December 6 (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence that this book meets WP:NBOOK. No sources are provided that support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, several sources including [19], [20] and [21] to name a few, Sadads (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I managed to find at least three sources, one of which was the New York Times, covering this book extensively. It definitely qualifies under WP:NBOOK. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:BK. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above reasons. Heiro 04:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bansenshukai[edit]
- Bansenshukai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2005, no evidence of notability or meeting WP:NBOOKS, no significant coverage of this book found at reliable sources -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems notable, see [22], [23] and [24], Sadads (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't see the significant coverage there:
- A 1-sentence mention: About 1676 A Japanese man named Fujibayashi Yasuyoshi published ten hand-bound volumes, known collectively as Bansenshukai (Ten Thousand Rivers Collect in the Sea)
- A 1-sentence mention: In [Yasuyoshi Fujibayashi's] 17th-century encyclopedia of ninjutsu, the Bansenshukai, Fujibayashi has noted that the ultimate purpose of the ninja's art lies not in the mere perfection of violent and destructive methods, but in the cultivation of personal harmony with the surroundings and an intuitive sensitivity that permits the living mortal human to know and go along with the scheme of totality that flows through the universe
- Three very minor mentions, including Though Ishikawa Goemon's name is not listed in the Bansenshukai written record of Iga rya ninjutsu, ...
- I came across those when I was looking for reliable sources - and I found others along similar lines that were very minor coverage, and not the significant coverage expected by the guidelines. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, I don't see the significant coverage there:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 09:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to have a few academic journal papers published in Japanese about it, including [25][26]. In the National Diet Library catalogue I can also see listings of several modern editions, including in 1975 (JPNO 71016243), 1981 (JPNO 90034483), and 1988 (JPNO 88033472); the 1975 one includes an 71 pages of new commentary/elucidation (別冊解説) by someone other than the original author, which to me seems to also qualify as significant secondary coverage. cab (call) 09:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of he sources cab has found. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If someone is willing to add inline references to the article for the sources, I am willing to withdraw my nomination - although I should point out that the new versions would not qualify as reliable independent sources apart from the one with the commentary by the publisher -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 22:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Boqueronazo[edit]
- Boqueronazo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Do we really need an article for every single upset win in the history of football? Luxic (talk) 10:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - to answer the nominator's question, no, we don't need every match. However, this seems to have received considerable media attention, and so looks to be notable. GiantSnowman 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - actually, looking through the references I can't see much more media coverage than for any other La Liga, Serie A or Premier League game. The only difference is that this match caused greater stir, as it's obviously pretty rare (but not unprecedented, nor unique) for a small newly-promoted team to get an away win against giants like Barcelona. But what this game seems to lack, in my opinion, are significant lasting effects and duration of coverage. Luxic (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as non-significant game per WP:ROUTINE. has no WP:EFFECT, fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. just another football game which received a little burst of sensationalist publicity to sell more copy because the little guy beat the big guy this time...which happens from time to time in football.--ClubOranjeT 11:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete moderately surprising result but one of many upsets that have happened in football. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Should be included in 2010–11 Hércules CF season. No need for a separate article. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS, no indication of any lasting significance. Codf1977 (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology[edit]
- Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (edit | talk | 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 has no sources. Appears to be a promotion for the organization (organization may be very worthy, but ...), many parts lifted directly from website. Creator of the article appears to be affiliated with organization (a director on the website whose name and creator's username are very similar). Bbb23 (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - They've changed just enough for it to not be CSD'd as a copyvio. It isn't notable and reads as nothing but promotional material. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete most of the sources in gnews come straight from the Vancouver universities it is involved in. thus are not reliable sources. [27]. LibStar (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be self promotion. Figureofnine (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster[edit]
- K'nex Sonic Blizzard Coaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete No evidence of notability. The article was proposed for deletion, but the PROD was contested by the author of the article. The PROD reason was "Non-notable toy, No 3rd party coverage", and a PROD2 also said "Only sources provided are K'nex pages and an e-store carrying the product." That, I think, sums the situation up. The only sources cited are the manufacturer's site and a site selling it, and my web searches have produced more of the same, but no independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE: Discovered during NPP. Original Prodder. I'd compare this to Rubic's Cube or something similar when trying to get a feel for Notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasteur (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as author of prod-2. Article still doesn't have good independent reliable sources to verify the claims made in the article or demonstrate notability. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now - there is no evidence this is a notable toy. If it sells big this holiday season, or gets wide publicity, then it can be re-created after December 25, 2010. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is certainly possible for an individual toy to have notability that makes it appropriate to have a separate article. However, I was not able to find independent sources writing about this particular toy; it may someday come to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, but it doesn't meet them now. -00:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by FisherQueen (talk • contribs)
- Delete Not notable itself. I know K'nex itself is a notable product but the design itself doesn't have any reliable sources. Minimac (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article was created by a now indeffed troll user.Hasteur (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with courtesy blanking of this discussion.--Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also courtesy blanked the closing statement.--Chaser (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Please contact me if you have questions regarding this article, or prior to re-instituting the article. I can be reached through the Wikimedia Foundation's offices, or by email at philippewikimedia.org. Reference OTRS Ticket#2010042910027785 Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jennifer Chang[edit]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third Intifada[edit]
- Third Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about an event that didn't happen yet. I propose deletion per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEOLOGISM. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. The cited sources say "'Third intifada almost here'" or "Intifada: A Third Chapter" and refer to it in a future tense as a prediction or speculation, but do not confirm the existence of "Third intifada" as an historical event. The described events (which were deleted) were not linked to a "Third intifada" by the sources. Marokwitz (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Marokwitz. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, This article has been mentioned on current issues noticeboard. almost here is not here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:MADEUP, not a single reliable source says this actually exists. nableezy - 15:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without prejudice to re-creation if, you know, it actually happens. WP:CRYSTAL and all that. Roscelese (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge compress and merge to Second Intifada. Not worthy of separate article, but this has been threatened already. --Shuki (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bridge (2006 drama)[edit]
- The Bridge (2006 drama) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not sure about this one. I have done some research, but I am just not certain if there is enough significant coverage out there in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, to warrant satisfaction of WP:NOTE. Bringing here for assessment of notability from the community. -- Cirt (talk) 06:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please procedural close - I believe I have subsequently improved the page to enough of a quality in order to satisfy WP:NOTE. Thank you for your time. -- Cirt (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Fascinating and a very thin online presence. It clearly meets V, and has the one MSNBC mention, but the most notable thing about this film appears to be its suppression. If it's deemed not to have independent notability, and based on the references already in the film article I suspect what we see is all there is, then it could be reasonably merged into Scientology in popular culture. That seems a waste, though, in that Wikipedia's notability guidelines would then be aiding the suppression of the film. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quite right, unfortunately, if this were to be deleted, it would be the same possible intention that MSNBC had posited the Scientology organization attempted, namely, what you identify above as "suppression". I would most welcome suggestions from other editors as to further WP:RS secondary source coverage, but without such source coverage, we really cannot present a quality article on the subject. Perhaps other editors may yet be able to find additional sources. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete or Merge If Cirt says he is unable to find sources beyond what has been found already and based on his researching abilities on this topic then.... I don't think there are too many if any more to find if any. Thus why it exist and I think it should be mentioned elsewhere in the umbrella of Scientology articles but does not seem to meet the requirements for its own article. If more sources appear then it should be absolutley kept but as it stands now it seems to fail WP:GNG. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would most welcome it if other editors would help in attempting to find additional coverage in other WP:RS secondary sources, I just have not found such further discussion yet. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoTrac, Lexus Nexus, Google Scholar, Google News, all show nothing beyond what I see already in the article. Outside of it being posted on Xenu.tv I dont even see any usual Scientology Critics mentioning it at all. This might just have to be merged elsewhere The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the reference section its says "Film Credits: The Bridge' is licensed as royalty-free digital media, and may be distributed online for personal viewing without permission. All offline distribution rights are reserved by Brett Hanover." Is currently mentioned in the article Does this mean it it is under a free license and eligible for inclusion on the Commons? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Questionable, not certain about this, because the director wished to retain rights to distribution offline, and yet at the same time wanted to release rights for distribution on the Internet itself. -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: During the source of further research, I was able to find a review of the film, by notable science fiction author, Cory Doctorow. Might go towards a tad bit more notability, just not sure, yet. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks OK to me. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, yeah, I think the improvement efforts done post-nomination go towards improving quality and demonstrating that. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close Nominator's own improvements are impressive. We all learn by such diligent editing. Good going Cirt! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and close Good additional RS sourcing and restructuring. Meets all criteria of WP:GNG. --Lexein (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 Hoax - no evidence that such a study exists, or that this exists as a field of study. There is also no evidence that the doctor named in the article exists, but several real doctors sharing that name do exist in other fields. So there is a BLP issue as well. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Russian obsession[edit]
- Russian obsession (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research with no sources or references cited. Delete. JIP | Talk 05:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pure original research, with no citations and no indication that this is a serious area of study. --Korruski (talk) 07:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - There is no merit to this article whatsoever and, in my opinion, should have been speedy deleted. LittleOldMe (talk) 10:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as original essay or hoax. —Carrite, Sept. 29, 2010.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closed a tad bit early - unsourced BLP, with unanimous consensus at the AFD to delete it. -- Cirt (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Estevao Franco[edit]
- Estevao Franco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Player is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience or relevelant collegiate career. Fails WP:V, WP:GNG and WP:ATH JonBroxton (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no indication that this article passes any of our notability guidelines. I could not verify that he has had any professional football experience either. Jogurney (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Canadian soccer league is not fully pro, and he therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Doesn't meet the relevant athlete guideline, and a check of Google News showed nothing to indicate that he meets GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Norwood Jr.[edit]
- Michael Norwood Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be an autobiography, was deleted by PROD and recreated, the subject has supposedly payed semipro football, but there is nothing to show that they were ever considered to be notable for playing football or anything else for that matter as the article is completely unreferenced and Google isn't coming up with anything significant. Terrillja talk 04:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. TbhotchTalk C. 04:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looks like an WP:AUTO, and even if it wasn't, it wouldn't meet WP:ATH or WP:GNG. --Mosmof (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no evidence whatsoever. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete was a lunchroom helper? Nope, not in this encyclopedia if I have anything to say about it. If it's not a joke or a hoax, it's really really bad--so bad that it reflects badly on Wikipedia and it should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ATH. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kalevala (synopses)[edit]
- Kalevala (synopses) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Some combination of WP:OR, the main article, and Wikisource. A short synopses should be at Kalevala (synopses) and the actual text on Wikisource linked there. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While it isn't actually OR from what I can tell, it isn't needed here. The main article Kalevala has enough, if anyone wants to know more about the subject matter they can find it and read it either on wikisource or on gutenberg (or heaven forbid go to a library). There are links in the footer of the article.--Lakkasuo (talk) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a possible serious copyright infringement unless we can get assertion from original contributor User:HHHH that he/she him/herself really wrote all this, in which caseMove to wikisource:en:Kalevala/Synopsis with appropriate links to the content from Wikisource's Kalevala main page, and possibly Kalevala article in Wikipedia as well. --hydrox (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey. I can confirm that the text is entirely my creation. I can also confirm that I have not used any artistic interpretation of the work but simply summarised the literal meaning of the text. I used mainly the Kirby, Magoun and Bosley translations for reference as well as the original Finnish.
- Any parts that are direct copies of a work are quotations and I think (can't be sure) that they were only from works that are now in the public domain.
- I abstain from the vote as I obviously want my work to remain, but have not contributed to the project in long enough to have an opinion worth listening to. However if my opinion is desired I will say keep.
- --HHHH (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An appropriately detailed summary for such a major work. I waish we had more articles such as this. Experience shows that the best way of preserving it is to keep it a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mandsford 22:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Normally I'd say "in-universe plot summary only" :-) but this is a work of great cultural importance deserving of a detailed plot summary, which can well be split off per WP:SS. Sandstein 06:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DeleteMandsford 22:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Victory Family Centre[edit]
- Victory Family Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article with huge COI, promotional and notability problems. Article was created by a member, recently whitewashed by another member, and is mainly used as a vehicle to promote them and their message. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is not my AFD, I'm good-faith submitting it for the IP who wanted it. tedder (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, can't find any RS nor indeed any secondary sources at all. Roscelese (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Megachurches are liable to be notable. Unfortunately this article does not indicate how mega. It also reads too like an Advert. If rewritten with a NPOV and more detail on its size, it might possibly be worth keeping. However, its title should be Victory Family Centre, Singapore, as no doubt there will be other similarly named churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 23 September 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) 02:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene Sensenig-Dabbous[edit]
- Eugene Sensenig-Dabbous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD that I felt merited further discussion. Subject is a political scientist who I feel falls short of WP:PROF; citations in Gscholar were unremarkable. While he does have some quotations in Gnews, I think they fell short of the "substantial impact" standard imposed by the notability guideline. RayTalk 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 00:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some references to the article. I think him being the creator and leader of Democrats Abroad - Lebanon is good enough for his notability, in my opinion. He also seems to be fairly important as a political scientist. SilverserenC 03:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. With GS cites of 7, 3, 3 fails WP:Prof. Can he pass on WP:GNG? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, fails PROF with insufficient evidence of scholarly impact (cites, positions), and I don't see other support for alternate notability claims. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional delete. He could be a player in the steamy world of middle eastern politics but the article's proponents will have to prove that. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article doesn't do enough to establish notability for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Silverseren for improving the article! I hope that the amount of publications can be taken into consideration when thinking about his notability and that the article can be kept.Ketchupheinz (talk) 08:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Despite improvements to the article I'm still not convinced. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Though merging all the storylines for this series sounds like a plan. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sun Hill fire (2002)[edit]
- Sun Hill fire (2002) (edit | talk | 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 The Bill storyline is not sufficiently independently notable to justify its own article. Searches on both Google Books and Google News provide no hits for "Sun Hill fire". Neelix (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A story arc would have to be analyzed in depth in secondary sources to have its own article. Abductive (reasoning) 22:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is very well sourced from the programmes official case book and is notable enough. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 15:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this and similar storyline articles (which don't appear to have secondary source coverage) into a List of The Bill storylines. Jclemens (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A lot of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and bits of trivial information, no independent sources in article to demonstrate notability. Also per this edit, it seems that the refs do not actually source what the article claims (I mean the real-world info). If possible, I wouldn't mind seeing this smerged into List of The Bill episodes (series 18), if that is the correct season. – sgeureka t•c 08:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the book before trying to sell that the refs do not actually source what the article claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Police,Mad,Jack (talk • contribs)
- Isn't it a huge coincidence that at one moment there is a completely unsourced article, and the next moment a book is used as reference for every single old sentence and/or paragraph, but not even a page number is provided along with it? Reason enough to at least mention that something doesn't seem right. – sgeureka t•c 15:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspicion you state is reasonable, however you should assume good faith. You have no evidence that these references have been fabricated in a way to suit me and it is something you suspect or believe to be the case. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the referencing so it contains six citations to the one source rather than listing them separately. Themeparkgc Talk 09:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspicion you state is reasonable, however you should assume good faith. You have no evidence that these references have been fabricated in a way to suit me and it is something you suspect or believe to be the case. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 18:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. I agree with User:Jclemens - merge all similar articles into a new article List of The Bill storylines. Themeparkgc Talk 09:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Episodes of most popular series get their own page on Wikipedia, why shouldn't this one? Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage. Do NOT click this link 08:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zend Technologies. –MuZemike 21:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zend Certified Engineer[edit]
- Zend Certified Engineer (edit | talk | 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 certification program. there are GHits, but coverage does not seem to go beyond blogs, forums and the like. Tikiwont (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Actually, if you look on Gnews and Gbooks, you'll find an abundance of reliable sources on the certification. I've taken the liberty of adding in a few of them to the article, which I believe clearly shows notability. SilverserenC 17:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I may ahve seen some of those you added as well as an exam preparation book, but mostly they are refactored press releases, starting with "Zend announced" and the like, which hardly count as independent reliable sources. As far as I see only the linux article with three interviews might count, so I don't see an abundance of independent coverage.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are many published works that discuss the Zend Certified Engineer certification. I've added another citation to the article from a book I have that is published by O'Reilly Media and counts as an independent reliable source. There is no basis for listing this article for deletion. Ofus (talk) 15:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Zend Technologies. I see no evidence that the certification is significant enough for its own article. Aside from press releases there is one article in LinuxWorld, plus a book I can't check. Strip away information about the exam (which dates too easily and shouldn't be in Wikipedia whether or not we keep) and the article is easy small enough to be relegated to a subsection in Zend Technologies. Adpete (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Plus a book I can't check". So, your inability to check it means that it is unreliable? I am seeing, at minimum, with the book and the LinuxWorld article, multiple reliable secondary sources covering the subject in a nontrivial fashion. SilverserenC 05:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case the book's here http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=THI24xC5CUwC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%22Zend+Certified+Engineer%22&ots=e5NqaST044&sig=iPaarQPTWIszpMsajusfwOn9pnY#v=onepage&q=%22Zend%20Certified%20Engineer%22&f=false and it's a one sentence comment. Aside from the Linuxworld article, the news and scholar references pretty well all look like primary sources or authors' resumes. In short, nothing very interesting to say about it, which is why it should be a subsection of Zend. Adpete (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into new section of Zend Technologies per above; no evidence that this is a particularly notable certification. PleaseStand (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Zend Technologies, not very notable as certifications go, which isn't far in the first place. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. article sufficiently improved that the nominator now agrees as well. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
119th SS-Standarte[edit]
- 119th SS-Standarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unit is non-notable admin unit per WP:MILMOS/N Anotherclown (talk) 11:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - there's no real evidence of notability for this 'paper' unit. Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Referenced article about an SS unit that existed in Poland during World War II. Members of this unit were rotated through to perform security and extermination duties in the Holocaust. The article contains information about the creation of the unit, the name of its commander, as well as material concerning its location and activities. This was also a regimental command in the SS, falling under the criteria of Land forces units that are capable of undertaking significant, or independent, military operations. Plenty of room for expansion here as well. -OberRanks (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But why is the unit notable? According to the article, the unit didn't even really exist other than on paper and a couple of administrative assignments. At most I would think that warrants a footnote in another article or an entry in a table somewhere. Gigs (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original language of the article did appear that way and perhaps that was my fault. I will attempt to write it a bit better. This was a real commissioned SS unit associated with the Holocaust. I added another reference and expanded the article. I will try and add more material later. -OberRanks (talk) 13:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But why is the unit notable? According to the article, the unit didn't even really exist other than on paper and a couple of administrative assignments. At most I would think that warrants a footnote in another article or an entry in a table somewhere. Gigs (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral, leaning towards keep, for now; though you've fixed the "paper command" issue, I still don't really see inherant notability in the article's present state. The "capable of undertaking" criteria isn't met IMO because the unit doesn't exist anymore and isn't capable of undertaking anything (past tense need not apply). However, you did state that the unit's history includes extermination activity in the Holocaust, which sounds notable (if distasteful, to say the least) to me. If you can support that with referencing, along with some other details (like what camps did they work at, are there any statistics for this particular unit's kill rate, etc.) I will change my !vote to keep. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to need a bit of time to research and work on this. I also recently discovered that this unit had personnel associated with German units in Danzig (something I need to research a bit more). I think there is enough of a future here to warrant keeping it for now and letting me work on it for a few more weeks. -OberRanks (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is worthwhile purely military-historical data. However, Oberanks, have you considered writing the Oberabschnitt or Abschnitt articles first, and listing all their subordinate Standarte(s) in the parent articles? Then they would be larger command formations, equivalent to military districts, and the individual Standarte information would not be so likely to be listed for deletion. Particularly notable Standarte could always be split out later. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a good idea. I agree starting from the top down would be a very good idea instead of doing it the other way around. -OberRanks (talk) 22:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, do you want to consider renaming this article as 'SS-Oberabschnitt X' (Ostland perhaps? I don't know enough to follow the Nazi naming conventions for the various bits of conquered Europe.) Buckshot06 (talk) 01:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a good idea... if you are agreeable, I will change my vote to "upmerge". bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This Standarte was under the command of SS-Oberabschnitt Weichsel. -OberRanks (talk) 12:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a good idea... if you are agreeable, I will change my vote to "upmerge". bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not much more to say here. Notability was established, references were added, article was expanded. The "parent command" article was also created per the discussion. That was what we had discussed doing, so consensus appears to have been reached. -OberRanks (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge - as a result of the changes initiated after my comments above. I believe that it is not worthwhile keeping individual articles on these type of semi-military administrative units, when they can all be incorporated into the Oberabschnitt articles. If the Oberabschnitt articles reach the size limit, then the situation can be reconsidered, and a decision can be made on whether individual Standartes are individually notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is mainly about whether we should recognize General-SS units as "real" military commands. The Germans most certainly did. Some of the larger Standarten, such as the 1st SS-Standarte, the 6th SS-Standarte, and the 11th SS-Standarte were seen as extremely important SS units. As for the 119th, its been established from sources that this was a "logistical command", but one which contributed personnel to the Holocaust. As the article stands right now, its sourced, cited, and references notable events. There are some others that could be merged, but it might be best to leave this one alone for now and see where it goes. -OberRanks (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I see no need to continuously re-list this over and over again. There's clearly enough material here to at least have a start class article. I recommend closing this out. This debate has been open for over two weeks and, during that time, the article was significantly expanded with several new sources and material added into the page. -OberRanks (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. An admin ought to be able to see this is a keep. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the original nominator I agree this needs to be closed as a keep per Bahamut and OberRanks. Clearly no consensus to delete and the article has moved forward since it was nominated. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. An admin ought to be able to see this is a keep. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the problem with keeping this article. It seems to be a notable military unit of Nazi Germany. Sourcing could be improved, but it seems to be acceptable. Figureofnine (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus; I will add that merging can still be discussed locally on the articles' talk pages. –MuZemike 21:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quadruple product[edit]
- Quadruple product (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of article just deleted after deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vector quadruple product. The content is the same but with trivial working (e.g. AD - BC can be also calculated with a 2D determinant, replacing the products with trig expressions) and definitions from other articles (a convoluted way of writing the triple product out) added. The title is confusing as it invites "quadruple product of what?", not just the many possible products of vectors, and is not given in the only inline source. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / Merge - While I am impressed by the sourcing and formatting -- the article is pretty useless. First of all, as was pointed out earlier, there are many ways to calculate the "product" of a number of vectors -- so listing two of the ways, and for such a specific case of exactly 4 vectors seems odd. Moreover, given that we have an article on the interesting base case, triple product, this article seems unnecessary and a trivial extension of triple product. Would we consider having Quintuple product? Also, consider the fact that the quoted phrase "triple product" returns ~800,000 hits on google, while "quadrupal product" returns < 2,000. I wouldn't be opposed to seeing a "extensions of the triple product" section in the triple product article (although I'm not sure its necessary) if the material is a nonobvious extension -- but it seems to me as if it is. jheiv talk contribs 08:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: with triple product. The sourcing is an improvement over the previous version of the article. I agree that we don't need to explore new ways to compute products with more and more factors, but I think the coverage in Gibbs & Wilson, not to mention the coverage in MathWorld and the references it gives, establishes that the material here is encyclopedic.--RDBury (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: scalar and vector quadruple product are real terms in the engineering literature. Just a few example of their usage:
- In my opinion, they're stupid terms, since obviously there are zillions upon zillions of ways to define quadruple products, but sadly the job of Wikipedia is to reflect usage, not my taste in terminology. If they're using the terms at MIT, Oxford, and in published textbooks, then that establishes sufficient notability. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In this case, would a redirect to say, "Triple product#Extensions" not suffice? jheiv talk contribs 17:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment from the previous discussion the identities are (also) already here: Vector calculus identities#Addition and multiplication.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per AfD on previous article; material already exists on Wikipedia per JohnBlackburne. -- Radagast3 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is unfair on two counts. First, this is a different article and a great improvement over the previous version. Second, imo there was no consensus for 'Delete' in the previous AfD, though the person who closed that debate apparently saw it differently. Water under the bridge now but citing the previous debate as if there were no dissenting opinions seems a bit misleading.--RDBury (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per jheiv, and JohnBlackburne. Merge what is relevant, but I don't see much to be saved.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to Vector calculus identities#Addition and multiplication. Not really enough on its own to justify an article. It is a possible search term so a redirect should be left behind.--Salix (talk): 06:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If a redirect is to be used, and I don't support that, it should be to Vector algebra relations, not to the calculus related Vector calculus identities; the misplaced material in Vector calculus identities#Addition and multiplication repeated from Vector calculus identities should be deleted, as per the RfC on its talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's a definite search term. It came up on google before I had even finished typing it in fully. 'Vector Quadruple Product' and 'Quadruple Product' both showed up by the second letter of the second word in 'Quadruple Product'. Besides that, why all the fuss? What's the problem with the article? David Tombe (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMO, the question is not whether it is a possible search term, but whether the material is most appropriate as part of a larger article or in its own. If you ask me, the material is most appropriate in a larger, more comprehensive page for two reasons. 1) So that editors can focus their watchlists and maintenance efforts on one page, rather than two, and 2) so that readers who are unfamiliar with exactly what they are looking for, will be able to easily find the information on a single page rather than having to open every link they don't understand. Also, multiple articles tends to result in inconsistency -- inconsistent nomenclature, inconsistent terminology, inconsistent thoroughness -- repetitiveness, and ambiguity. These are often readily apparent in a single article, and summarily fixed. In my mind, there is no question this does not warrant a separate article. jheiv talk contribs 03:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there is an unfortunate tendency, especially in math articles due to MathWorld influence, toward several stubby articles where a single high quality article is possible. Some care is needed when trying to counter this tendency that sourced, encyclopedic material is not lost in the process.--RDBury (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Why is this issue on AfD? I think at this point it has been established that the terms scalar quadruple product and vector quadruple product are notable enough to be mentioned somewhere in Wikipedia. This should have discussed on the content talk pages as an ordinary topic of organization, rather than the extraordinary process that article deletion. The votes that call themselves delete votes are in fact keep votes. A vote to merge is a vote to keep. This article should never gone to AfD. The previous article should never have gone to AfD (though that case was more understandable, since it was hard to figure what the article was about), and given that it went to AfD it should have been redirected, not deleted. If someone had just redirected the original article to vector calculus identities, then we could have hashed it out on the talk pages. jhev and others could have made their reasonable points there, and we could have worked it out. Now we have to wait for an adminstrator to count noses, rather than just discussing a solution in the ordinary way. This is not the kind of dispute that AfD process is for.
- Now if this article gets deleted, what's going to happen? If I redirect quadruple product to triple product, or vector calculus identities, is someone going to submit the redirect to speedy deletion? How many more rounds of process are we going to go through for two paragraphs of content? -- Walt Pohl (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question (at least in this case) is not whether the material is appropriate for Wikipedia, but whether it is appropriate for it's own article. Or perhaps, "where is the most appropriate place for this material?" This is a common debate at AfD: "I realize the material should go somewhere -- but should it go here?" And that is exactly what the point of this AfD is. So to correctly view the AfD process, you should understand that a vote to merge is not a vote to keep. Lastly, if you review WP:RFD#DELETE, you'll note that the redirects that you mention would, most likely, not fall under those criteria. jheiv talk contribs 06:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, sometimes AfD's turn into that, when it turns out that something is notable after all. But that's not where an AfD should start. On the policy page, Wikipedia:DEL, it lists merging and redirection as alternatives to deletion, and that doing either falls under “being bold” in a way that deletion does not. If every dispute about how content should be organized goes to AfD, then the process will break down. And I understand that those redirects don't meet the grounds for speedy deletion, but this topic doesn't meet the grounds for deletion either, and yet here we are, with everyone voting for delete. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A tidy little article. It gives the identities, and physical motivation for why these formulas come up. In the form it is, it makes a nice self-contained capsule of information. Losing that information somewhere at the bottom of a big article mostly on something completely different would help nobody. Jheald (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jheald. We should answer the reader's question: "What is the quadruple product this text - or that WP article - mentions?" That's what we're for. The answer is too long and has too much content for Wiktionary; the information will get boiled out (and cease to answer the reader's question) if inserted in Vector calculus identities.
- On the procedural question: No, a vote to merge is a vote to keep, because merging doesn't require admin intervention. Whether the topic benefits from an article of its own doesn't need to add to AFD's backlog. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This Google link indicates what the point of the article is: to summarize references like these. For more detail see Talk:Quadruple product. Brews ohare (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether a miscellany of topics under a broad heading like Products involving vectors is an easier place to find results than a number of accurately named more specialized sections (appropriately cross-linked) such as Triple product and Quadruple product may be difficult to decide: what organization provides easier information retrieval?
What strikes me as equally pertinent is whether there is enough said about Quadruple product and Triple product to warrant separate articles. Originally there was a section in Quadruple product on the connection to Geometric algebra, paralleling the mention of the 3-fold exterior product in Triple product. That is, the relation to and so forth (the vector cross product a × b is closely related to the bivector). However, it was deleted in its entirety along with its sources. IMO a merge of the two articles would force inclusion of this connection in some form. If that were done now, a separate Quadruple product would be a stronger stand-alone article. Brews ohare (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is obviously notable. See Elementary geometry, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bourne, Lincolnshire as the rough consensus indicates. I will be able to userfy upon request. –MuZemike 21:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bourne Westfield Primary School[edit]
- Bourne Westfield Primary 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Kudpung (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable UK primary (elementary ) school - primary schools, other than for very exceptional reasons are not de facto notable. Wikipedia is not a one-line directory for schools. Deletion is requested per standard procedure. UK schools do not have a school district to merge to. Kudpung (talk) 13:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply On the discussion page I said 'I am puzzled by the proposal for deletion. Why pick on this one and not, for example, Walton Girls High School or Bubwith Community Primary School or Woodside Primary School - or, for that matter, Lincoln Primary School or Fuhua Primary School. No such objection has been raised for the members of Category: Primary schools in London.' The reply makes it very clear that other people consider Notability to mean something similar to Fame, and hence have defined Primary schools as non-notable. My argument about completeness has been brushed aside, and the other pages are regarded as an aberation. Ho hum.
- Fine. I am beginning to loose interest in contributing to WP because of this sort of 'My opinons matter more than yours' attitude among people who do not contribute original articles but bitch and moan about those created by poor sods like me at the bottom of their imaginary tree. I would only ask, in the interests of consistency, why these attacks are not carried out more consistently and more widely. The same arguements could be applied to senior schools, to the mass of entries about roads and highways, and the tens of thousands of Popular music LPs, TV episodes and comic book references. I thought the biggest advantage of WP was to help people to understand the world around them, but for those of us unfortunate enough to live in unremarkable places that is obviously not good enough.
- I really don't care. It's only a web site. Delete away, the school will still be there. I hope you enjoy what you have helped created. --Brunnian (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're coming after you. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In fact the article should preferably have been tagged for speedy deletion. 'Other people' do not have different standards. The policy concerning the non notability of primary schools was reached by consensus. It is possible that some schools have slipped through the net. The creator was already informed of the 'Other stuff' policy on the article talk page in response to their PROD objection. Our thanks go to them for pointing out other primary schools that we need to review. --Kudpung (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have just seen this article and discussion for the first time today, I take your various points, and have had little time to work on the article to improve it. However I've done what I can in the short time I've had as you can see from the article's history tab. There is notability to be found, and much further research to do. As from today, the school has voiced to me its approval of this attempt to save the article, and is in the process of researching citations for matters of notability, history and the like. A photograph of the school or its site is being organised. There is much to do, including research on the architecture via Lincolnshire planning department, so I have added a stub template and an Under Construction template, as you can see. There is now a small team of us working hard on this subject, so please be kind enough to give us time to turn the article into one that is acceptable to Wikipedia. It is also worth making the point that before the article existed there was already a red link for this school on the Westfield School disambiguation page, and I have linked this with the article using a redirect - so Wikipedia already contained an indication that such an article was required. As you see, I'm not interested in personal and political matters; just in seeing that Wikipedia maintains good and appropriate articles. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment References do not make notability, they confirm it. Oftsted 'outstanding' is not an award. It is simply part of the school inspector's grading system (Grade 1), and is a commonplace assessment. There is nothing about it that confers particular notability for a school. The same applies to the other 'awards' listed. To be notable, a school must be either very old (such as one of the oldest established schools in the country), etc., or be of exceptional architectonic value (Grade I or Grade 2 listed buildings, etc), or designed by a very famous architect, or or have won a major national or international academic or sporting award, or have educated a number of very prominent people (top level politicians, Nobel Prize winners, Booker Prize winners, Olympic Gold medalists. There is nothing w e have researched that asserts the notability of this school for an encyclopedic entry. The article is now also subject to Conflict of Interest. See WP:COI. --Kudpung (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no conflict of interest and I have removed the template for that. You misunderstood my comment above - or perhaps I did not specify the situation clearly. To be more specific, I emailed the school with a brief list of questions, in order to elicit any information which could be used in the article. They sent me a list of three of the awards, including the Ofsted one. At the time of writing the above paragraph, I had asked them to provide citations, but they did not, so I found all the citations myself. All of the three items which they sent me, I then found independently online, including one item on the school website. They have only sent me that one email, and I cannot be sure that they will send any more. I shall ring the council planning department to find out the identity of the original architect - hardly an example of inappropriate collusion, especially as most council planning departments in the UK have destroyed most of their archives, and the telephone in most council offices (in my experience) is usually answered by a young person with a short history of employment, no training and no interest in local history. Getting historical information from a council is like getting blood out of stone. I do not live in Lincolnshire, I have never visited Bourne (the town where the school is) and I do not personally know any local residents, past or present. Regarding notability, this is only my first day of research, and I have only been free for a couple of hours today to begin that research. It is too early to decide that research cannot discover any notability for the article. --Storye book (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is requested per standard procedure. That standard procedure is to merge any primary school information to its US or Canadian school district article. The recommedation on UK primary schools is to merge the details about them to the appropriate article about the location. (vilage, town, city, etc.). Unless the school building is Grade I or Grade II listed, or has won an award for its design, or was designed by a notable architect, the school will probably not be able to assert notability for architectural reasons. The school was first established in 1963; it is therefore unlikely to be notable for its age or long standing revered reputation over centuries. Wkipedia does have policies and guidelenes for article creation, and it is highly reccommend that editors of school related pages be familiar with WP:SPIP, WP:NOBILITY, WP:ROTM, and WP:AFDP#Education. A link on a disambiguation page is not an indiction that an article is required or notable.--Kudpung (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These links are largely irrelevant as they are either essays with no special standing or are just plain irrelevant like WP:SPIP. The relevant policies here are WP:PRESERVE and WP:IMPERFECT. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is requested per standard procedure. That standard procedure is to merge any primary school information to its US or Canadian school district article. The recommedation on UK primary schools is to merge the details about them to the appropriate article about the location. (vilage, town, city, etc.). Unless the school building is Grade I or Grade II listed, or has won an award for its design, or was designed by a notable architect, the school will probably not be able to assert notability for architectural reasons. The school was first established in 1963; it is therefore unlikely to be notable for its age or long standing revered reputation over centuries. Wkipedia does have policies and guidelenes for article creation, and it is highly reccommend that editors of school related pages be familiar with WP:SPIP, WP:NOBILITY, WP:ROTM, and WP:AFDP#Education. A link on a disambiguation page is not an indiction that an article is required or notable.--Kudpung (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no conflict of interest and I have removed the template for that. You misunderstood my comment above - or perhaps I did not specify the situation clearly. To be more specific, I emailed the school with a brief list of questions, in order to elicit any information which could be used in the article. They sent me a list of three of the awards, including the Ofsted one. At the time of writing the above paragraph, I had asked them to provide citations, but they did not, so I found all the citations myself. All of the three items which they sent me, I then found independently online, including one item on the school website. They have only sent me that one email, and I cannot be sure that they will send any more. I shall ring the council planning department to find out the identity of the original architect - hardly an example of inappropriate collusion, especially as most council planning departments in the UK have destroyed most of their archives, and the telephone in most council offices (in my experience) is usually answered by a young person with a short history of employment, no training and no interest in local history. Getting historical information from a council is like getting blood out of stone. I do not live in Lincolnshire, I have never visited Bourne (the town where the school is) and I do not personally know any local residents, past or present. Regarding notability, this is only my first day of research, and I have only been free for a couple of hours today to begin that research. It is too early to decide that research cannot discover any notability for the article. --Storye book (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a summary to Bourne, Lincolnshire. The explanation of "Westfield" as related to 3-course medieval agricultural rotation is NN and should be omitted as extraneous to the subject. As Kudpung has said, this is usually the best solution for lcoal primary schools, churches, village halls, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have no objection to a merge if the article is still not notable after reconstruction is completed, but would like to question some other points. (1) I don't know what you mean by "NN". Please explain or provide a link. (2) Westfield is an archaeological site consisting of three fields. Crop rotation is a practice, and has been mentioned here to explain the site. The school is built on an archaeological site which was cited as a possible indication of notability. (3) Please note that the article currently has a construction notice, and all my current edits are unfinished contributions to ongoing research and re-construction of the article. The point of the construction notice, while of course encouraging editorial contributions, is to show that ongoing edits are in process, and to indicate that deletion and criticism of those ongoing edits are inappropriate until those edits are completed. Completion of research and reconstruction of the article will be indicated when the construction notice is removed. Thank you.--Storye book (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge unless something substantial is dug up about the actual school, and Userfy if someone wants to really really try looking for sufficient sources. GNews suggests there isn't nearly enough third-party coverage to justify a stand-alone article, and that's what I'm going on until someone shows evidence otherwise. This is what is done for most primary schools. Debatable association with a possibly notable subject does not equal notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - a bronze medal for the cook in the school canteen does not a notable institution make. Very good, substantial references on this establishment's academic prowess are required in order to establish notability. Unfortunately, an 'under construction' tag does not have the delaying feature of a CSD 'HangOn' tag. Underconstruction is just to help avoid edit conflicts (that's what happens when two or more editors try to upload an edit at the same time). --Kudpung (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you decide to userfy, I suggest that you userfy it to the creator's userpage or subpage (i.e. Brunnian's), and not to my own. There is still the possibility that he/she could return, and out of respect for his/her work I have no wish to take responsibility for the article from him/her. Brunnian will then at least be able to merge the material into the Bourne, Lincolnshire article without risk of total deletion, and at least some of his/her hard work will be saved. Meanwhile the next stage in my research on the article will have to be continued next week, because some of this has to be done in writing, and a response has been promised for next week. Proper research takes longer than zapping articles, my friends.--Storye book (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Update: I forgot to add that if you do userfy the article to Brunnian's userpage, please don't delete the information about the archaeological site. Brunnian is one of Wikipedia's current greatest experts on this aspect of lost settlements, and is better able to research it and judge its validity than many of us (and certainly better able than myself). Thanks for your kind consideration of this matter.--Storye book (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article is about a school and should be centred on its academic history. Tens of thousands of entire cities have been built on the remains of some historical or archeological sites. The article will not accrue notability by shifting the focus to any non academic aspects of the subject.Kudpung (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Regarding the section on the site. The archaeology and agricultural environment affect the primary curriculum, so that the staff and pupils are aware of these aspect of the site, and learn from it. This is how most UK primary schools work. Learn from what is around you, and relate it to the larger world view. It is standard practice to see site and environment as important academically, whether as a starting point or as a specific study. Since in this case the site is incorporated in the school's name, and the school's interest in Lincolnshire horticulture and agriculture has resulted in the school specialising in gardening clubs and orchard work, the site is both relevant and notable in this case.
- Comment - a bronze medal for the cook in the school canteen does not a notable institution make. Very good, substantial references on this establishment's academic prowess are required in order to establish notability. Unfortunately, an 'under construction' tag does not have the delaying feature of a CSD 'HangOn' tag. Underconstruction is just to help avoid edit conflicts (that's what happens when two or more editors try to upload an edit at the same time). --Kudpung (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, whatever the consensus and outcome of this discussion, it would be wasteful to delete this research on the subject of the site which is relevant to the article on Bourne at any rate. If you do eventually decide to delete, please userfy the information about the site and building to Brunnian's userpage so that all this hard work is not wasted. It can then be merged into the Bourne article. Too much valuable hard work on research is wasted by blanket deletion on Wikipedia without saving the research somewhere, and too many academics have given up editing on Wiki for this reason. I'm sure I can trust you to retain a record of this research on Wiki in some way or another.--Storye book (talk) 09:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The statement 'This is how most UK primary schools work.' clearly infers that this is a run of the mill occurence and that although pupils are encouraged to take an interest in their local history, it is neither a core National Curriculum subject nor does it lend notability to the school. The Wikpedia is not destined to become a directory of all 26,000 elementary schools in the UK, and our current policy should not be ignored in order to accommodate the wishes, however much in Good Faith, of one or two editors. There have been masssive debates over this issue in the past that have ended in consensus for the present guidelines. I am certainly not opposed to a merge to an article about the locality. --Kudpung (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect or Merge to the best localtity article. Wikipedia is not a directory. Abductive (reasoning) 04:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge (selectively merge) to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Appears to be a typical primary school, and the consensus of numerous past AFDs has been to merge them to the article on the locality or school district. similar articles which have not been exposed yet to AFD is not a good argument for keeping this one. Edison (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or userfy but don't delete environmental subject matter from Wiki: If there is going to be a deletion, then I am happy with either (1) a merge to the Bourne, Lincolnshire article or (2) a userfy to Brunnian's userpage or subpage (Brunnian being the creator of the article).
- As Kudpung well knows, I support Wikipedia's rules and I am happy with Kudpung's interpretation of them as related above. My part in this has been merely to continue to research and edit the article during the discussion in order to find out whether the article fits the "exceptional notability" loophole for non-deletion, or whether it doesn't. This process is in accordance with Wiki rules. It's up to the consensus to decide the answer to that, and not to me. So please don't imagine that you are in an us-and-them discussion in which "one or two people" are fighting to keep the article and break Wiki rules. There is no evidence, so far, of that. My one reservation about deleting or merging is that valuable research will be lost to Wikipedia in the process. This is why I have asked that whoever does the deleting or merging takes care that all of the environmental content and citations are safely copied somewhere on Wikipedia, and lets us know where it is. I hope my comments will now put an end to any distracting misunderstandings, and we can get on with our job of supporting Wikipedia and quickly finding a solution to this discussion.--Storye book (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article seems to be coming along nicely with plenty of good sources which testify to the topic's notability. It is our editing policy to retain such good work and to improve it further. Deletion would be contrary to this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article meets the WP:GNG guidlines of "receiving significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" by the references in the article. Keith D (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stryker. seems the general opinion is to merge DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stryker vehicle controversy[edit]
- Stryker vehicle controversy (edit | talk | 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 articles currently link to this article. Controversy section on Stryker article has been removed. I would like to see this moved to Stryker design or just deleted. Marcus Qwertyus 21:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to voice my strong opposition to the deletion of the article in question. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The page is just a series of tit-for-tat arguments and rebuttals and serves more to create controversy than discuss any supposed controversy that may have existed around the time of the vehicle's purchase. It's not encyclopedic, it's a forum debate turned into an article. I don't even see that the article established that there was an actual 'controversy' to begin with beyond that the vehicle offends a certain group of people. - Jonathon A H (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've re-established the link on the main Stryker page. That link has a valid reason to exist while this page exists. However, I still support a discussion on whether or not this page should be deleted.Vstr (talk) 14:16, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This seems to be a WP:POVFORK. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article has gone through AfD atleast once before. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stryker Vehicle Controversy. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is very large, so it isn't a POVFORK, rather a SIZE fork. As the Stryker had a lot of controversy when it was introduced, and alot of Congressional debates took place on it, I fail to see why a controversy section or article is not in order, as it is a fact that it generated alot of controversy. If you say that there is no controversy now, that is not the case, and even if it were, that does not mean there was never controversy. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to something or stubify This has way to many unsourced claims thus suggesting some sort of bias in how the article was approached. However, that being said, it is certainly a valid Encyclopedic topic per IP 76 there, Sadads (talk) 00:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Stryker. I was kinda on the fence about this one, as both sides seem to have compelling arguments. However, a look at the references seems to only confirm that there are some criticisms of the platform (which is the case every time the military buys anything, even a toilet seat), and not a genuine controversy. The article currently seems structured to make much ado about nothing, and the name seems to generate a false sense of history in the opposition to the program. That's why I view this article as a POV fork currently. That said, there is a lot of worthy data there, especially the technical info, and could easily be integrated into the main article, especially the Design section. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 14:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Stryker per bahamut0013. WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 19:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In reference to merging: Much of the information in the Stryker vehicle controversy article can already be found, in one form or another, in the Stryker article as it exists now. After redundant information is removed, will their really be enough to merit an actual merger? Look at the actual amount of cited information - very little of which has anything to do with the so-called controversy, and more to do with the vehicle's capabilities, shortcomings, and comparisons to other vehicles - most of which are already integrated into the Stryker article. The rest of the article boils down to unsupported POV back and forth, and what would appear to be original research. I have to ask... what would be left over for a merger? One or two sentences? A couple of references? Please compare to the existing Stryker article before considering a merger. What merits inclusion that hasn't already been included? - Jonathon A H (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Counter-Comment I can easily see two solid sections created from this page that's not already on the Stryker page. First, (without POV) there's the competition with the M113. The GAO addressed UDLP's protest, and then they compared the two vehicles after the Stryker was fielded. The second section would cover the air transportability of the Stryker. The GAO provided two additional reports covering that topic - the C130 requirement, and the 4-day Brigade deployment requirement. All four of these reports are worthy of entry into Wikipedia and are NPOV.Vstr (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this content fork. Abductive (reasoning) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge While this entire article will survive the merger, there is plenty of information that still should be included.Vstr (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per bahamut0013 and Vstr. WikiCopter (radio • sorties • images • shot down) 04:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per bahamut0013 and Vstr.--Lan Di (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Growing Up Inc.[edit]
- Growing Up 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)
PROD-contested by article creator. Reason given by PRODder (not me): "Unable to find any mention of this company outside social networking sites, blogs, and its own website. No evidence of notability." After searching for a bit myself I agree with the original tag. elektrikSHOOS 01:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I proposed the original PROD and believe the rationale applies. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No third-party sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
World Child and Youth Forum[edit]
- World Child and Youth Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. only 3 gnews hits [28]. despite being announced by the King of Sweden hardly any coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nom makes a compelling argument--wish every nom did this much work. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Borislav Dzodzo[edit]
- Borislav Dzodzo (edit | talk | 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 reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. The two sources listed (basically Marquis Who's Who) are common vanity press publications, often good for people who want to say "hey, I'm in a book!". A Google Books search indicates the person likely exists but I don't see anything that passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing in GoogleScholar and almost nothing in GoogleBooks, fails WP:PROF. No significant coverage to show passing WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nsk. RayTalk 22:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Editor in chief of a journal would pass WP:ProfC#8 if journal is notable enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giovanni Zampolli[edit]
- Giovanni Zampolli (edit | talk | 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 infant lacking GHits anf GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and a WP:1E candidate. ttonyb (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nothing in gnews [29]. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete born April 7, 2010? -- . Shlok talk . 17:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stong delete Notability is not inherited, even among the wealthy Vrivers (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn and no remaining delete !votes. (NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection[edit]
- Show Cats: The Standard of Perfection (edit | talk | 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 little documentary isn't notable, as can be seen in the searches above. Deprodded by the page's creator. Abductive (reasoning) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteIMDB isn't a reliable source, and doesn't support any of the material anyway. I'm not at all certain that the PBS link is even referring to the same thing.—Kww(talk) 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteKeepEvery documentary is not notable. Unless there are sources telling something about the show there shouldn't be an article here.Sources have been added with bring the article up to WP's standards. I personally think the standards should be higher for TV shows, but that's another issue. (I will bring up some issues on the article's talk page.)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources.Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I was able to add an info box, but I can't be the only one trying to fix the Show Cats page (which I created). Try to find some good links, please. StarLegacy (talk) 21:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As part of WP:BEFORE, I attempted to find secondary sources for this topic, but failed. Abductive (reasoning) 22:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects... how could you miss the full-length review in The New York Times? [30] I think my google-foo is on high today. I'll give it some major expansion and sourcing before coming back. Best. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With great respects to the nominator, the Find sources set up by the AFd template is sometimes useless. I did my own search using "Mark Lewis" +"Show Cats" as my parameters and came up with multiple reviews and critical commentary about this documentary. What was sent to AFD as this mediocre stub, has now become THIS decently encyclopedic and well-sourced Start-Class article that is now worthy of inclusion within these pages. It might not have before... but it now passes WP:NF. And yes... I even surprised myself with this one. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems the real title of the PBS documentary is The Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Abductive (reasoning) 06:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. And the title does not include the word "The". I do not know how I missed something so obvious (embarrassed chagrin). I have just moved it to the proper title... Standard of Perfection: Show Cats.[31] Many thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further whoops... I do see that the DVD cover includes the word "The" in the title, but that may be just for the DVD cover, as not all of the sources use a "The"... many referring to it, just as does IMBD, simply as Standard of Perfection: Show Cats. Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm amiable. So which do you think it should be? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. I'd far rather trust The New York Times than trust IMDB. You were right.... I'll make the move. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:31, 30 September 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)
- Since others have already notvoted delete, by withdrawing my nomination I may not bring this AfD to a quick end, but it is clear that the article should not be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... I have only in the last few minutes left messages at their talk pages informing them of the changes to the article. Hopefully, they might revisit this discussion and offer additional input... or if not, the closer might take into account that it has gone through significant improvements since nomination and make note of your own comment here. Thanks much. I'm always happy to help out. - Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with MichaelQSchmidt, it is now a decent Start-class article with reliable sources. Armbrust Talk Contribs 10:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferred vote: Change WP policy so that daily TV reviews are not considered "reliable sources" (to establish notability) and discourage articles on individual TV shows. Failing that:Keep since it meets current policies. (If interested please discuss on article's talk page. Thanks.) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For individual episodes of series, I 100% agree with you, and even tried to propose "describes a single episode of a television series" as a CSD category. This, however, was a standalone documentary, and this review went beyond the standard review blurb.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of British regional nicknames[edit]
- List of British regional nicknames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An IMO irredeemably poor article. No references. Packed full of unsourced insults of doubtful provenance. The very best thing to do would be to pull this list down and build a new one from scratch. In the meantime, I do not think we should persist in peddling a list of misinformation. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm. Why does this article sound familiar? Ah, yes. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janner (old). ☺ You can source that one to Eric Partridge's Dictionary of Slang and the glossary of Cyril Tawney's Traditional song & verse of the Royal Navy. So that's the first one done in minutes. I'm sure if you looked for sources you could do several of the others, and be well on the way to rewriting the page from scratch in the way that you want, in well under an hour. AFD isn't an on-demand article rewriting service, and the administrator's deletion tool is not a way to get content written in the way that one thinks it ought to be. More succinctly: AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has not been cleaned up in the last couple of years, judging by the age of the tags. I'm buggered if I'm going to waste my time on it. So what do we do? Leave a pile of steaming crap sitting on the encyclopaedia indefinitely because AFD is not Cleanup? By the article's lights, Aberdonians are sheep shaggers and porridge shaggers, and people from Nottingham are scabs. There is, by 2010, a basic expectation that controversial article should be referenced, and if not, should not be tolerated. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not been cleaned up precisely because of people doing as you are doing here. You are part and cause of the very problem you are decrying. You want the article improved? Pull out your editing tool and edit out the content that you think to be erroneous, and to put in sources for the content that you can source. Be bold, for goodness sake. You've made four edits so far in relation to this AFD discussion, three to nominate and one further. With four edits, you could have made four improvements to the article that you want edited and improved. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh, are we suddenly on a deadline to perfect all articles??Edison (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gosh no, Edison. We're on a deadline to remove unsourced and offensive crap from wikipedia. Care to join with that? I've now removed a great deal of the said unsourced offensive content from the article. This AfD can be speedy closed as keep. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has not been cleaned up in the last couple of years, judging by the age of the tags. I'm buggered if I'm going to waste my time on it. So what do we do? Leave a pile of steaming crap sitting on the encyclopaedia indefinitely because AFD is not Cleanup? By the article's lights, Aberdonians are sheep shaggers and porridge shaggers, and people from Nottingham are scabs. There is, by 2010, a basic expectation that controversial article should be referenced, and if not, should not be tolerated. YMMV. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to wiktionary as a Wiktionary appendix. This is a list of nouns (places) and synonyms for those places. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: I think it can be a good article if it can get cleaned up, theres no sense in losing all the information and starting again. As for the claim that there are no sources, well that's not strictly true, the one about County Londonderry is sourced. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Problems persist because nobody has broken their backs yet, once lists and articles are brought to heel they're easier to maintain and treated with a little more care. Let's hit it now while we're here.. Someoneanother 09:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to wiktionary or redirect to List of regional nicknames. ~Asarlaí 10:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Uncle G. The AfD nomination does not specify any legitimate reasons for deletion and falsely claims that there are no sources: there are two refs to reliable sources and several wikilinks to support other entries. None of the article's content is to be found at List of regional nicknames (which deals mostly with broader geographical areas), so a redirect is inappropriate. Jimmy Pitt talk 10:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I just don't see any value in knowing this stuff. GoodDay (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, how lucky you are to be above such trivia. However others may (and indeed do) appreciate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and continue cleanup (deleting unsourced entries, sourcing the rest...) Jclemens (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Its a poorly sourced collection of tat, and not notable enough for rescue, nicknames can be used on appropriate articles where they can be properly reviewed. If it stays 80% needs to be wiped out anyway --Snowded TALK 16:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this most certainly can be rescued by better sourcing and editing. Sadly, AfD is for rescue when editors are too lazy to fix it themselves. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There might be a policy-based reason to delete this, but only if we take List of regional nicknames, Lists of disparaging terms for people et. al. out with it too and "clean up" to make PC-pedia. Otherwise this is just an WP:IDONTLIKEIT with no justification. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many of these are easily referenced, as in [32] which includes 8 of them, besides the refs presently used in the article.. Deletion is not a substitute for editing out any unsourceable terms. Edison (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you don't know the proper term, its good to have it all in list, easier to find that way. Dream Focus 22:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong spout 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary per 76.66.200.95. SnottyWong spout 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The matter is, of course, notable. For example, see Language and region. Our editing policy requires that we improve this and this is not done by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems notable enough and with sources, although could use more. Heiro 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tapioca Express[edit]
- Tapioca Express (edit | talk | 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 chain of bubble-tea outlets. Does not pass the basic requirements outlined at WP:N or WP:CORP for the existance of an article. Yes, the name of the company has appeared in a few newspaper articles. However, that merely proves that the company exists. There is nothing at all which appears to count for substantive coverage of this topic as required by WP:N. The references cited in the article are all about bubble tea/tapioca tea in general, not about this specific company, except to mention in passing that this company does in fact sell tapioca tea. Without the existance of actual substantive references about this company, as written by reliable sources, the article should probably be deleted. Jayron32 00:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as noted, there is remarkably little mention of this chain in reliable sources, and what mentions there are seem to be minor at best (including one 'reference' which is a local article about a missing pet; a text-book case of 'incidental' coverage). The awards are trivial. I don't see how an article can be crafted and sourced here. Kuru (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete
International is not notable? How about Los Angeles Times, calling Tapioca Express, "the forefather of bubble tea, and still the go to spot for quality boba"? Please see all these articles that I found throughout the internet, archives of published hard copies or online publications.
collapsed text of references for readibility |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
•
Free Crystal Glass! Culinary Adventures in Asian Dessert Cafes By Caitlin Donohue San Francisco Bay Guardian (2nd Largest Publication in Northern California, USA) Special Spring 2010 Feast Edition
The forefather of the bubble tea invasion, Tapioca express is still the go-to spot for quality bubble tea. Highlights include almond bubble tea and lychee icee (with bubbles or boba). Throw in bubblegum-pop tunes and you'll be sliding down that sugary slope in no time.
Asian Business Association Theme Award Acceptance Speech October 24, 2003 Good evening, Distinguished Guests, ladies and gentlemen, It is our great honor to be awarded tonight. Tapioca Express was founded in the fall of 1999.?After four years of hard work and dedication from all our partners and employees, we grew from one store to more than fifty stores in the U.S. and Canada.?Tapioca pearls, some people call it boba, are made from all natural cassava root starch.When you add the pearls into our tea, coffee, or juices, you have a drink that fun to eat! We are proud to be a part of positive contribution to the enjoyment of good food and creative drinks. We would also like to congratulate all other winners.?We are very fortunate to live in this great country at this time.?This is truly a land of inspirations and opportunities.?As long as there is dedication, courage, and teamwork, we stand a very good chance to succeed. Tapioca Express will continue to try our best to be a good corporate citizen. As we celebrate tonight we want to express our appreciation to our staff and our family members who have gone through many challenges with us.We would also like to thank our partners who run the stores day in and day out, trying to provide the best possible quality drinks to our customers. Last but not least, warmest thanks go to Asian Business Association for their good work to encourage the Asian American businesses and community.
Newest drink craze: It ain't heavy, it's my boba By ANH DO The Orange County Register Published on July 8, 2002 One hundred thirty-two people stream through in the space of an hour. Guys and gals behind the counter greet them, pouring chilled tea into a cocktail shaker, mixing, serving. The menu boasts 149 flavors -- sprinkles of peppermint honey, mocha snow, hot grass jelly. Nothing costs more than $2.59. Customers lounge, their lips glued to the hottest craze found at the bottom of a beverage -- boba -- marble-like balls that are not swallowed but beg to be sucked and chewed, one by one, through imported, plump straws. This is Tapioca Express, south county's place to be for the young, hip and Asian, who swarm the Irvine shop from noon to midnight, twirling convertible keys, lugging tots and ordering up a storm. "We sell at least 1,000 drinks on a Saturday, some 700 on a weekday," says owner Christina Chan, who can barely be heard above the din, sitting in her hip-hugging jeans. Boba is made of tapioca and it's addictive, youths say, like Skittles, Gummi Bears or M&Ms. They roll into your mouth, melt and your taste buds scream for another round, "I get it, totally, every week, It's more fun than Starbucks, and I work at Starbucks, but we don't have these juicy treats in our drinks," offers Jenny Le, 17, tossing back highlighted blond streaks. "We can go to Jamba Juice and get a smoothie, but this isn't heavy," adds her cousin, Nguyen Le. "It's cool." Boba bars carne about in Taiwan nearly two decades ago, when they popped up block to block and a lack of zoning saturated the market. It didn't hit Southern California until a few years ago when places from Monterey Park to Koreatown to Little Saigon opened their haunts, advertising milk tea, iced coffee and red bean pudding laced with the irresistible swirl of boba. Parents started dropping their teens at hangouts, hardly worried, because there's no alcohol. At Chan's shop, which she runs with partners James Chuang and Sergio Yang, two chenille couches lure those wanting to play checkers or channel surf, some tapping their feet to tunes blaring overhead. Asian adults load grocery carts at the nearby 99 Ranch Market with kumquats and sashimi while their kids hang out here, discovering their own community within the much larger communities. North of this shop, wedged between Love Music and a plastic-surgery clinic is Boba Express in Garden Grove, where customers get a free drink with every order of jumbo popcorn chicken. Happy hour starts late -- 9 p.m. -- but that hardly matters to the fanatics. "Pizza? Who cares? " shrugs Matt Tran, 23. "That's too much for this time of the night, when this, this is like a light meal," he says, slurping from a cup filled with coconut At Cha for Tea in Westminster, some boba enthusiasts like their drinks a just tad sugary, others really sweet. The bars -- unlike cafes -- count on students and young professionals rather than early-morning commuters simply because they often don't do business until the middle of the day. And as a way of keeping the clientele, some are starting poetry readings and art shows. Classmates bring their buddies to soak up the atmosphere, as Viktor Corpuz does with Clint Collins one afternoon. He first tasted boba in the Philippines; it surfaced in his cereal. Corpuz wanted to introduce it to his non-Asian pal, Collins. The juniors at the University of California, Irvine, study biology. They lean back with snow bubbles in peach and watermelon, similar to Icees, and survey the scene. "Lots of girls," Collins murmurs, his eyes lighting as a skater breezes in wearing an Abercrombie & Fitch crop top. At the next table sit two women with Burberry bags; near them are other women in pastel capri pants. Some basketball players put down a stack of PC and e-Gear magazines, leaving and making way for a bigger group. We are what we eat, but we are also what we drink, Chan knows, as she details plans to open a franchise just down the way from this walnut Avenue joint, across from UCI. She has 23 employees and is still hiring. "It's a cultural drink, it's fun and it's not a fad," she says, revealing the next step. They plan to head south. "Mission Viejo,? she says. "I want to take it beyond the traditional areas."
It's the summer of boba for the South Bay's young and hip. Stores selling boba - sweet, gelatinous marble-size tapioca balls added to cold teas, coffees, smoothies, juices and slushies that are sucked up through an oversize straw - have been popping up in areas with large Asian populations such as the San Gabriel Valley for the past couple of years. Now the black boba "pearls" are making inroads on South Bay suburbia where college students and children are enthusiastically embracing the trendy drink. Boba Zone opened in May in a west Torrance strip mall at Anza Avenue and Del Amo Boulevard catering to a clientele that is 60 percent youngsters, said 25-year-old manager James Choo. Alhambra-based Tapioca Express, the nation's largest boba chain with sleek, stylish stores that often play pop music videos, has opened franchises in Rolling Hills Estates, Torrance and Carson in the past four months - in addition to existing shops in Gardena and Torrance - and plans to open a second Gardena location shortly. And even some coffeehouses are adding the drink to their menu - the Caffeine coffeehouse in Gardena near EI Camino College began serving boba at the start of the year and has seen its overall business leap by 20 percent, said owner Michelle Kim. "It has been expanding very fast in the past half year in the South Bay area," said Laura Lin, a former Rancho Palos Verdes resident who recently moved to the San Gabriel Valley to become marketing director at Tapioca Express. "We are expanding into the mainstream market for sure." Boba was invented in 1981 in Taiwan - the name is Taiwanese slang for "big breasts" - and has gradually expanded its reach throughout Asia and overseas. Asians have long been familiar with the beverage, but now the market is rapidly expanding to other ethnic groups. When boba paradise in Rolling Hills Plaza opened last fall, its customers were primarily Asian, said owner Jerry Yeh, 25, an Orange resident who opened a store in Torrance because of the South Bay's steadily increasing Asian population. Today, in a "surprising development," 90 percent of the store's customers are non-Asian, he said. "I'm an addict," admitted Katherine Russ, 21, of Wilmington, an unemployed graphic artist taking advantage of boba paradise's free Internet access. "It's kinda like eating and drinking at the same time." Boba appeals on several levels. There's a boba drink for every taste it would seem: Tapioca Express has about 150 variations on the theme on its menu - and will soon offer even more. The cool drink is the perfect antidote for a sweltering summer day - although some people also drink boba in hot teas or coffees. And it's a fun drink with an element of surprise in more ways than one, which is perhaps why Boba Zone has posted a sign outside its store that warns its young customers, "Please do not spit out boba." "I love boba, it's cute," said 24- year-old Carson-based paramedic Jessie Cordray, while conceding the drink is an acquired taste that she didn't initially like. "I kind of got addicted to it - these kind of funny, sweet, chewy things in your drink." " It's like a phenomenon. They (Tapioca Express) could be the Starbucks of tapioca drinks. - PAUL GIANNOTTI, whose company supplies equipment to boba stores Boba imbibers are a social bunch - the solo drinker is rare at Tapioca Express, Lin said. "A lot of (boba) stores are open really late, so it's a good hangout place," said 21-year-old college student Aki Inoue, a three-year boba drinking veteran. "Every one drinks it." Still, the scale of the boba craze has caught even those in the restaurant industry unaware. Paul Giannotti, whose company supplies equipment to boba stores, said he was amazed to see people lining up outside a Tapioca Express store in San Diego before its grand opening. "It's like a phenomenon," he said. "They could be the Starbucks of tapioca drinks." If trends continue, boba stores could soon be as ubiquitous as coffee houses. Tapioca Express, which has 37 stores, plans to have 100 locations by year's end, Lin said. Choo, of Boba Zone, opened a store in west Torrance because other areas of the city are becoming saturated with sellers of the drink. Yeh, of boba paradise, which opened last fall, said he has counted at least 10 boba stores in Torrance. "After we opened up all these other places started opening up," he groaned, adding that boba paradise has begun offering free delivery to offices and other places that order a minimum of 10 drinks in an effort to differentiate itself from competitors. "(The marketplace) is getting tough," he added. "There's only so many boba drinkers." Although part of the challenge of boba entrepreneurs is educating the uninitiated, some are already wondering whether boba is a fad that will peak and wither. Consultant Janet Lowder of Rancho Palos Verdes-based Restaurant Management Services, said juice and yogurt stores are closing. Not only has the craze for those products faded, but the demise of stores that specialized in them was hastened when larger outlets such as Dairy Queen and Baskin-Robbins muscled in on the market, she said. The same thing could happen to boba. But Giannotti believes the thirst for boba won't soon be over. "I don't think it's a fad because it's already a staple in other parts of the world," he said. "I see absolutely no signs of it letting up. It's too late to say it's a fad and too early to say it's a permanent fIxture. ... I think the end of the tunnel is a long, long way away."
By SAMANTHA LEE Staff Reporter Los Angeles Business Journal August 19, 2002 Wayne Lin wants his business to become the Starbuck's of "boba" drinks. For the uninitiated, boba refers to the globules of tapioca that sit at the bottom of a cup and then are covered by a tea, milk or fruit juice concoction, sealed and sucked through a large straw. The drinks, with flavors ranging from the familiar coconut or strawberry to the more exotic sesame or Iychee, originated a decade ago in Taiwan and have been gaining popularity in the United States for the last two years - especially in areas like West Los Angeles and Pasadena. South EI Monte-based Tapioca Express Inc. claims to be the first company to bring a "boba" franchise to the United States and currently has 40 stores, with plans for 100 units by 2003. Tapioca Express' original store opened in Alhambra, and began franchising in areas with large Asian communities in Southern California and the San Francisco Bay area. "Word of mouth" The drinks became popular through word of mouth, allowing the company to grow rapidly, said Lin. Tapioca's president and chief executive. He owns the business with three partners, all originally from Taiwan. Interested franchisees need $65,000 to $195,000 to open a Tapioca Express. The company's corporate office receives at least 12 calls a day from people interested in franchise possibilities, according to Laura Lin, marketing manager for the three-year-old company (no relation to Wayne Lin). A typical Tapioca Express store generates $30,000 to $40,000 in monthly revenue, according to company officials. "Their revenues are on par with a yogurt, bagel or juice shop," said Janet Lowder, president of Restaurant Management Services, a restaurant consulting film. Comparatively, a fast food restaurant like McDonald's typically brings in more than $100,000 monthly. The Tapioca Express menu consists largely of hot and cold teas, coffee, shakes and smoothies, which are most commonly served with the tapioca "boba" balls. A few snack items are available. Prices for a 12-oz. drink average $2.50.While the company's formula has worked in areas with many Asians, the true test will be the appeal of the drinks outside the two coasts as the chain expands nationally. The company plans to open stores in areas like Co1orado and Texas where demographics are less likely to be primarily Asian. "They might encounter the same problems as El PolIo Loco." said Lowder. "Its concept came from Mexico and had a tough time outside of Califonia. It's going to be a challenge to attract customers in Middle America." Laura Lin said, however, that the clientele in its Old Pasadena shop is 80 percent non-Asian and the company is using its San Diego location as a testing ground for their nationwide expansion. Retooling the concept Company President Wayne Lin began by hiring a store manager who worked as a trainer for Starbucks in Taiwan. He also added typically un-Asian fare. like mochas, lattes (coining the phrase "Iattea") and a selection of cheesecakes to its menu to appeal to Amcan tastes, he said. While "boba" has been a hot commodity for Tapioca Express, basing business around one product is risky, and can easily be wiped out if a large chain adds it to their menu, Lowder said. "It happened to yogurt companies in the late '80s when chains like Dairy Queen and Baskin-Robbins added yogurt to their menus, "she said. South Pasadena-based Panda Restaurant Group has introduced the "boba" beverages into eight of its Panda express locations. The Chinese food chain currently offers three flavors -- honeydew, passion fruit and milk tea. But no competition from Starbucks yet. "Starbucks is always looking to expand our tea business and has looked into a variety of tea beverages, including the 'boba drinks." said Starbucks Corp. spokeswoman Kelly Hewitt. "But we do not have plans to introduce a similar drink in our stores at the time."
One hundred thirty-two people stream through in the space of an hour. Guys and gals behind the counter greet them, pouring chilled tea into a cocktail shaker, mixing, serving. The menu boasts 149 flavors -- sprinkles of peppermint honey, mocha snow, hot grass jelly. Nothing costs more than $2.59. Customers lounge, their lips glued to the hottest craze found at the bottom of a beverage -- boba -- marble-like balls that are not swallowed but beg to be sucked and chewed, one by one, through imported, plump straws. This is Tapioca Express, south county's place to be for the young, hip and Asian, who swarm the Irvine shop from noon to midnight, twirling convertible keys, lugging tots and ordering up a storm."We sell at least 1,000 drinks on a Saturday, some 700 on a weekday," says owner Christina Chan, who can barely be heard above the din, sitting in her hip-hugging jeans. Boba is made of tapioca and it's addictive, youths say, like Skittles, Gummi Bears or M&Ms. They roll into your mouth, melt and your taste buds scream for another round,"I get it, totally, every week, It's more fun than Starbucks, and I work at Starbucks, but we don't have these juicy treats in our drinks," offers Jenny Le, 17, tossing back highlighted blond streaks. "We can go to Jamba Juice and get a smoothie, but this isn't heavy," adds her cousin, Nguyen Le. "It's cool." Boba bars carne about in Taiwan nearly two decades ago, when they popped up block to block and a lack of zoning saturated the market. It didn't hit Southern California until a few years ago when places from Monterey Park to Koreatown to Little Saigon opened their haunts, advertising milk tea, iced coffee and red bean pudding laced with the irresistible swirl of boba. Parents started dropping their teens at hangouts, hardly worried, because there's no alcohol. At Chan's shop, which she runs with partners James Chuang and Sergio Yang, two chenille couches lure those wanting to play checkers or channel surf, some tapping their feet to tunes blaring overhead. Asian adults load grocery carts at the nearby 99 Ranch Market with kumquats and sashimi while their kids hang out here, discovering their own community within the much larger communities. North of this shop, wedged between Love Music and a plastic-surgery clinic is Boba Express in Garden Grove, where customers get a free drink with every order of jumbo popcorn chicken. Happy hour starts late -- 9 p.m. -- but that hardly matters to the fanatics. "Pizza? Who cares? " shrugs Matt Tran, 23. "That's too much for this time of the night, when this, this is like a light meal," he says, slurping from a cup filled with coconut. At Cha for Tea in Westminster, some boba enthusiasts like their drinks a just tad sugary, others really sweet. The bars -- unlike cafes -- count on students and young professionals rather than early-morning commuters simply because they often don't do business until the middle of the day. And as a way of keeping the clientele, some are starting poetry readings and art shows. Classmates bring their buddies to soak up the atmosphere, as Viktor Corpuz does with Clint Collins one afternoon. He first tasted boba in the Philippines; it surfaced in his cereal. Corpuz wanted to introduce it to his non-Asian pal, Collins. The juniors at the University of California, Irvine, study biology. They lean back with snow bubbles in peach and watermelon, similar to Icees, and survey the scene."Lots of girls," Collins murmurs, his eyes lighting as a skater breezes in wearing an Abercrombie & Fitch crop top. At the next table sit two women with Burberry bags; near them are other women in pastel capri pants. Some basketball players put down a stack of PC and e-Gear magazines, leaving and making way for a bigger group. We are what we eat, but we are also what we drink, Chan knows, as she details plans to open a franchise just down the way from this walnut Avenue joint, across from UCI. She has 23 employees and is still hiring. "It's a cultural drink, it's fun and it's not a fad," she says, revealing the next step. They plan to head south. "Mission Viejo," she says. "I want to take it beyond the traditional areas."
Taiwan tapioca tea on tap in Palo Alto, Mountain View... Staff Reporter Lydia Lee San Francisco Chronicle Friday, August 23, 2002 It's almost midnight on a Thursday, and the nearby Starbucks has long since turned its chairs upside-down on the tables and locked up for the night. But at the newest cafe on Palo Alto's California Street, Black Pearl, if you want to lounge on one of the black leather couches, you might have to ask someone to move over. On one couch sits Christa Demeke, 26, who is sipping the cafe's most popular drink -- taro pearl milk tea. It's pale purple, and sitting on the bottom are what look like black marbles. "We're the pearl milk tea fan club," says Demeke, who comes by a couple times a week for late-night study sessions. "I love it -- it's a special treat, like dessert." This Taiwanese import, which used to be found only in Asian specialty stores like Ranch 99, is now winning over the cappuccino and chai crowd. Pearl milk tea, also known as bubble tea, is a unique beverage experience -- it's kind of like drinking Thai iced tea and eating Gummi Bears at the same time. The milky black tea is often flavored with something like taro or mango. And spheres of chewy black tapioca wait to be slurped up through an enormous straw. It's a mouthful of entertainment. "If (pearl milk tea) were hot, it would be British and I would be sitting here talking in an accent," says Hamilton Tran, 27, one of Demeke's friends. "But it's cold and sugary, and has these pearls -- it's fun." Since the late 1990s, close to 1,000 pearl milk establishments are estimated to have opened in the United States. In the Bay Area, a recent mini- boomlet has introduced a new kind of cafe culture to the Peninsula. Strolling around downtown Mountain View, you can get a good indication of how trendy pearl milk tea has become. >From the corner of Villa and Castro Street, there are four establishments within a block of each other. In the past six months, Lucy's Tea Shop and Verde have been joined by Tea Era and Tapioca Express. On a recent afternoon, Verde was packed with young Asians standing in line. The atmosphere was peppy; the walls are bright lime, the stylish stainless- steel tables were packed closely together, and cheerful Asian pop music mingled with the sound of blenders and other drink machinery. Two Asian guys, one with long bleached blond hair, sat at the counter, putting together the plastic pieces of a Toyota Celica model toy. The ambience agrees with Peter Godden of Mountain View, 19, one of the few white guys in the cafe. He's playing Othello with his buddy Steve Lai, also 19."It's a different scene, a different environment," says Godden. "Do you ever see board games like this? People in coffee shops are serious and don't smile."Verde supplies board games and stacks of Asian magazines. "When there's nothing to do, it's the first place that comes to mind," says Lai. "It's a cool place to chill." Pearl milk tea got its start in the early 1980s, when an enterprising street vendor in Taiwan added tapioca pearls to his drinks. Today, the drink is as ubiquitous as soda, and the tea shops are practically on every street corner. They've become a major social gathering place for the younger set, from middle-school to college-age kids. "In Taiwan, parents are not so comfortable with their kids going to KTV (karaoke bars) and other dimly lit places," said Laura Lin, the marketing director for Tapioca Express, the first pearl milk tea franchise in the United States. Alex Rosten has never been to Taiwan, but one of the reasons the 23-year- old Stanford grad decided to open Black Pearl was to create an after-hours place for students. "When I was an undergrad I hated that there was no place to hang out," he says. "Everything closes at 10 p.m. and, if you're under 21, there's no place to go except for doughnuts and Denny's." On most weekdays, Black Pearl stays open until 1 a.m.; on the weekends, until 2 a.m. Over at Tea Era, owner Danny Han has noticed how his clientele includes businesspeople, not just the young Asian crowd. He's hoping to win over more non-Asian customers by steering them toward a specific flavor. The sign in his shop reads: "Special Recommendation: Roasted Barley Milk Tea." It may not sound like a hit, but Han says it's their best selling drink. "It tastes a little bit like coffee, so lots of Americans like it,' says Han. The variety of flavors can be mind-boggling. Compared to Baskin-Robbins, most pearl milk tea stores are way ahead when it comes to choice. Tapioca Express, for example, offers plain old tapioca milk tea, plus 147 other drinks. You can get 20 different flavors of milk tea, but you can also get pearls in a latte, a snow bubble (a sort of fruity milk shake), and even something called honey and egg juice. While some of these drinks sound pretty far out, they're offered in nearly 40 other Tapioca Express stores around the country. "It's always fun to look at a million different flavors," says Irene Yeh, 20, who likes her pearl milk tea made with green tea. "I look at the board for 20 minutes, even though I always get the same thing." While the pearls get all the attention, it's the tea that connoisseurs focus on. Ten Ren, a Chinese company that has been producing tea for 50 years, is said by some to have the best pearl milk tea in the area. Fans will also tell you that eating while drinking requires a little bit of concentration. "If you run out of liquid first, you have to be careful with the pearls," says Raheleh Mansoor, 24, who just graduated from Stanford Law School and is studying for the bar. "Once I was here (at Black Pearl) studying for 11 hours. I had two pearl drinks -- and I choked on both of them. But I keep on coming back for more." |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by FrosteaTheSnowman (talk • contribs) 01:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we all read those, and others like them, from the article. None of these is a substantial reference. Take the last one, for example. It is a review of a different tea shop (The Black Pearl), which then name-drops Tapioca Express towards the end. Look, you can find my name in probably half a dozen or so newspaper references, it doesn't mean that I meet the standards set out at WP:N. Please find references which are substantial, or extensive, or more than trivial in their coverage of your company. --Jayron32 03:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete Jayron32, I did not find your name in half a dozen newspaper articles. Your name is not trademarked. You are not registered as a corporation in America. You have not pioneered any new products, and have them tradmarked. This company has done all of the above and then some.
1.) How are you comparing yourself to this company that has been around since 1999? Unless you have reading comprehension problems, this company clearly meets the standards set out at WP:N. 2.) How does it not? 3.) If Los Angeles Times is not a substantial reference, can you tell me what a substantial third party reference is? 4.) Also, there are a few other boba shops near my area, Lollicup, Ten_Ren_Tea and Cha_for_Tea to name a few, should we put those articles up for deletion too? If so, then half of what's on wikipedia should be deleted. FrosteaTheSnowman (talk) 18:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to respond to these: 1) I've been around since 1976. That means I win, right? (sarcasm here). 2) It doesn't meet them because the amount of coverage in the sources does not reach more than a trivial level. It isn't the sources themselves that matter, it is how much each source devotes to the subject that is the problem here. 3) It's not that the L.A. Times isn't a good source (it is) it is that what the L.A. Times has to say about Tapioca Express isn't substantial. A few sentances here and there in articles that are about other topics (such as Bubble Tea in general or other Bubble Tea outlets) is not substantial. A sentance or two or an occasional mention is NOT substantial, regardless of which newspaper, book, magazine, or other the mention appears in. What we are looking for is lengthy pieces about your company, not a few sentances here or there. 4) This is a discussion of THIS ONE article. Other articles at Wikipedia may or may not be needed to be deleted. There are 3.4 million articles here, I am sure one could find some problems with other articles. However, we are not discussing any of those 3.4 million. We are discussing this one article. --Jayron32 03:48, 29 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite all the bawwwwwwwing from Frostea, there just aren't enough reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete my first instinct was that this is notable, but the article and sources just don't support my initial assessment. Awards like "ABA 27th Annual Awards Banquet Strength of Teamwork" are essentially meaningless for our purposes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete First of all, it is not my company. I am merely a tea connoisseur.
Looking at WP:N
1) There is not a required number of paragraphs.
2) There is not a required number of sources.
3) What are your purposes?
Did you two other admins expand that section on this discussion and read through all those articles? (Probably not, but if you did, you'll see) There are ENTIRE newspaper article is devoted to this company. We would be hard pressed to find that much coverage, if not, more that you seek, on many other companies on wikipedia.
So by your definition, I would like to put up more articles for deletion, how do I go about doing that? We should be consistent in our administrating of articles. Since you are doing such a subjective, incompetent job of moderating. I say that also because of TenPounds immature comment, the english language does not require 8 consecutive consonants. This discussion is starting to sound more like a high school popularity contest, than an objective professional panel discussion. FrosteaTheSnowman (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:CORP, references do not amount to the required "significant coverage". ukexpat (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A word of advice for FrosteaTheSnowman - you do not need to rebut every single "delete" opinion. You have stated your view. There is no need to repeat it ad nauseam unless you have something new to say. – ukexpat (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete It barely scrapes by for notability, I am going to look for some sources as i seem to recall one being near my boarding school. Most "chains" are notable in my book. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The tipoff may be that the best photo they can find is of a since-closed location. Maybe adding a wikipedia article could give artificial notability to a small chain, but that's not wikipedia's purpose. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete rather clearly fails to satisfy our notability requirements. -- ۩ Mask 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The issue of merging (and how much gets merged), can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scotch'n'Soda[edit]
- Scotch'n'Soda (edit | talk | 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 student theater at Carnegie Mellon University. No third party sources to establish notability. No sources, so everything is original research and not verifiable. Very run of the mill. GrapedApe (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Carnegie Mellon University. -- BenTels (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 23 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Too big to merge and has potential to expand: deserves its own page. Not a "run of the mill" student theater at all: it's one of the oldest in the country (over 100 years, name change notwithstanding) and has produced many wikilinked alumni. I added a reference after a very brief Google search, and actual alumni could be expected to add much more in the future. SteveStrummer (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge as suggested above. Primary claim of notability is being the first group that performed Pippin. And while that is something I'm not convinced that it's enough for an encyclopedia entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- while I'm not in a mood to separate theater reviews from bartending manuals at the moment, the coverage I recently read in a Stephen Schwartz biography, Defying Gravity, convinces me it is notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Drexel University. –MuZemike 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Performing Arts at Drexel University[edit]
- Performing Arts at Drexel University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork/sub-article that has no content: it's just a list of some clubs. Very few references, either. There's really no indication that this content fork from the main Drexel University is justified. GrapedApe (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete info about mostly nn groups, merge info on the organ to Drexel University, perhaps the campus section. --ImGz (t/c) 03:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Drexel University. -- BenTels (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - performances and major at Drexel certainly gain secondary coverage. Article should incorporate more secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 20:48, 22 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge. I went to Drexel myself and though I sure had fun there wasn't really anything about the arts clubs that made them in any way more notable than their equivalents at every other school. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha Pi Lambda[edit]
- Alpha Pi Lambda (edit | talk | 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 fraternity at Drexel University. While their chapter house is part of the Powelton Village, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (a historic district) there's no evidence that the fraternity itself is notable. GrapedApe (talk) 02:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral: While I agree that the article is pretty weak in its current form, I think there are plenty of leads for an expert (or at least somebody who knows what he is talking about) to make something of this article. I've tagged it for {{Rescue}} for that reason; I've also posted a message on the Fraternity and Sorority Project Talk page, listing the points that I think the aforementioned expert could work with. -- BenTels (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. BenTels (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google news results are mostly from university newspapers. Other mentions include rape crimes at that fraternity, and the university stating they had problems in the past with this group. [33] Dream Focus 22:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some thoughts, in no particular order: 1) Drexel University is notable, and the fraternity is a historically constitutive part of the University, thus, I think, making the fraternity notable enough provided there's enough information to warrant its own page. Are there notability guidelines for fraternities specifically?
- 2) Most fraternities--social, academic, or otherwise--can only be located on the web and in the news by their own internal publications, university pub's, or org. press releases. There are rare exceptions to this. To this point, I think it is wise to keep with what is standard for this group of organizations. Otherwise, the only fraternities we might have on Wikipedia would be Phi Beta Kappa and Skull and Bones. Certainly they are not the only ones worth documenting.
- 3) If someone has a copy of Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities, perhaps they can see if this one is listed. That might give us another indicator of where to go on this one.
- Just because Drexel University is notable dosen't mean that this organization is notable. Notability from 1 entity doesn't confer notability on another. See WP:INHERIT. Since there is a 1 chapter fraternity, it's no different than a local club, which are generally not notable without multiple independent sources.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the logic of your first point GrapedApe. I also think you are right to draw comparison to a local club. However, on the other hand, the fact that it is only a one chapter society does not alone determine or preclude notability, nor do I understand such a status to have any bearing on the application of notability guidelines. My concern lies in the fact that there is generally a problem finding independent sources online for most of the fraternity/sorority/honor society websites. Usually, multiple independent sources for these organizations require someone researching books, not just the web (e.g., FA-class Alpha Kappa Alpha and also Phi Beta Kappa). Thus, one cannot expect multiple independent sources germane to an encyclopedia article on the subject to be apparent by mere web search. Also, one who authors a stub is not always an expert on the subject. So, although I think this fraternity has not demonstrated itself yet as notable, I think it should be allowed to be a stub for some time until an expert can find and include independent sources, especially if it can be found in Baird's. If, in a few months, no one steps forward, it gets deleted.--Lhakthong (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because Drexel University is notable dosen't mean that this organization is notable. Notability from 1 entity doesn't confer notability on another. See WP:INHERIT. Since there is a 1 chapter fraternity, it's no different than a local club, which are generally not notable without multiple independent sources.--GrapedApe (talk) 19:00, 23 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete an article on the house might stand a chance depending on what sort of sources exist. The club? Not so much. Doesn't pass WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This organization has not established notability under WP:ORG, which is difficult for fraternities or sororities to accomplish with only a single chapter. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is how much time to give an organization to establish notability by citing appropriate sources. Should the page be moved into a the creator's space (not public) until they can establish notability? Certainly, there very fact that Wikipedia has a stub tag indicates that not all pages that go up are immediately clearly notable.--Lhakthong (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the use of the stub tag somewhat differently. To me, an article is appropriate to be kept as a stub if it indicates why the subject is notable, but does not cover the subject adequately for encyclopedic detail. In this case, I'm not even sure this article establishes notability for the subject. There may be sources out there, but it doesn't seem to me that one-chapter fraternities are likely to receive much coverage in reliable independent sources, since they are small, private organizations. But I could be wrong about the extent of the coverage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The question is how much time to give an organization to establish notability by citing appropriate sources. Should the page be moved into a the creator's space (not public) until they can establish notability? Certainly, there very fact that Wikipedia has a stub tag indicates that not all pages that go up are immediately clearly notable.--Lhakthong (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Partington[edit]
- Rex Partington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biographical article about a theater producer of doubtful notability. The article was created and has largely been edited by Tonytenor (talk · contribs), who is self-described as the subject's son. Partington was head of the notable Barter Theater for many years, and what mention there is of him in reliable sources is mostly due to this. Unfortunately, these seem to be passing mentions, such as simply noting that he headed the theater or giving credit for his work on some production, and do not meet the coverage standards for notability. The result is that the article is basically a memorial by the son, lacking reliable sources for most of the content. If there are adequate reliable sources to produce a biography, I will gladly withdraw this nomination, but from what I have see thus far, this individual simply is not notable enough for a reliably sourced article. RL0919 (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well-written and touching long-form eulogy. Better than anything you'd get in the local fish wrapper's obit section. But... as per nom, WP is not the place for memorials or personal tributes. I'm sure the guy was a good man, a great father, a loving husband, a hard worker, a good provider, and a talented thespian, and a lot of other good things but that's not enough to make him notable. And while Barter Theater may be notable, notability is not heritable or contagious. Mtiffany71 (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean itup through regular editing. It seems this individual is notable enough that he has made it into the enduring record... a great number of books[34] and news articles from 1954.[35]. It would seem that both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG have been met. Since we have the reliable sources... it needing cleanup is not a reason to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No one had said anything about the article needing cleanup, so that clearly isn't the argument for deletion. The problem is that the mentions I was able to find about him in reliable sources were not "significant coverage" as called for in WP:GNG. Linking to Google hits doesn't demonstrate significant coverage. --RL0919 (talk) 19:25, 27 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see enough sources here. [36]. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Barter Theatre and Cleveland Playhouse are both major theatres VASterling (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saint Joseph's University Press[edit]
- Saint Joseph's University Press (edit | talk | 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 university press. No third party references to establish notability. No notable publications. Seems run of the mill, like the presses that exist at most universities. GrapedApe (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Into Saint Joseph's University -- BenTels (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While Wikipedia's coverage of publishers and publishing leaves much to be desired (as opposed to, say, topics relating to popular culture or breaking news), one does hope that individual company histories of publishers great and small will develop over time. This is a stub article requiring a great deal of work, but the publisher is long established and sufficiently prolific to merit encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 23 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for a lack of reliable third party references. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A substantial university press with a catalog of scholarly books and journals, enough to find notability. A redirect/merge to the university's article can be discussed as an editorial matter, but I don't see deletion as helpful to the encyclopedia's coverage of academic publishing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Harry Wong[edit]
- Harry Wong (edit | talk | 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 educator. Bongomatic 12:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There might be some notability here (Gnews search); there's certainly a good bit of coverage of him as a consultant and a teaching "guru," whatever that might be. However, the article as written is borderline A7. RayTalk 05:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Not going to be a terribly long article, but it looks like it can pass WP:BASIC. Not seeing the advertising in the current incarnation of the article. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:26, 26 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telly Awards have their own article on wikipedia and managed to survive an AfD. So presumably that means consensus has them as notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. He seems to have quite a bit of press, e.g. [38], and the news stories imply that he has been quite influential in the teaching profession. I hope some of this coverage can be used to create a better article — I agree with RayAYang that the article as it stands is not good. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but the frindlization of "Wikipediafication" sounds like a plan :) Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gamification[edit]
- Gamification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism, no significant discussion found on Internet, reads like a personal essay — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism. This is someone's attempt at repackaging old ideas in new bottles. Hairhorn (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google scholar link shows plenty of hits, undermining the assertion that this is an NN neologism. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Lots" of GScholar hits = 13 or so... and I have to agree with Hairhorn analysis. Google print gives me 9 hits ([39]). None of them, however, appear to confirm it is a notable term with one recognized definition. At best, I could say we could consider wiktionary... do we have a notability policy for neologisms? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary#Neologisms, which says, among other things, "to support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." Hairhorn (talk) 23:09, 28 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there's probably an article to be written on this topic, but it isn't this one. Reads like an attempt to coin/promote a neologism. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Interesting concept, but no evidence that the word is anything more than a neologism. Note that in modern English this kind of word is easy to make and readers will understand... well some meaning even if not exactly the one you had intended. For instance on WP we have "deletionists" and so forth. If I were to talk about the "Wikipediafication" of something people would also get it. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per original nom. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No sources, no article. Sandstein 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Migdalia Perez Soto[edit]
- Maria Migdalia Perez Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N and WP:Bio as a non-notable, non-living, ex-spouse of a high level politician of Puerto Rico. The only real claim of notability, in my opinion, is in regards to her work as an interior designer. No references have been provided for the claim or the whole article. My Google New search and my Google News Archives search have also provided no references. OlYellerTalktome 16:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 23 September 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, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unreferenced, unchanged in 14 days, looks to be a hopeless case. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google search comes empty (I really wanted to find sources to verify a fascinating life story). I wonder if the whole thing is a hoax. --Jmundo (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Smells like a hoax big-time.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IFF (Community Development Financial Institution)[edit]
- IFF (Community Development Financial Institution) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable governmental non-profit. Already listed at Community development financial institution with other non-notable organizations. Article is heavily promotional and almost exclusively sourced to organization's web site. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a governmental non-profit, which would have been clear if the article was read. That's why the article exists, to teach people about an organization with a lot of interest. As mentioned in the article, IFF is the largest CDFI in the Midwest. Many nonprofits want to find information on it, and wikipedia is an ideal way to do that. People that hear about IFF will want to know more as well. And it is certainly not non-notable; it has won numerous awards and is mentioned in the news on a regular basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbo7089 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 23 September 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, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - With the exception of refs for the awards, all refs are to the corp website. The history section is a bit odd, being written as a listed timeline by year, but more problematic is that it is full of external links that, again, lead to the corp. website. May be something to build on with their role in analyzing public school performance, as this would be the type of thing reported in the news and in state educational records, but, again, the links provided lead to the corp. website. I suggest determining what, if anything, makes this company notable according to wp guidelines, and re-writing the article focusing on those aspects. Otherwise, this currently appears to be a business listing pulled straight from the company's website. The Eskimo (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.