Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 16
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. While the consensus is to delete, should anyone want to have this userfied so that they can work on it, please contact me PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Nomad[edit]
- Urban Nomad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dicdef. Transwiki or delete. UtherSRG (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:NOTDICT and WP:ESSAY. Not even sure it's dictionary material, more like a figure of speech, with a variety of uses. Yakushima (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever this is, it isn't sourced. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I am withdrawing my recommendation because the article has changed since the AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per all the above. WuhWuzDat 18:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has anyone heard of WP:BEFORE? "Urban nomad" certainly appears to be a label applied to people in some way: e.g.
- Appleby, L; Slagg, N; Desai, PN (1982). "The urban nomad: a psychiatric problem?". Current psychiatric therapies. 21: 253–62. PMID 7160213.
- Sabloff, P. L. W. (2004). "The Wild East: Portrait of an Urban Nomad:The Wild East: Portrait of an Urban Nomad". Visual Anthropology Review. 20: 90. doi:10.1525/var.2004.20.2.90.
- Carolyn Ellis; Arthur P. Bochner (1996). Composing ethnography: alternative forms of qualitative writing. Rowman Altamira. pp. 176–. ISBN 9780761991649. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
- [1] [2] etc.
- These certainly aren't what the article is about and I can't access the first two sources, but with a little work, I'm sure we could write something about this. SmartSE (talk) 23:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Atomic Studios London[edit]
- Atomic Studios London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indications that this subject meets WP:ORG WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Falls a bit short on notability. Lots of ghits but they're all passing mentions, listings, forum posts &c. bobrayner (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Houses of Love[edit]
- The Houses of Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self published novel, non-notable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Strictly fanfic and fails WP:GNG Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No reliable sources covering this book. For that matter, there aren't even any unreliable sources covering it. -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self published fanfiction, Sadads (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
West Witney F.C.[edit]
- West Witney F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable football club ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable club, playing in a low league. GiantSnowman 15:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Level 13 is way too low for inclusion. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New Beach F.C.[edit]
- New Beach F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely non-notable football team. ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable club, playing in a low league. GiantSnowman 15:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now that's what I call non-notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete taking non-notability to a new level? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nyetimber Pirates[edit]
- Nyetimber Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable football team playing in a pub league. Deleted via PROD once before but restored. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable club, playing in a low league. GiantSnowman 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - club is not notable, playing at a very low level - probably not in the football pyramid - and fails WP:GNG. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WoodWing Software[edit]
- WoodWing Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software firm; "sources" mostly press releases, self-publications and blogs Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unambiguous advertising: integrated editorial solutions, based on the blended media concept. This is the kind of prose that can't be made neutral by editing, because it doesn't mean anything to begin with. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. The Deloitte and Seybold mentions demonstrate notability in the local business sphere and presence on the global market; staff and customer list qualify for notability in the field of desktop workflow management. More external refs would be nice. –SJ+ 11:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:SPAM, the whole thing is riddled with stuff right out of Marketing 101. ukexpat (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Memories of a Dying Whore[edit]
- Memories of a Dying Whore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album on non-notable label. Orange Mike | Talk 22:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Diplomat[edit]
- The Diplomat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Diplomat is only self referencing and that hardly meets the Notability standards of Wikipedia. I could not find any information that would indicate they get a large number of page views. Their staff is hardly notable either. This looks more like an advertisement, and possibly spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imasomething (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article says they've interviewed world leaders "ranging from Brent Scowcroft to Anwar Ibrahim". I found the publication looking for articles by Minxin Pei, a well-known scholar. It's not as notable as the New York Times, but it's not somebody's personal website either. When I found the publication, I came to Wikipedia to learn more about it; it would be too bad if there was nothing here. guanxi (talk) 03:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
if you can find a mention of it being important outside of its own website I would be more impressed. This is a notability issue and the problem is , so far as I see, that Wikipedia has no notability standards for magazines.Imasomething (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Same here; I found that Leigh Sales had written for this publication and I learned from this article the essential facts about it. That's what encyclopedias do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question about notability. They don't even mention how many people view their website. Maybe it is a million, but it can also be a well written e-zine that only their families read. Again Notability is the criteria. Merely existing does not mean notability.Imasomething (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The article includes one article from the The Age that covers the demise of the print edition. Also coverage here in the Sydney Morning Herald. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' per above reasonings, Sadads (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteDespite claims of notability it is in very clear violation of the rules regarding self referencing. Becuase at one time it may have been a significant publication I didn't put it on the fast track delete status. If someone were to put in material which were not readily avaible (and mainly copied word for word) in their website, I would be happy to agree to switch to a keep (this was a self edit made after coffee permitted to write full sentences)
Imasomething (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposing and !voting to delete? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP per Whpq. The article is a stub but it meets GNG. I do not see anyone disputing the validity of the extant sources. Blue Rasberry 09:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does it meet GNG. It ceased publishing precisely because it ceased to be notable. Generally when people stop buying your magazine, it is no longer notable. Can you show me the exact way it is notable. Self advertising (with the exception of very brief mentions two years ago) hardly qualify it. This is the question. This is also the big problem not having guidelines to go by (I believe the last guidelines were not approved in the end) Imasomething (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The general notability guidelines are satisifued through coverage in reliable sources. Reliable sources have been put forward. Having ceased publication is not a criteria for deleting an article on a magazine, oherwise, Category:Defunct magazines would be completely empty and Punch (magazine) would be deleted. -- Whpq (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of the well established guideline Notability is not temporary, I find Imasomething's argument difficult to follow. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, multiple reliable sources provided, meets WP:N. A dedicated article in the SMH is not a "very brief mention". If User:Imasomething had bothered to actually read the sources, he'd also know that it has (or had) a circulation of over 10k an issue, which isn't too bad. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, I looked on Alexa and it has a ranking of about 50,000. Not amazing, but pretty good. It's also cited as a source in a Financial Times blog that seems to link to it regularly. daveym77 —Preceding undated comment added 01:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC). — daveym77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Reply- okay lets call things for what they are. The additional sources were not put on until after the 16th of feburary and I had not seen them. so no need to start with the personal attacks. They are two 'reliable' sources but onefrom 2004 and one was 2 years ago. I think further edits need to more fully add the fact that they were sued for IP issues. I did a lexis nexis search (which is far more reliable than google) and you know how many turned up ...you guessed it 0. If you notice also (and I know I am wasting my time here ) The diplomat was only being talked about because it was being sued, not for any work it was currently doing. Anyway it is misclassified as an Australian stub (it is based in Japan). And that raises suspicions that some people (and i am not accusing anyone here, more like the writers of the stub) is using it to advertise a desperately failing website. I don't care really. I think the fact that we have a total of possibly three sources and deem it "notable" makes the entry bar far too low, but that is admin problem not mine.
What is Alexa, I am going to put the other 49,999 of the websites that rank above the diplomat on wikipedia and you all will of course support it :) i hope someone fixes the cut and paste job in the section about its history Imasomething (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I just did a search and found the last mention in mainstream media was by the UK's The Daily Telegraph newspaper last week, which recommended the site's China special. So I took the time to look at who has written for this site in the last six months. A US undersecretary of state and a former British foreign secretary have written for them. The site's bloggers include a UN Peace Chair, a writer for the UK's The Independent newspaper, a former bureau chief with AFP and a Philippines politician. It took me less than 10 minutes to find all this out, so there is probably more if I looked harder. I am unclear why you keep disagreeing on this with everyone else here. Plus I see now the argument has now shifted from an attempt to delete the site's entry completely to arguing that more edits need to be made to emphasize a negative story about this publication. Frankly, this is all sounding a bit personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveym77 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - A magazine's Alexa ranking may be indicative of notability, but a high ranking does not establish notability. Notable writers having provided material for the magazine may be indicative of notability, but again, it does not establish notability (see WP:NOTINHERITED). What establishes notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. To that end, simply stating that you found a mention of the magazine in the Daily Telegraph is meaningless unless you can provide a link tot eh article for others to evaluate, or some citation to the specific issue and page. I beleive the Age and Herlad articles already mentioned are sufficient to establish notability, but more sourcing is never a bad thing. -- Whpq (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply- I just did a search and found the last mention in mainstream media was by the UK's The Daily Telegraph newspaper last week, which recommended the site's China special. So I took the time to look at who has written for this site in the last six months. A US undersecretary of state and a former British foreign secretary have written for them. The site's bloggers include a UN Peace Chair, a writer for the UK's The Independent newspaper, a former bureau chief with AFP and a Philippines politician. It took me less than 10 minutes to find all this out, so there is probably more if I looked harder. I am unclear why you keep disagreeing on this with everyone else here. Plus I see now the argument has now shifted from an attempt to delete the site's entry completely to arguing that more edits need to be made to emphasize a negative story about this publication. Frankly, this is all sounding a bit personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveym77 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OneTravel[edit]
- OneTravel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded, but prod removed; non-notable website with no credible assertion or evidence of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. This article does not adhere to WP:CORP and has no 3rd party sources to assert notability - only has 1 primary source (the official site). ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination ukexpat (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails N - my search located only 2 instances of mention in reliable sources - a wire story and its reprint, and the only content in that story was a passing reference labeling the company as one of three "small" companies that a major airline no longer booked reservations through.Whatever I had done in my initial search, the google.news link above appears to have additional potential hits that invalidate my claim. Active Banana (bananaphone 00:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- reply - local business press coverage of local firm acquiring this firm; passing mentions in articles on other topics; still doesn't add up to the requisite substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is clearly not to keep this. As Reyk points out, there is nothing which could reasonably be merged elsewhere, and so I am closing this as delete PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Sparr[edit]
- Lord Sparr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not demonstrate notability per WP:NOTE; also, guides like WP:PLOT tell us that we are not a compendium of mere plot, which is all this article is. It contains no real-world development or reception data, and just re-hashes the plot of the series. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to main page for novel, Sadads (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to novel series, trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge Fails WP:N. Harry Blue5 (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- There is no assertion of notability outside the series. A merge is inappropriate because there is no content besides unsourced plot summary, which the obvious merge target already has enough of. Reyk YO! 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All Ontario Youth Convention[edit]
- All Ontario Youth Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a procedural listing due to a contested speedy deletion. This article does not have a clear statement of notability, but that may be more one of style than substance. I do note, however, that it completely lacks any references as of now. I currently have no opinion (one way or the other) on possible sources, because I have made no effort to find any yet. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, db-spam, A7, take your pick. Hairhorn (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam, and because I can find no reliable sources covering this convention. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-spam.--John Foxe (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. Lacks good sources. bobrayner (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found zero hits on Google News and books. Most of the Ghits are not reliable, or mirrors of their own sites. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Montel Jennings[edit]
- Montel Jennings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highest office was leading a committee on a Mayor's staff? Not encyclopedically notable. bd2412 T 20:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nom, no substantial evidence of notability. There are 2 sources cited in the article; links are not provided, but it appears that they are: (1) a 1977 article (or actually 2 articles) in Jet in which Jennings (then a law student at Howard) was quoted because he stood in line all night to see the Supreme Court's Bakke argument'[3][4]; and (2) an 2008 op-ed column in the San Francisco Chronicle about the primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.[5] The only other things I found were a UPI article mentioning him in connection with Bakke for the same reason as he was mentioned in Jet [6] and an article in the Chron about last year's San Francisco Juneteenth parade (he was on the organizing committee)[7] In other words, none of the coverage is actually about him.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:BIO. Google News Archive search finds more links for a similarly named basketball player than for him. --MelanieN (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the three above me. The JET article is tragic, considering it's one of the few reliable mentions. tedder (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mike Bassett: England Manager. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Bassett[edit]
- Mike Bassett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of fictional character seems unwarrented. The article is a stub and has no sources cited. In addition the article has been created 4 years ago with a lack of content and no information has since been added to that. harbin91 (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mike_Bassett:_England_Manager. Highly likely search term. No need for the character to have a page. MLA (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Spent 6 years as a redirect and 1 month as a NN article. Szzuk (talk) 21:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - definitely no need for a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - as above. Seems a reasonable search term, but not notable enough to merit a standalone article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect this can just be reverted to the original redirect version, as there are no references and not enough content for a split to be necessary. Peter E. James (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - as above, no need for seperate article but a valid search term. GiantSnowman 14:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite Redirect I think this is a WP:Snowball redirect, Sadads (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the 2001 film about this fellow: Mike Bassett: England Manager. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting Index[edit]
- Sporting Index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Sporting Index. Was deleted 3 times previously, despite multiple sock accounts(ie.current-->Davidsita10 (talk · contribs) and previous--> Davidsita (talk · contribs)) re-creating it. Article Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions.
- This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Sporting_Index_Ltd_Spam
Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable per the many reliable sources listed in the article and found by the Google News and Books searches linked above (even after eliminating false positives), as would be expected for the company that pioneered sports spread betting. Behavioural issues should be dealt with by behavioural remedies, not article deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep enough references are independent to pass GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that he does not meet the criteria for inclusion at this time PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anjur Osmanovic[edit]
- Anjur Osmanovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User:Soccer-holic attempted to nominate this page for deletion, but failed to complete the nomination. No recommendation on my part. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Twinkle seems to have messed up the nomination process once again, sorry. I am nominating this article because of the following:
Article about a youth football player who (obviously) has not played in a professional league yet, thus failing WP:NFOOTBALL. There is no guarantee that the player will ever reach notability, thus a case of WP:CRYSTAL. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He clearly fails all relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Save Yesterday (17th Feb 2011) the Anjur Osmanovic wikipedia page was visited 369 times - this figure indicates that this subject is of significant interest to Wikipedia users and on this ground alone should not be deleted.
Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 06:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Youth players at notable clubs aren't notable. Stu.W UK (talk) 04:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SaveI am well aware about the issue of notability and the rules and guidelines that we follow. The point that I am raising is that there is considerable interest in this topic and therefore question whether we should be supporting blanket deletions when Wikipedia users clearly desire and are searching for information on a topic. There has already been quite distinct coverage in the media - this is likely to grow in the forthcoming months.
Evidence of the level of interest is in this Wikipedia page is provided below:
15th Feb - 63 views (some reflecting my preparations)
16th Feb - 54 views
17th Feb - 369 views
18th Feb - 374 views
19th Feb - 350 views
20th Feb - 351 views
21st Feb - 349 views
22nd Feb - 330 views
NB: In terms of quality the article is very poor but would be much improved if there was recognition that this is a useful and meaningful topic.
Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 15:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Please don't !vote more than once -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah. Consensus is extremely clear that two articles are not required, and Anarchangel's reasoning is clear as to why merging in the other direction is not ideal. lifebaka++ 21:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Expedition of Qatan[edit]
- Expedition of Qatan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article is a duplicate of this
Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah
--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah as an alternate name / spelling. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Merge Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah to Expedition of Qatan as the expedition article is the existing established article as pointed out by Anarchangel below. -- Whpq (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect - Take what isn't exactly duplicated, and is well referenced, merge into the article Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah, and delete the rest. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. Anotherclown (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Taking material from one of the articles to add to the other is mandatory, as they each have unique content. Blanking one of the articles is appropriate, as they have a general subject in common. However, Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah should be redirected to Expedition of Qatan instead, because:
- Expedition of Qatan was created in 2009. Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah, days ago, by the nominator. Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah duplicates the subject of Expedition of Qatan, although they each have some material the other does not have. Conclusion: Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah is a content fork and now the creator of it is nominating the original article for deletion. The contribution of User Misconceptions aside, to not declare this interest in the nomination is bad faith procedure. To have followed his nomination without getting the material from 'Expedition' would have lost material from WP. To add material from 'Expedition' to 'Raid' might seem to be an acceptable result, except that:
- "Expedition of Qatan" gets 7 hits on Google Books. "Raid on Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah", zero. "Qatan" gets 16,600 hits. "Banu Asad bin Khuzaymah", only 7. Conclusion: Expedition of Qatan is not only the original article, but as a more scholarly and user-friendly search term, the better title as well. Anarchangel (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kacey Jordan[edit]
- Kacey Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another WP:BLP1E case involving a porn star who serviced Charlie Sheen like Capri Anderson. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Article is mostly tabloid gossip and her porn career background is not supported by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 15 minutes is long spent. Not a notable porn tartlet, no notability beyond the one event news blip of Charlie Sheen's sexual peccadilloes. Tarc (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unnecessary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable as a film star, one-event city as a babysitter and prostitute. Carrite (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forexpros[edit]
- Forexpros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Forexpros. Seems to be nothing more than Non-Notable Self-promotion, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All references given are self-referential. Google News search finds only articles BY Forexpros (written under its byline, or promoting its seminars); I found absolutely nothing ABOUT Forexpros by independent sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Selena Rose[edit]
- Selena Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Classic case of not yet. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Notability in question since November. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - She can't even reach the low-hanging fruit of WP:PORNBIO, much less the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not necessary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability, no reliably sourced biographical content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly non-notable pornographic film actress. Carrite (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subject is not yet notable. Should notability arise in the future, then it can be recreated with suitable independent reliable sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tahir Musa Ceylan[edit]
- Tahir Musa Ceylan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article that is not about its subject; uses self published sources; and is mostly an essay about psychology.\ c y m r u . l a s s (talk me, stalk me) 01:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible Keep of introductory paragraph only, which explains about the person. He seems to be important enough, the sources are hard to judge however. Delete the long essays about his theories, but have links to his writings if they are available. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I've come to pretty much the same conclusions as Steve Dufour (talk · contribs) above. We should certainly lose the long essays, but there should be better independent references available. Having said that, I have struggled to find any. Someone who reads Turkish might be able to help here. --Deskford (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Now changing to delete. I can find no reliable sources to verify anything beyond the existence of one or more books. The articles on the French, German and Turkish Wikipedias don't help (though I don't read Turkish). Comment below by 212.175.14.114 (talk · contribs) suggests the subject may become notable in future but does not yet meet our criteria. --Deskford (talk) 16:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article must not be deleted to my way of thinking, it is a new and important thought in neuro/psychophilosophy. You are right it is written in an essay format, in course of time it may be written encyclopedic format, or it may be hiden at any other place in Wikipedia and may be linked tok Tahir Musa Ceylan's page, if it is possible. And it has some independent sources, but they are preapering to publish, after that they will be put at suitable places —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.14.114 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. IP 212.175.14.114, who appears to be knowledgeable about the subject, asserts facts that would strongly indicate the subject is not yet notable: that these are new thoughts about which independent sources have yet to publish any coverage. The importance of the thoughts and the significance of hoped-for coverage remain to be seen. (Does anybody else find it odd that the only explicit claim of notability in the article is alleged selection for a high school reading list?) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted it is a useful article and has references good enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.14.114 (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may be corrected, but it needs the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.102.252.97 (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2011 — 85.102.252.97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Acather96 (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RMIT Music[edit]
- RMIT Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. all the references in the article are from RMIT so not third party. no real substantial third party coverage. [8]. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My first inclination is to merge this to RMIT University, but in view of the length of that article, I have to conclude that it was reasonable to split this content off into a separate article. However, this article needs trimming. --Orlady (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Attack of the Giant Moussaka[edit]
- The Attack of the Giant Moussaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails Wikipedia:Notability (films). gnews merely confirms the film exists [9]. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added references. A cult film with lots of foreign-language references. A definite must see. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 11:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- so far only 2 foreign language references have been added. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not a lot out there in English[10] but this BBC article does refer to it as a "home-grown hit",[11] and it pops up in enough French-language news sources[12] to justify a finding of notability, if only barely. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I do remember this film in Greece, and, at its time, it was quite notable.--Yannismarou (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Minor cult classic in a similar vein as other "Attack of_add your menacing oversized villain/food item here__" B-movies of the past. We have seen crabs as in Attack of the Crab Monsters, leeches as in Attack of the Giant Leeches etc. It is clearly time for a villain Moussaka. As Arxiloxos mentions, the coverage by BBC and the French sources establishes notability. I also found a citation by The Guardian, of rather impeccable taste, which I will add to the article. Maybe a sequel can be made where the Giant Moussaka meets the Killer Tomatoes in a Godzilla-type showdown and a giant pastitsio is created. Maybe not. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 17:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely a cult movie. I don't have time to look right now but I believe several of the criteria are met by large, would it only be by the fact that there are not many Greek-made movies of this genre. At least this is what I have at hand right now: director interview + review (in French) when the movie was showed in a festival called L'Absurde Séance de Paris in 2009. Place Clichy (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this should be deleted. It may be a hoax or not (I make no comment) but if it is not, reliable sources indicating this would be required as a bare minimum to even consider creating an article about this. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zapihanha[edit]
- Zapihanha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no such meal in Masovia (bananas! avocados!). There is no such word as "zapihanha" ("zapiekanka" is correct, but it is not traditional). This kind of spelling is impossible in any Slavic language. This article is only a joke. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searching finds nothing that doesn't look like a Wikipedia mirror, and it's hard for me to believe in a traditional polish/Slavic dish incorporating bananas and avocados, much less combining either with onions and garlic. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is such meal in Mazovia. The idea of the meal is to mix eggs with vegetables (onion and garlic) and fruits. Bananas and avocados are not the base of the meal, but its optional ingredient. Following the logic, we'd have to forget about tomatoes, potatoes, chocolate etc. Keep --Rejedef (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it is not true. I live almost 50 years in this region and I never heard about it. The word "zapihanha" is completely impossible in any Slavic language. I know almost every Slavic language and I can tell you one - it is completely impossible. "Zapiekanka" is correct. But you have more this kind of edits - here and possibly in several other places. You want know something more? There is no Mazovian language. Why these disinformations in wikipedia? I do not think it was good joke, here is no place for it. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leszek Jańczuk is correct. Zapiekanka is a common word for several kinds of baked food. Nothing specific for Masovia. Nothing even specific for Polish cuisine - in Poland "zapiekanka" may refer to English pies, Italian pasticcios, Greek/Bulgarian mousakas etc. Ingredients listed are typical to Mediterranean cuisine, which becomes popular in Poland, but is still further from typical Polish countryside traditional cuisine, than curry is typical to British one. Panek (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I find it... shocking. Something what my grandparents, parents and me are cooking quite regularly is non-existing? I even made a photo of it. I think I do not understand your remark hence I feel confused. Zapihanha is the name written as it is pronounced. 'Zapiekanka' is a completely different meal made of bread and some stuffing: http://leo.ogme.pl/obiad/zapiekanka-goros.jpg. Zapihanha is an technically an omelet cake.
Secondly, it's not clear if Mazovian is a language, dialect or a slang. Most of scholars consider it as a dialect, however some think it was a separate language or a slang: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=srZDAAAAYAAJ&q=%22masovian+language%22&dq=%22masovian+language%22&hl=en&ei=YjtcTf36BMHKhAfJw_DADQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA We can agree in disagree that it's a complex matter, because the accepted language is Polish. Speaking a dialect is not acceptable in general terms in Poland. Also, I don't think such a big country can be treated as a cultural monolith. The diversity will be noticed and described, not ignored or disapproved.
I have to admit I confused the cell with the article @Father of the nation@, sorry. Do you think what I wrote is incorrect?
I suggest to leave it just as it is and research more. I'll try to find some more information. The meal should be described somewhere, because it exists. Please, do some research as well. --Rejedef (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible, I believe you, but not "zapihanha" (only people who forget his own language can tell something like this). You can not give sources in that case (and see this discussion). Poland is almost monolith because of Partitions of Poland and 45 years of communism. Before world war II the cultural differences between some regions were much stronger than now. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 21:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon?
Ok, Poland is a cultural monolith. Fine. I disagree with it completely. This is an academic paper which will support my argument: http://www.diversity.mtaki.hu/state_of_the_art/galent_kubicki_issues_methods_outcomes.pdf I'm looking forward to see the census 2011 report. Please, bear in mind that political and social pressure may influence the numbers. In Poland there are many local languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Languages_of_Poland It is our responsibility to protect them. The Galician Language is not that different from Spanish, but Spain does protect it. --Rejedef (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost. Almost monolith, but here we discuss about "zapihanha" (strange and ridiculous word for each Pole) and you can not defend it. Sources, sources. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there are no sources given by the author and "zapihanha" is completely not existent on the Internet (Google gives 0 results if we exclude the article on the Wikipedia and its duplicates) is in my opinion enough to delete this article (Wikipedia:Verifiability), whether "zapihanha" does exist or not, especially that I still find it likely to be a hoax. It is virtually impossible for any word in Polish (and I doubt that Masovian dialect could be in such a contradiction with the Polish rules of spelling) to have an "h" inside a word unless preceded by a "c". Apart from that the article claims that the meal is "typical to Masovia" and used to say that "zapihanha" is "a national (!) dish of Masovia", whereas, as said before, it doesn't seem anyone has ever heard about it (and Masovia itself has never been a nation). Delta 51 (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
O tried different spelling but it doesn't help at all. The most similar seems to be... Hungarian-style eggs, but it's totally different. I suggest to leave it and see what happens. Unfortunately, the Internet doesn't contain the knowledge about everything. I suggest to keep looking for it. The basic ingredients are eggs, onion and garlic. I agree we must change 'national dish' into 'regional dish' or 'historical region dish'. Mazovia was a state at few points in the past, but it's difficult to judge. Modern nationalism is a relatively young invention (18th century or so). "keep" --Rejedef (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As failing verifiability. I don't know if Zapihanha is a Masovian dish. But per policy, verifiability, and not truth is what we go by. I simply cannot find any sources aside from Wiki mirrors that discuss this dish. -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone else. If this is a real dish what is its actual name, spelled in Polish? It can't be "Zapihanha".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Other strange stuff form the user [13] [14] and also edits at Mazovia and Masovian dialect (in regard to the last one, saying that "Mazovian" is a dialect of Polish is pretty much like saying that BBC English is a dialect of English).Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Rejedef and his family may cook whatever strange(?) dishes they wish to and they may call them by whatever names they make up, but it doesn't make them notable enough for Wikipedia. Especially, when no reliable sources are provided. — Kpalion(talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- save
RP is an accent of English. American and British are dialects of English. The background of English is different culturally, historically and linguistically.
Again, in Spain, there are languages which were considered as Spanish judging on the vocabulary, however syntax, grammar and semantics differ. Still, I would suggest to hesitate from that for the sake of case study.
Similarity between Mazovian and Polish is not greater than Polish and Kashubian. Here is a Christian prayer in Kashubian (classified as a language): Òjcze nasz, jaczi jes w niebie, niech sã swiãcy Twòje miono, niech przińdze Twòje królestwò, niech mdze Twòja wòlô jakno w niebie tak téż na zemi. Chleba najégò pòwszednégò dôj nóm dzysô i òdpùscë nóm naje winë, jak i më òdpùszcziwómë naszim winowajcóm. A nie dopùscë na nas pòkùszeniô, ale nas zbawi òde złégò. Amen. Please, note, however, that we are judging here the article about a dish, not all my articles in general or me as a member of Wikipedia.
A dish which has its tradition, then it is traditional. Also, it is a meal, hence traditional meal. It is also regional, because it's not typical or popular/known to the whole country. The fact that information about that is not available on the Internet means nothing to me, as the Internet does not cover every field of knowledge, in particular about non-English speaking countries, including Poland. I would not consider it as the ultimate source of truth. There is a reliable source provided, a photo which clearly shows a dish. If you need, I can provide as many photos as you need, even give a phone number to call my relatives and neighbours to verify it.
I find the whole case shocking. My grandmother had no Facebook account. Nothing about her on the Internet, but she did exist. Sometimes information is not on-line. Many resources are still written. save
Note: I'm not living in a big city but a village of 70 people, if it matters. save --Rejedef (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything what you wrote about Polish and Mazovian is not true. Kashubian is very different, but not Mazovian. I live in this region, in centre of Mazovia. And every traditional mazovian meal you can find in the internet. You think we do not have the internet. All your contribution to the wikipedia about Poland is not reliable and very doubtful. What is this? These two maps are about Ukrainian dialects, but the article is about Mazovian dialect. It is typical vandalism. I see you do not know Polish (according to your userbox pl-3) and Mazovian too. If you do answer here in Polish or in Mazovian, if you wish. It is no problem for me in what Slavic language you will write to me. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We acknowledge that not everything is online. However, saying something exists does not satisfy the policy of verifiability. Sources are needed. -- Whpq (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lez, I take pride in knowing much about Poland. I find your statements very offensive. I think I explained why already on the page you mentioned. I add academic or professional writings to support statements I write. I think you should criticize academics and professionals who wrote them. Thank you. I did not say people in Poland have no Internet. In fact, Poland is one of the most successful countries in private internet access policy Report in the Polish language:[1]. I stated that the knowledge about non-English speaking world is less competent about non-English speaking countries and I think this is because of language barriers. Thank you
For the sake of verifiability I will post the recipe on a web page, so it will be verifiable. Is it ok or completely unacceptable and the article should be stamped out because 'zapihanha' does not exist at all?
--Rejedef (talk) 03:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be "omlet". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejedef, have you read Wikipedia:Verifiability? It describes one of Wikipedia's policies, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. If you haven't read it, please do so before making any new edits in Wikipedia. Thank you. — Kpalion(talk) 10:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - hoax. It's author should be banned and blocked, iata's not the first time he made such edits. Michał Rosa (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete! Traditional meal typical to Masovia with bananas and avocados..? Of course:) Combined with onions and garlic..? Enjoy your meal!:) = hoax! Author should be banned. -- Alan ffm (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Uncyclopedia :) Olos88 (talk) 08:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 'Zapiekanka' in Polish is a pasta (or rice or potatos) baked (zapiekane) with some meat and/or vegetables and cheese (or a kind of fast food). But 'zapiekanka' is not traditional, no mentioned in Polish cookbooks before 1960s. 'Zapihanha' is a word existing only in author's family. For me, it is propably a kind of suflet (soufflé, from French cuisine). Btw., Polish traditional cuisine (excluding Podhale) knows only a fresh cheese. And olive oil was not used in common kitchen. Gytha (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hoax/strange OR (bananas!) Bulwersator (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Potential hoax. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chapman's Problem[edit]
- Chapman's Problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
and"Cannot find any sources that discuss "Chapmen's Problem" (or puzzle). See WP:N for more information on the criteria for Wikipedia articles. To avoid deletion, you need to cite reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of this problem and that validate that this is its name. Thanks."
I too have been unable to find any independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]"Ran a Google check and found no evidence of significance."
- Delete Wikipedia is not a journal for initial publication of a cool math problem someone thought up one day in school and blogged about. Come back when there is adequate coverage of it in mathematics journals or elsewhere. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The author and I were discussing this over at User talk:Ommegang17#Proposed_deletion_of_Chapman.27s_Problem and we've given it a bit of time. It seems there aren't any such sources and apart from the single blog link and no explanation as to who Chapman is has emerged. Seems to be WP:OR and/or non-notable. We've given this article as much of a chance as it needs for now. Zachlipton (talk) 18:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is surely a solved problem since it is isomorphic to the number of unordered tree structures containing the given number of nodes. At any rate nobody else seems interested in something scribbled in the margin of a blog. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since I was one who tagged this article for deletion, I find it should be deleted due to lack of (reliable) sources or citations, and notability. Angelo ♫ 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I know this is trivial, but "per all the above" (deletes). Could be notable some day, but too much original research at this point. Just another delete recommendation based on examining the links and positions posted above. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Definitely interesting, very original, and I'd be interested in finding out more directly from the article creator. However, it's still a delete-- one of the cardinal rules here is WP:NOT "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Our purpose is very unoriginal, preserving things that have already been published and attained such a degree of notability that people already know of them. I've not heard of this before, so I won't dispute that it's originated with the creator or with Chapman; ironically, if someone else already discovered this, it would be a keeper. This is one of the most original of our original research contributions, but still original research. Sorry. Mandsford 02:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mind sports world championship[edit]
Renamed page: List of world championships in mind sports
- Mind sports world championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to consist of a user generated phrase. It may well be synthasis. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The term mind sport exists and has great significance in the gaming world. Some form of the content article should exist for consistancy with other existing wikipedia articles on world championships.
- There is a strong argument that the mind sport redirect to Game of skill has been made in the wrong direction. The World Mind Sports Games in Beijing had the full backing of the Chinese government, direct association to the olympic games, and there are many chinese language reference to this term.
- some of the core bodies using the term are found via IMSA
- http://www.imsaworld.com/
- http://www.ifpoker.org/news/official---poker-now-a-mind-sport
- http://www.worldmemorysportscouncil.com/
- For me the issue is that term defines a group of games that exists as a category it is just the subcategories are referred to more readily. This usage is what the official bodies of millions of members have fixed as the term so while there is a case that it is not prevalent in the language the adjective does get used.
- In respect of the article perhaps it makes more sense in reverse
- World Championships in Mind Sports
- but unless a game that is calling itself a mind sport is treated as no differently from a sport then there needs to be a way to have lists that parallel the sports lists as these make no reference as to why board games would be excluded
- the category could be directly subdivided into board game world championships and card game world championships but there is a group of events that fit into neither such as World Intelligence championships which even if not current notable could become so.Tetron76 (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think clearly the article name has unintended ambiguity and is therefore unintentionally defining a term.
- I think that some form of the article is important and I would like to see the existing article renamed (and where necessary improved) rather than deleted
- As I mentioned on the other page could it be renamed
- The page would can only list 'mind sports' that are called that by third party RS. Soome of the sources you provide above may not meet that critiria (but in this repsect its a bit of a toughy). Also you would have to establish notability of the subject, I am not sure that this has been done yet.Slatersteven (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As can be found in this article found in google news:
- [15]
- there are claims from the bodies that are defining the term mind sport have 500 million registered members.
- Wikipedia has the page Category:Mind sports it is a broad category
- Definitions of what counts as a mind sport can be complicated in the same way as - what is a game? and what is a sport? There are articles that unambiguously describe chess as a sport.
- Similarly there are definitions of games vs sports that clearly place baseball and cricket as games.
- I am not sure of the reliability of the source but for a clearer definition of what the term mind sport is supposed to be is found at:
- [17]
- I have tried to further update the page to conform to style of sports lists such as:
- List of world cups and world championships for juniors and youth
- have gathered information for the list from many scattered wikipedia pages:
- for example the Diplomacy (game) world championship results called WorldDipCon are only found on this page International prize list of Diplomacy
- there are many similarly disconnected pages where if you don't know the name of the event you will struggle to find the information.Tetron76 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New name resolves the concern will I think. Old name implied that some sort of overall competition existed which doesn't seem to be the case based on the references provided. New name makes things much clearer RadioFan (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep List seems like an appropriate place to combine references to a bunch of events of only marginal individual notability. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. T. Canens (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of University of Manitoba alumni[edit]
- List of University of Manitoba alumni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to cite sources. Any sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, while there is a real problem with the list lacking references, it's no reason to throw the list out. Notable alumni is a standard list of content for educational institutions. PKT(alk) 16:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. I don't think you understand when WP:OTHERSTUFF is actually a valid retort. It isn't here. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with postdlf here, WP:otherstuff is intended to defeat the "pokemon comparison," when the comparison is irrelevant. In this case it's a more valid comparison to say "we have these for other institutions, so why should that university be notable and not this one?" 65.29.47.55 (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. I just added footnotes for the As and Bs, took less than 10 minutes despite my slow typing skills. Nearly all of the names on this list are bluelinks, and a random check of articles suggests that the U of Manitoba connection is mentioned, and sourced, in the vast majority of them. Instead of wasting time with this AfD proceeding, why not put the same time into improving this easily improvable article?--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks like someone needs to review point #4 in WP:BEFORE. -- Ϫ 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With that many people on this list, it isn't reasonable to look for sources for them all. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons stated by PKT and Arxiloxos. --Orlady (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per above. A completely meritless AFD nom because there was absolutely no reason to believe this was unverifiable information. We do not delete articles for fixable problems, and the lack of references was obviously fixable here, given that the educational background of notable subjects is completely common information and a completely common list topic. Within four hours of this nom, 18 separate references were added, thus rendering moot even the insufficient deletion rationale provided above. This is not the first time the nom has listed this kind of list for deletion for the same reason; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of University of British Columbia alumni, which was also closed as keep with no one supporting the nom. This should not happen again. postdlf (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that just proves what a good idea the nomination was. The editors who added unsourced information about people, are the ones at fault. Some of the sourcing is rather lacking. When did a personal resume become a reliable source? Unsourced lists like this(was) run the risk of causing circular sourcing. Sadly, there are sources out there that are foolish enough to use Wikipedia as their source, especially for basic bio stuff like this. Really, a list like this should be properly sourced from the very beginning. If there are a few sources given, than an editor can just remove those names. But, if the whole thing is unsourced, a deletion nomination works well. Trying to source other people's unsourced additions is really a waste of time. It just encourages more irresponsible contributions. If people know their unsourced additions will be removed, they might source as they add material. Finally, it's worth noting, that it's now policy to delete BLPs that have no sources. So, it makes sense to also delete pages that are all about people (mainly living we hope) if there are no sources. I realize this page has sources now, so I'm not advocating deletion, but just noting that there were legitimate grounds when the nomination was made. --Rob (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, no. AFD is not cleanup. Not to mention that the sources for this list are incredibly easy to find. Editors should spend their energy contributing, not threatening other editors' work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The onus is on the person adding someone to the list to provide a reliable source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, BLP in no way compels the deletion of a list that is unsourced when not all of its entries are living; at most, it would compel the removal of the unsourced living entries. It reaches no farther than that. Given that the university opened in 1877, I doubt there are only living notable alumni. postdlf (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we're not compelled, but we can, and I think should. I brought up BLP, especially BLPPROD, mainly to counter the notion that "We do not delete articles for fixable problems". Actually, we do, in number of ways. With contentious material about living people there's an urgency. With the rest, we should still require verification eventually. This page has been around for years, without any sources. It's about time. It takes so little time for people to find sources when they add material (as the source is fresh in their mind). It's very difficult to add *good* sources later, as shown by the crappy quality of some sources add recently, some of which are worse than no source, because we give the illusion of proper sourcing. The reality of the matter, is that in many cases, there really is no reliable 3rd party source that confirms somebody's education. And, all we have to go on is what the person said about them self. And of course, one rarely finds a source that proves something isn't true, so unless we remove all unsourced claims, it's hard to remove unverifiable claims. --Rob (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, no, no. AFD is not cleanup. Not to mention that the sources for this list are incredibly easy to find. Editors should spend their energy contributing, not threatening other editors' work.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that just proves what a good idea the nomination was. The editors who added unsourced information about people, are the ones at fault. Some of the sourcing is rather lacking. When did a personal resume become a reliable source? Unsourced lists like this(was) run the risk of causing circular sourcing. Sadly, there are sources out there that are foolish enough to use Wikipedia as their source, especially for basic bio stuff like this. Really, a list like this should be properly sourced from the very beginning. If there are a few sources given, than an editor can just remove those names. But, if the whole thing is unsourced, a deletion nomination works well. Trying to source other people's unsourced additions is really a waste of time. It just encourages more irresponsible contributions. If people know their unsourced additions will be removed, they might source as they add material. Finally, it's worth noting, that it's now policy to delete BLPs that have no sources. So, it makes sense to also delete pages that are all about people (mainly living we hope) if there are no sources. I realize this page has sources now, so I'm not advocating deletion, but just noting that there were legitimate grounds when the nomination was made. --Rob (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Poor sourcing can be fixed; the ultimate argument is, "can this article stand apart from simply being an entry on University of Manitoba"? It's almost long enough to warrant being forked from UofM, so (to me) it's worth keeping. tedder (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious speedy keep. The objection has been answered. It was not a good reason for deletion in any case, because the criterion is sourceable, and the nom never made the least attempt to try--or even check for those that would be found in at least some of the many linked articles. Thivierr's argument is altogether wrong : we do not delete an entire article because some but not all of the content is unsourced information about living people, and for good measure that someone is an alumnus of this University is not contentious information in any conceivable sense of the term. That's extending the meaning of BLP to ludicrousness in several different directions. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arcanium[edit]
- Arcanium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Arcanium self-titled EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Band that has gone on a couple of notable tours, but as an opening act. The band is unsigned, has not released anything notable, and has not received any sort of significant coverage. I've bundled their self-titled EP in- an admin or experienced user can feel free to split them apart if they so desire. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Band not reaching WP:Music at present, may reach it in future, but we don't do articles based on what might happen.A1octopus (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame, too; I took a gander at their music and I like them, but I don't think they meet WP:BAND either. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deletion is ridiculous and unnecessary but it would appear your minds are made up on this matter. Thanks for the help.--Benjamindelury (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC) — Benjamindelury (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. Article fails WP:BAND; bit unlucky not to get more press from the tours they've been on really Postrock1 (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 17:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NIlit[edit]
- NIlit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article is only notable for one thing. Armbrust Talk Contribs 16:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The company name, per the article, is "Nilit, Ltd.," but the article has an uppercase I in the title, making it read the same as "NLLit" in the typical Wikipedia font. Normally we don't move articles to another title during an AFD, but in this case I suggest it be moved to the title of Nilit Ltd. because if someone searches for refs for "NLLit" they will not find any relevant to this company. Edison (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is a company operating in many countries, and has press coverage (Where it is shown as "Nilit Ltd." or "Nilit") expected of a major international company, as found in Google News Archive[18], such as Inteletex, 6 June 2006 "Fibers on the rise", with a couple of paragraphs indicating the company is a major one in its product, along with typical articles about acquisitions of other companies such as "Israeli company buys Nylstar (2009) which says they are "one of the world's largest nylon 6.6 producers for the apparel industry." See "Nilit strengthens presence in Chinese market" Knitting Industry News (2009), "Nilit Strengthens Presence and Position in Chinese Market" Yarns and Fibers (2007), "NILIT/ EURONIL New compounding plant in Italy/ Capacity of 7,000 t/y for PA compounds" Plasteurope.com (1996, "Israeli firm names Triad textile executive to head North America operations" The Business Journal (2007), "Nylon maker to open China operations" The Business Journal (2008). Multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage , so notability seems satisfied. Edison (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Sherr[edit]
- Jeremy Sherr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about a self-published author who claims to have "founded a school", but but this is not a school in the normally understood meaning of the term as it only teaches homeopathy and is not accredited or indeed notable. The Dynamis School seems to be pretty much a one-man band, which is common in a field where there is no quality assurance, no accreditation process, no independent review and no independent scientific scrutiny. The only sources about this individual are either vapid promotion, generally on his own websites or those selling his products, or knocking copy on the blogs and websites of skeptics. Sources for more neutral coverage, such as Google News, come up blank. I can find no proper independent or critical review of his work - actually I am not surprised as claiming to be able to cure AIDS with homeopathy is plainly bonkers and no credible source is likely to give it much thought. Guy (Help!) 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failure to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely agree with nominator. Sorry to see that speedy was declined, he looks like a prime candidate. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lanka Silat[edit]
- Lanka Silat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable martial art without sources to back up its notability with third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references were provided in the article. The search tool above shows some coverage (extent unknown) in one book and nothing in the news archives. Since it was created almost four years ago as the only edit of User:Lankasilat, there have been no additions to the text except for tagging and minor housekeeping Wikignome edits by others. There seems to be no likelihood of making it more encyclopedic. Fails notability, questionable on verifiability, seems to be original research. Edison (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This unsourced article gives no reasons why its subject is notable. My search found no independent sources that support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This an unsourced article that gives no reason why its subject is notable. The aforementioned book is merely a compiliation of Wikipedia articles, so no notability there. My own search found nothing to show it's notable and no independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 04:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pencak Silat Qutooz[edit]
- Pencak Silat Qutooz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non notable martial art without sources to back up its notability with third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references in the article except for a deadlink to a website, and the search links above only show one book which has some unknown coverage of it. Fails notability, questionable on verifiability. May be original research. Edison (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This one line article has a lot of problems. The main ones are that there's no reason given why it's notable and it has no sources (reliable or otherwise). Astudent0 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see nothing in this unsourced article that shows notability and my search didn't find anything to support it. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hengkai[edit]
- Hengkai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, and [19] reports the death of the last heir of the Qing dynasty. Dougweller (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Qing dynasty was deposed in 1912, and has no prospects for restoration at this late date(they did have a bit of a puppet comeback during WW2 Japanese rule of China), so even if he is descended from a Qing royal, he is not "in a line of succession" to become a head of state or national hereditary officeholder. This "line of succession" is very unclear, since the rules of succession were changed a couple of times in the 20th century (see Jin Youzhi for some details). Sometimes it has invloved being "adopted" or "designated as a successor" by an actual ruling emperor. With the passage of time and being out of power by the dynasty no one would be living who had been thus adopted or named as a successor. These articles then become a collection of original research. There is no automatic assumption of notability as in some royal lines which actually have a Queen in power somewhere. No references are supplied to document his ancestry, so questionable verifiability. Even if references documented his ancestry, there's nothing here to satisfy WP:BIO unless multiple independent and reliable sources have significant coverage of him. Certainly if a supposed descendant of an Emperor or King does something in his own right which satisfies WP:BIO then he should have an article. This individual is said by the article to be just working as an electrician. Edison (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Whitman (New Jersey)[edit]
- John Whitman (New Jersey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:INHERIT. Whitman was married to a Governor but that is not a notable position. TM
- Keep. I'm currently having trouble inserting references in the proper format and tried to insert the following two pertinent citations into the article in order to bolster his notability. From Lexis-Nexis Academic database:
- Hudson, Audrey. EPA moves to confiscate files in probe of Whitman's husband, Washington Times, April 18, 2002, p. A04
- Hudson, Audrey. Investigator for EPA sues Whitman over job; says action on position is personal., Washington Times, January 11, 2002, p. A1
Both of these articles mention Mr. Whitman and his roles in various notable financial organizations (including Citigroup), as well as potential conflicts of interest caused by his marriage to Ms. Whitman. Broader searches do turn up about 10 more articles on the same subject, most of them in the Washington Times. Article needs to have these included, but until I can get my tech problem ironed out am putting them here as evidence of notability. Feel free to disagree. This is not something I would go to the mat for. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep especially if someone beefing it up. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Christine Todd Whitman. The coverage above, and such others as turn up on a casual Gnews search, mentions him only trivially in the context of his wife's political career. Based on what I see now, I conclude subject fails WP:GNG. RayTalk 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christine Todd Whitman. Only seems to be notable due to this connection, and notability is not inherited.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have expanded this article and added a number of references, but have not yet done all that can be done with this subject. There are a lot more sources available that I have not had the time to incorporate into the article. Subject clearly meets the GNG on his own without being the husband of one governor and the grandson of another. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 15:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Ansary[edit]
- Alex Ansary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to establish notability of an individual. Zero hits in Google News, and zero actual hits in Google Books. References given are not high on WP:V. tedder (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- lack of reliable sources. Jsayre64 (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Choruipatra Rakkhagar[edit]
- Choruipatra Rakkhagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non Notable "library" of small magazines. Little or no coverage. WormTT 12:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Two major problems. The only source cited in the article is the subject of the article itself (the latest published edition). Image supplied in the article is stated to be an advertisement for the subject of the article. Existence of publications and advertisement for publications are not sufficient to independently establish notability; possible spam. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete. I suspect there may well be some offline sources on this subject but I cannot search for them (and I don't have the language skills). However, we have to judge the article as it stands, and lacking those sources it doesn't meet notability requirements. bobrayner (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete for me too. This has no way of meeting our notability criteria, as it stands now. It looks like a specialty library covering a niche area in bengali literature and these things dont get the mainstream newspaper coverage they rightly deserve.--Sodabottle (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Boris Zubry[edit]
- Boris Zubry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-promotion (created by User:Bzubry). Nothing proves the notability of the person. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability is established Zakhalesh (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It would appear that his primary claim to notability would be as a writer. I can find event announcements in newspapers for promotion of his books, but no coverage about him in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, his 3 books have been published through 3 different self-publishing companies. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Writer of nn self-published books. RayTalk 08:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth Swyers[edit]
- Kenneth Swyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Story about a skydiver who died attempting to land on St Louis Arch. No independent extended or lasting coverage, not particularly notable, person is not apparently notable for anything else. I have added a ref but believe this fails notability criteria per WP:GNG, doesn't pass anything under WP:NSPORTS and appears to be a one-event wonder ClubOranjeT 10:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This one fatal stunt is the only coverage about him, and is essentially a news item that generated coverage only at that time. The only other coverage in subsequent years are as a footnote or trivia item related to the arch. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is to keep following improvement to the article PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Franz Anatol Wyss[edit]
- Franz Anatol Wyss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Searching GNews I find one relevant article about an exhibition and GBooks shows his self-published catalogues and tangential mentions but nothing to show significant impact in the sense of WP:ARTIST such as notable awards or permanent exhibition in major public galleries. The German Wikipedia article has no relevant sources or anything to suspect the :en version is likely to meet the ARTIST criteria in the near future. A freelance artist who may have many temporary exhibitions in his lifetime may not be notable in an encyclopaedic sense. Previously prodded and de-prodded without a rationale or improvement so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the article as it is doesn't deserve to be kept. But I found bio information that perhaps makes a difference swissartguide.ch, leaving to art experts to judge his awards, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, if only to make the point that 8 words is not an article. His bio does claim works in several important museum print collections (eg Berlin, Basel), but this has to be much less significant than paintings in similar collections. Another of Dr Blofeld's abandoned newborns. Who will ever expand this? Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ask and ye shall receive dearest John. Sometimes a pretty please would go a long way instead of resorting to personal attacks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not enough to go on...Modernist (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The GBooks hits seem to indicate there's plenty of sourcing available, it's just those sources aren't in English. Edward321 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep After checking a copy of the catalogue of the Gotthard Bank Collection (luckily held by the British Library), I am happy to go along with the opinion of Gotthard Bank in that they believe that Wyss is a notable post-war contemporary Swiss artist. As the nominator of this AfD this is not an automatic speedy keep, however with the additional information I have added to the article there is now some possibility of further improvement. Fæ (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Per Fae. There are not an abundance of sources online about this artist but enough I believe to meet requirements with the Gotthard source.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep expanded now and supported by the German National Library, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the coverage available does not meet the requirements for showing notability, and so this article should be deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Madhu Pandit Dasa[edit]
- Madhu Pandit Dasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable source added since the article tagged in June 2010. No neutral sources that comply with BLP requirements are found. As per BLP policy it has to be removed or turned to stub. Wikidas© 09:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he is notable (User) Mb (Talk) 22:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss how this subject is notable? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of these reliable sources is already in the article.Gaura79 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)d[reply]
- Keep Notable religious leader.Gaura79 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject is notable. He has received significant coverage in this Times of India article and in other RS. In 1997 he received a notable award. This source states
Gaura79 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]The Bangalore chapter of Rotary International presented their 1997 "Man of the Year" award to Madhu Pandita Dasa, the president of ISKCON Bangalore. State Cabinet Minister Sri Byre Gowda presented the award.
- Delete One local interest piece in the ToI doesn't cut it (yes, that bio piece is in the city supplement), and a local Rotary award isn't a claim to notability either. —SpacemanSpiff 18:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that the subjects meets the criteria for inclusion. Standard BLP guidelines would give guidance on what can and cannot go in the article, which should be sufficient to assuage privacy concerns. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yuan Tengfei[edit]
- Yuan Tengfei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a biography of a living person, a Chinese middle-school teacher who apparently made some hyperbolic and potentially inflammatory remarks in lectures recorded for classroom use. He received unwelcome public exposure when some of his remarks were posted on the internet, and is not otherwise notable. As the cited essay on a website devoted to covering "Chinese media, advertising, and urban life" says: "Yuan recently stated that it was not his intention to publish the video [...] He even pleaded for more privacy, arguing that what is done in a high school class room should go no further." I propose this article be deleted in keeping with the board resolution for "taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account [...] especially in articles of ephemeral or marginal interest." Ningauble (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Ningauble (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No notability shown. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. Described by a NYT article as "Perhaps the most famous maverick teacher in China," [20], and Korea Times has coverage of him giving a 110-minute lecture on state TV [21]. More than suffices for notability. RayTalk 02:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: My !vote as nominator is almost neutral, but I brought it for discussion because I am concerned about the potential for harm from increased public scrutiny in cases or borderline notability. Coverage of his work, as cited above by Ray, and elsewhere, is interesting but does not have a much depth. Whether this sort of "fame" amounts to "notability" can be a tough call. Significantly, that fame appears to derive primarily from materials released on the internet that he did not intend for publication, rather than from being seen on TV or from his published works. Even though newsworthiness is evident, in the absence of deeper coverage of his work and its influence I think the presumption of encyclopedic notability is relatively weak. He may become more highly notable in the future as an education reformer (or political martyr) but, for the time being, it might be more appropriate to limit our coverage to relevant information in topical articles on Education in China than to make it personal with a biography.
The present stub may appear to be innocuous, but to keep a stub on a person is to call for its expansion into a full-fledged biography. In light of his plea that "Every one please just chill out, concentrate on your own business,"[22], his complaint that "It’s a tragedy for China that I say one or two true things and get so much attention,"[23], and similar remarks elsewhere, I have serious reservations about exposing his personal biography to undue public scrutiny. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be sure, he's only a public person in a limited sense. But we have lots of biographies of people who are mostly private - BLP has rules governing what is and is not relevant to include in such a biography. It doesn't mean we don't cover them. RayTalk 00:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Yuan may be unknown in the western world, but, a search on Google using his Chinese name:, 袁腾飞, the result is:"About 4,320,000 results in 0.17 seconds". He has achieved a near celebrity status in Chinese blogosphere. Arilang talk 12:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yuan Tengfei did not plead his case for privacy on Wikipedia. If the celebrated blogger wants off of WP, I think he can find it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York. I am closing this as a merge. There were two possibilities given as a merge target, and I have chosen List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York - if anyone disagrees, the precise target can be discussed on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St. Frances Xavier Cabrini's Church (New York City)[edit]
- St. Frances Xavier Cabrini's Church (New York City) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability requirements as a company or organization Yaksar (let's chat) 06:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Danger 14:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Article has no references and no assertion of notability, so it looks very non-notable. However, if this church is related to the life of Francesca S. Cabrini, the St. Frances Cabrini Shrine, etc., and not merely named after her, it might be notable. (It does not appear to be directly related to Mother Cabrini, but I can't tell for sure.) --Orlady (talk) 14:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does seem to be merely named after her, there's been no connection found.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A third paragraph has been added concerning St. Frances, her remains, and a different shrine has been added. I don't see any connection between this paragraph and the subject of this page, but I'm looking into it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now - it appears that this has been improved since the nomination, and there are seven footnotes. Not that these are the most reliable sources, or that they directly address the main topic of the article, but it looks close enough for me. I'm particularly interested in Saint's head, but that's getting a bit off-topic. The article does need to assert notability however. I think the needed improvements can be made. Smallbones (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I've had to delete most of the added information. One paragraph was just about the neighboring church, and the other was about the shrine and school, which are dedicated to the Saint but have no relation to this church.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We had more than 1 edit conflict at various pages - I do think it is very bad form to delete material from an article at the same time as you are pushing for an AfD. I do hope you put the material back in. The only reason that you should edit an article is to improve it. Here you are raising the possibility that you are deleting material in order to delete the article. Very bad form. Smallbones (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I deleted the info because it was misleading; at first glance I thought it was relevant and was grounds for the notability of this church. However, I can see no reason why information on a neighboring church's services should be added, nor can I see any reason to include information on a school and shrine that, while named for the same saint, are completely unrelated to this church. I'd have made the same edit to any article, regardless of whether I was involved in an AfD or not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section deleted (Good Shepherd Church) that you claimed was "misleading" involved the alternative venue where parish services take place. It is now an ecumenical venue and may be the primary location for the parish. The other section on Mother Cabrini, which you have shortened and deleted, is regarding the transferring of her relics to northern Manhattan from New York State. Since her shrine was built in the 1960s, this is relevant for the dedication decision of the parish on Roosevelt Island. As a parish church on Roosevelt Island, the church appears notable. There are likely other connections that remain to be found.---James R (talk)
- I'm quite confused. How does the fact that her relics were moved from Western New York to Manhattan relate to this article? This church is in neither of those locations. But I may have actually been a bit too hasty in removing the Good Shepherd Church; there's at least some connection, so I apologize and will add it back in. However, it doesn't really do anything to increase or indicate notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The section deleted (Good Shepherd Church) that you claimed was "misleading" involved the alternative venue where parish services take place. It is now an ecumenical venue and may be the primary location for the parish. The other section on Mother Cabrini, which you have shortened and deleted, is regarding the transferring of her relics to northern Manhattan from New York State. Since her shrine was built in the 1960s, this is relevant for the dedication decision of the parish on Roosevelt Island. As a parish church on Roosevelt Island, the church appears notable. There are likely other connections that remain to be found.---James R (talk)
- I deleted the info because it was misleading; at first glance I thought it was relevant and was grounds for the notability of this church. However, I can see no reason why information on a neighboring church's services should be added, nor can I see any reason to include information on a school and shrine that, while named for the same saint, are completely unrelated to this church. I'd have made the same edit to any article, regardless of whether I was involved in an AfD or not.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just an ordinary church with no special claim to notability. It may be named for a famous person, but that doesn't mean it itself is notable. Ravendrop (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficiently referenced and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or merge/redirect if an appropriate destination article exits) - The article has been improved by the addition of reference citations and new info. However, it is now clear to me that there is no connection to Mother Cabrini that would impart notability, and the information and sources that have been added do not indicate that this is anything other than a run-of-the-mill local church. The sources cited in the article do not establish notability per WP:GNG, as they are either nonindependent (i.e., http://www.parishesonline.com/ and the church's own website), not about this church (i.e., [24]) or trivial/unreliable (i.e., the blog http://catholicmanhattan.blogspot.com ). None of the factoids in the article are indicative of special notability. Specifically: being established in 1973 is not a claim to notability; being named for a saint does not make a local Catholic church/parish notable; being located near an historic Episcopal church and sometimes conducting mass there is not a basis for notability; and being located on Roosevelt Island and being part of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York are not notable attributes. --Orlady (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge (with Good Shepherd) The article needs improvement and suffers from being on Roosevelt Island in the County of New York, but not featured in any comprehensive publications that have made it online regarding Manhattan Churches, or any other city architectural reference. There are published sources but their absence online makes them difficult to track down immediately.---James R (talk)
- When I was looking up articles and images on the church, I could not find the structure separate from Good Shepherd Church. It turns out Good Shepherd ecumenically doubles as St. Francis Cabrini Roman Catholic Church. Either this article merges with that article, or this article is solely about the parish.---James R (talk)
- I don't think this is the case. Their respective websites list different addresses, nothe same ones. It's entirely possible that there just aren't any easy to find images of the building on the internet. In regards to your first point; we can't just assume that there are reliable sources that establish notability of this church without actually knowing they exist.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge into List of churches in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York, including all the significant information from this article, and expand the information about every one of the churches in that list article into about a paragraph for each, making a good combination article (it may, of course, need subdivision because of size). Neither extreme is encyclopedic: not a full article, but also not a mere mere listing,. We need to be more flexible about how we deal with this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG. Verifiable content ought not to be lost. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this double homicide has received enough on-going coverage that it meets the criteria for inclusion, and that it is not a trivial event PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schenecker double homicide[edit]
- Schenecker double homicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Sadly we live in a world where crimes like these are not out of the ordinary. This article is based entirely upon routine news reporting and doesn't demonstrate the lasting significance or notability of this crime. In my view, the time of creation was/is too close to the event to be adequately able to judge WP:INDEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE as of yet. I say this article should be deleted now without prejudice for re-creation if notability can later be assertained. 4meter4 (talk) 07:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I ummmed and ahhed over writing the article in the first place (after being prompted) and could be convinced that it is simply routine news. On the other hand, the incident has garnered national coverage and fairly deep analysis/interest, specifically as the mother just seems to have snapped and killed her children, definitely not a common crime. At the moment I feel the incident is just on the right side of the notability border --Errant (chat!) 07:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way do you feel this subject meets the notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events)?4meter4 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Honest answer; I can't exactly bring myself to vote to delete an article I created. On balance I suspect you are right, on the other hand the sources were there and I got prompted to create it. There are interesting elements to the case which might develop. I swapped "weak keep" to "comment" just for balance. Not going to resist community consensus to delete --Errant (chat!) 18:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I cannot see the significance or notability of this event. True, there are plenty of reliable news sources, but with all the hype it's gotten in the media, that's to be expected. What I don't see is why this murder, as opposed to the thousands of similar murders, merits its own article. I agree with the nominator that it is simply just too soon after the event to determine the long-term notability of the event. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 18:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why this deletion frenzy? you yourself points out many aspects that is making this article into a Keep article, but you still makes it to delete? Strange to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no idea what you are refering to as a "deletion frenzy", but feel free to call me a deletionist if you like. I personally don't believe Wikipedia should have an article about every newsworthy event that happens in the world. Newsworth ≠ notable. Just because the media makes a bit deal about a sensational murder doesn't mean that it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Sure, it has plenty of sources, but is it notable in the long run?
- Of course, should this case have long-term ramifications in terms of law, policy, copy-cat killings, forensic science (etc), then I would say it was notable. The problem with the media is that it's all about selling newspapers -- it is in their best interests to perpetuate a sensational story. As of right now, this event is not notable enough to merit its own article. It may in the future. And, if it does merit an article in the future, then it should be written. Not now. WP:CRYSTAL. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why this deletion frenzy? you yourself points out many aspects that is making this article into a Keep article, but you still makes it to delete? Strange to say the least.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - All over the news. Is on the right side of the notability border. Has as ErrantX states been highly publizied and has alot of facts that isnt pointing toward your every day kind of crime.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seem to be the usual," we cant determine the long term notability" but as usual the nominatior always seem to have the knowledge about the articles long term notability. This is simply a guessing game which can not be evaluated until a future date, thats why it better to keep than to delete.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fox News just now reported on Julie Scheneckers case that she had pleaded not guilty to the crimes. Which means a lengthy trial and also a very possible death sentence which will make her just the second woman on Floridas death row. Just another of many points that makes me say Keep for this article. Mukkakukaku states that he/she doesnt see any reason for why this particular murder is different, its different because it has gained world wide attention. In my country on the other side of the globe this particular case has been mutch in the media. also the fact that she is facing death row as only the second woman on it makes this case notable, also the facts surrounding the case and the fact that mothers murdering their on kids like this is very unusual, plus death letter and comments from Julie Schenecker puts this case above the general murder investigations and cases. Thats my final word on this strange Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Babbq, read what I said about "recreation without prejudice". This is a "guessing game" as you call it. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for guessing games. Read WP:CRYSTAL. The only thing to do here is delete. Also, your arguements all seemed to be based on your own personal interest and not wikipedia notability policy. I suggest you read/familiarize yourself with the relevant policies before voting in AFD discussions.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, opinion is based on the fact that I am 100% certain that this article is notable. And that the Deletionists are grasping for straws in arguments for deletion. I care to differ the only thing that is right to do here is to Keep and let time run its course. Why this deletion frenzy..? Just asking. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Babbq, read what I said about "recreation without prejudice". This is a "guessing game" as you call it. Wikipedia policy doesn't allow for guessing games. Read WP:CRYSTAL. The only thing to do here is delete. Also, your arguements all seemed to be based on your own personal interest and not wikipedia notability policy. I suggest you read/familiarize yourself with the relevant policies before voting in AFD discussions.4meter4 (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fox News just now reported on Julie Scheneckers case that she had pleaded not guilty to the crimes. Which means a lengthy trial and also a very possible death sentence which will make her just the second woman on Floridas death row. Just another of many points that makes me say Keep for this article. Mukkakukaku states that he/she doesnt see any reason for why this particular murder is different, its different because it has gained world wide attention. In my country on the other side of the globe this particular case has been mutch in the media. also the fact that she is facing death row as only the second woman on it makes this case notable, also the facts surrounding the case and the fact that mothers murdering their on kids like this is very unusual, plus death letter and comments from Julie Schenecker puts this case above the general murder investigations and cases. Thats my final word on this strange Afd.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - for the context here, the AfD arose after I queried the hook that was being used for the potential DYK submission of this article. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion myself, but I can see there are reasonable arguments in favour of deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Enough sources to provide a deep coverage of the event so far. Also national and international coverage.--195.84.40.131 (talk) 06:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — 195.84.40.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep This is not a trivial event. There are a wide range of sources. Coverage is national. Coverage has been sustained for more than two weeks. This meets several of the criteria in WP:EVENT. The incident has not attracted international coverage in the main reliable sources, though has been picked up by various minor news agencies and sources, such as UK and India. People have commented that there is a feeling that this AfD has been a bit hasty. I understand the concern that Wikipedia does not report every trivial news item, and it is appropriate that an eye is kept on recent news related articles to ensure trivial articles are not created; however, when a news item gets the sustained depth and spread of coverage that this one has, then it is unlikely to be trivial, and at the very least, time should be given to see how things develop before bringing such news items to AfD. SilkTork *YES! 09:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You have it backwords SilkTork. WP:Crystal would suggest that time should have been taken before creating the article in the first place. Keeping something because it may prove notable later sets a bad precedent.4meter4 (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have so many guidelines that it is quite common for them to be misquoted or misunderstood - I have frequently struggled with some guidelines and got it wrong. WP:Crystal is a guideline about forthcoming events, it does not apply to events that have already occurred. The murder actually happened, and there were sources on it by the time the article was created. The reasons why an article may be brought to deletion are covered in WP:DEL#REASON, which links to WP:NOT which contains both WP:Crystal and WP:NOTNEWS. Crystal doesn't apply here, but NotNews does, and NotNews is expanded upon in detail in WP:EVENT which attempts to clarify the wooly areas of news coverage of events. There is a sliding scale. We are aware that some news items are notable. And some are WP:LOCAL or trivial. WP:EVENT makes a good attempt at clarifying the point at which we judge when an event is not trivial and local and when it becomes significant. This event, as I indicated above, meets several of the criteria in WP:EVENT because coverage is in depth, diverse, and reflective, with national and international coverage (I did an incorrect search initially - there are major news reports in the UK - [25]). I think your point is that at the time the article was nominated for deletion there was not enough coverage to judge notability. Well, it was nominated 16 Feb when substantial coverage had already been established, and there were a number of reliable sources in the article. Even if it had been nominated on the first day the article had been created, it would have been questionable because at that point the story had reached international levels and coverage was more substantial than the average murder. The UK doesn't normally get reports on murders in America. This AfD is useful as indicating when a news item is newsworthy. Sustained, in depth international coverage indicates notability. This news item has sustained, in depth international coverage which includes significant opinion and analysis. SilkTork *YES! 10:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems like a clear case of WP:NOTNEWS. Murders happen all the time, nothing particular about this one.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - well sourced, something which is enabled by the fact the article is centred around a major event which has occurred, and which has attracted much publicity. See how the case develops if people are that concerned about notability. But this is way too early for an AfD. Orphan Wiki 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crederity[edit]
- Crederity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} |
None of the refs provide any evidence of notability, as far as I can find, and the author of the article has declined to help to pointing out if any. Dicklyon (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
External references have been added and discrepancies have been deleted to comply with general notability guidelines, do review the reordered references and citations and additional references. Haribhagirath (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked you in two places to point out which, if any, sources support the notability criteria in WP:ORG. Did you? Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems to be a simple introduction about a company.The references provided are from websites which are completely independent.As far as I can see its a company over-view, and there is no attempt of advertisement over here.Its a company registered in India, hence the chances of posting online credentials is limited.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.assasin (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - More than enough coverage, by a variety of different sources, to meet the WP:GNG. --Orlady (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been asking the author for examples of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Maybe you can point some out. I haven't seen it; maybe it's not among what's cited? See Wikipedia:ORG#Primary_criteria; it looks to me like all the cited sources are "trivial" coverage by these criteria. Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the two most solid third-party reliably sourced references are http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/36126/Innovate+and+enrich.html?complete=1 and http://www.livemint.com/2009/09/14205834/Firms-cash-in-on-the-startup.html . These aren't press releases -- both of these articles involved a journalist interviewing Rakesh Antala and writing a profile of the business. Additionally, http://in.reuters.com/article/2009/08/24/idINIndia-41938220090824 has only a little bit of content specifically about Crederity, but it's a very solid source, and the "Red Herring" listing and its appearance on the Wharton School list indicate that the business has received independent attention from diverse directions. --Orlady (talk) 05:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the WP:ORG guidelines are adhered, I believe references are independent and secondary Haribhagirath (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that User:Haribhagirath is the author, and a WP:SPA for this business (and his buddy User:Raja.assasin above seems to be puppet made for the purpose of supporting him here). He still hasn't answered which sources, if any, support the notability criteria. I looked at the first 5 or so, and they don't. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do verify 11 references instead of 5. (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. A perfect example of why counting "references" is not good enough; nothing establishes that this back-office personnel business running background checks has had a significant impact on history, culture, or technology; nor would we expect it to, given that it's a 2007 startup. And the references are routine announcements of funds raised, announcements of the startup, top 100 lists, and stories about background checks generally. No showing of long term historical notability here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 01:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Mr. Dicklyon...I am no puppet(wiki has a facility to track Ip addresses...it can gladly do the same with me)...I strongly feel that the article has enough online references to be a part of wikipedia....Facebook was 2004 startup...it did make a significant impact.The reference meet the criteria that wikipedia has set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raja.assasin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Second significant impact comments of Smerdis of Tlön (but subtract the 2007 comment). Crederity doesn't have to be a Facebook, but it needs to do something noteworthy to get its own article. Glrx (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zeki Oralhan[edit]
- Zeki Oralhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason A 26-year old PhD student. Says he is studying Genomics. Reference given is a document saying he is admitted PhD candidate in 2008 along with six others. I cannot find any published articles. Bgwhite (talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete under WP:CSD#A7: No indication of importance. --Lambiam 09:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability. Just a student. Cullen328 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indicator of notability. I suggest this is a good candidate for a WP:SNOW delete to any passing admins. RayTalk 08:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Snow Delete. No WP:RS. "He is known for Genomics study" is not a credible claim of notability. My guess is, given the WP:SPA-creator account's only 3 edits are here, that this is nothing more than a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Samar Chatterjee[edit]
- Samar Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable engineer fails WP:PROF, lack of reliable third party sources, creation and possible WP:AUTOBIO of SPA who hasn't edited since April 2010. Result last time was "no consensus" but article has not been improved since then. Jonathanwallace (talk) 05:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support deletion. Jonathan Wallace slightly cleaned up the article yesterday, by deleting a paragraph that violated not only BLP but also violated basic grammar and civility. The rest of the article is not much better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Negligible impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep.Original nominator failed to state a rationale for disregarding sources. There are lots of sources given to support this article and something needs to be said about them if the claim of "lack of reliable third party sources" is to stand. The article is bad and it may be an AUTOBIO of an SPA but if it the article's subject meets WP:GNG, and the statements in the article and sourcing seem to indicate that this biography does, then the article should remain. Blue Rasberry 09:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The references are to primary source technical articles co-authored by him or written by others about the technical field in which he is interested (bridge failure). His is apparently a common name (shared by a Bollywood actor/director and others) but I wasn't able to find any third party newspaper or other coverage, awards etc. establishing notability in his field or in the political endeavors claimed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references seem to mostly be primary sources but I have not seen any of them because none are online. The way the article is written suggests that most of the articles say something about the article's subjects personal involvement in the topics discussed in the primary sources. Sources such as this one "Biography of Samar Chatterjee", SAFE Research Newsletter, SAFE Foundation, Washington, DC, September, 2009." suggest that the article's subject meets GNG. I also am unable to find any sources or verify that any of the cited sources exist, but without having some reason to believe that the given sources are not good I am going to WP:ASF. I wholeheartedly agree that having more sources and especially online sources would be helpful, but for me to consider deletion I would need someone to at least make an assertion that the given sources are bogus for some reason. Blue Rasberry 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Some primary sources are used, but it is not obvious to me why anyone would say that none of these sources are independent of the subject. Please elaborate on what you see wrong with any of these sources. As I understand, Wikipedia precedent is to keep articles with even one good source and these all seem good to me.
- Khemani, P., "Life Profiles of Pioneer Batch: Indian Institute of Technology", E-Book, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India, February, 2010.
- Biography of Samar Chatterjee", SAFE Research Newsletter, SAFE Foundation, Washington, DC, September, 2009.
- Sameera Khan, "Global Focus on Environmental Liabilities: Indian Industry Faces Cleanup Pressures," Business Insurance, October 2, 1995, page G1.
- Editors, "The Integrated Steel Plants: Pollution Management Effective Solutions", The Economic Times Mumbai, June 5, 1996, The Indian Steel Supplement
- Blue Rasberry 02:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SAFE Foundation reference appears to be a self published source of the subject, see for example this page where he is listed as President, SAFE Foundation. The only ghits are apparently unrelated groups dealing with drug addiction and other matters. Both Economic Times and Business Insurance have archives and resources online and disclose 0 occurrences of his name. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I find your rationale compelling. Thanks for doing the research on this. This article has a lot of problems, with the biggest ones being that claims of notability are dubiously traced back to the article's subject in references and that other references do not purport to source any claims which would indicate notability. Blue Rasberry 10:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am a little surprised that someone chooses to open ths can of worms all over again. As I said in the last discussion (same topic), we have chosen to keep bios of porn-stars who figure in Google searches, but since scholarly publications from a third-world contry don't, and neither does exemplary civil engineering work from the 1960's, again in a third world country, does not mean the person is not notable. It just means that the person is not enjoy the same high visibility. So change that to a stong keep. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SAFE Foundation reference appears to be a self published source of the subject, see for example this page where he is listed as President, SAFE Foundation. The only ghits are apparently unrelated groups dealing with drug addiction and other matters. Both Economic Times and Business Insurance have archives and resources online and disclose 0 occurrences of his name. Jonathanwallace (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some primary sources are used, but it is not obvious to me why anyone would say that none of these sources are independent of the subject. Please elaborate on what you see wrong with any of these sources. As I understand, Wikipedia precedent is to keep articles with even one good source and these all seem good to me.
- The sources are not independent of the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It is really not an issue of third world versus first world. There is a lack of verifiable third party sources in Indian media too. I was unable to confirm from their archives that Economic Times has any mention of him. Due to the apparent conflict of interest problem of the article creator, and the extraordinary unsourced claims made about his saving companies (and in the original version) being harassed and wrongly imprisoned by the U.S. government, we really need to confirm that he has ever been mentioned or discussed in a newspaper article or other source not under his immediate control. All of this discussion across two AFD nominations, and we still don't have one independent source. WP:PROF says, "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I second what Jonathanwallace is saying, Nshuks7. The issue is notability and verifiability. The claims which could indicate notability are both not verifiable and show some likelihood of bias. Were it not for this article's creation by a SPA and the dubious inclusion of a self-published source which does not indicate openly that the article's subject authored it, I might WP:AGF. There are lots of sources in this article but they are not about the article's subject; these are only his lifetime work products, and these are not suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If the article remains then still 80% of it would need to be deleted outright for irrelevance and the remaining 20% would be as best I can tell unverifiable or WP:OR.
- India is more desperate for sexy media content than any other place in the world and I assure you that when Bollywood starts making porn that every performer India produces will have as much published biographical content as any other Indian celebrity, meaning more than any Indian civil engineer. It is perhaps unfair that the world publishes more about socialites than people who run the world, but this is a WP:V and WP:N issue and not a rich versus poor issue. Western civil engineers also live lives outside of third-party media commentary.
- I support the idea of you keeping this in your sandbox in case a single verifiable claim to notability is discovered, but still keeping a page for this person would not include keeping all the bad content which is making up this page. Blue Rasberry 10:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obsessive psychogeography[edit]
- Obsessive psychogeography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be completely original research. There are no mentions of this to be found anywhere else on the internet. Proposed deletion was contested. -- Lear's Fool 05:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool 05:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced, and I could find no references from reliable sources. It seems likely that it is made up as some sort of tongue-in-cheek joke. Cullen328 (talk) 06:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The author, Tclark1755, writes on the article's Talk page, "I am trying to introduce a type of cartography/mapmaking/artist practice called obsessive geography". There are only 3 genuine Google hits for this term, two of which are for its as a tag for a a video by Tim Clark and photos by tclark1755. Wikipedia content is required to be verifiable. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Qwfp (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unambiguous attempt to use Wikipedia to publicise something made up. Original research in Wikipedia's sense, but in real life terms to call it "research" is to flatter it. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Obsessive psychogeography" a term recently introduced via a blog by someone called Tim Clark. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This could arguably qualify as unremarkable web content, but I suppose AfD works well enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Ruckman[edit]
- Peter Ruckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:ACADEMIC, WP:AUTHOR or anything else in BIO. He does not appear notable in any media or scholarly circles as being a writer or teacher. This article is mainly sourced to Ruckman's vanity press (Pensacola Bible Press) and his home/non-accredited school (Pensacola Bible Institute). His critics likewise are self-published websites, which are few and criticize him for his UFO conspiracies.
This bio was nominated for deletion five years ago (2006). It resulted in "no consensus" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ruckman, with people who wanted to keep saying it has a lot of google hits. But if you look at the footnotes, there is not substance to demonstrate this person is a famous writer or anything else. To keep an article it must have a "widely recognized contribution," but there is no proof of it. If you look at the history of the article little has changed since 2006.
- I also noticed that a user named "PSRuckman" years ago added a lot of material and wanted to keep the article (but removed the negative material). I don't know if that matters, but wanted to include in case. DaleMoonta1 (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — DaleMoonta1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete This article fails every aspect of notability. After some effort to see if the subject was at all likely to achieve notability, my impression is that it would not. I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. My76Strat 04:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article and the King James Only movement article cite sufficient commentary to show that he is a significant and controversial figure within that movement. See, for example, the extensive discussion of Ruckman and "Ruckmanism" in these books.[26][27] I can't see how deleting this article would improve the encyclopedic coverage of this corner of the fundamentalist world.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ruckman article is based on self-published material. Self-published vanity presses do not prove notablity.
- A google book search for "ruckmanism" has a whopping SIX hits (including self-published books by George and McHugh). How is that "extensive" or demonstrate BIO's "widely recognized contribution"? Looking at your two links (1/3 of the google book results), they mention it/him on TWO pages out of 364 pages, and in the other published by a Baptist publisher, mentions him TWO times (not including the footnotes citing his self-published books) in the whole book. How is that "extensive" by any meaning of the word?
- Searches for "Peter Ruckman" in google books turn up more hits, but also contain unrelated Ruckmans and very sparse coverage of the related one. Other google book hits are from Books LLC (not to be confused with new material or actual books), unrelated Peter Ruckmans from the 19th century, ONE minor mention in a book from the 1970s, and more unrelated Peter Ruckmans.
- The reason the article is so bad now is that it depends on self-published works of Ruckman and some web critics' self-published blogs. There are no third party sources.DaleMoonta1 (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The article meets every aspect of notability. Those who believe otherwise are simply unaware of the long-standing controversy that has swirled around this man in fundamentalist circles. The folks who support or denounce Ruckman and his teachings are unlikely to publish in scholarly journals. And the reason why the article hasn't changed much in the last few years is that Ruckman has become less active as he's gotten older. Checking traffic statistics, I notice that "Peter Ruckman" received 2400 hits last month compared with about half that for Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University.--John Foxe (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does not having sources and traffic compared to other articles help this discussion? WP:BIO states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)." (Also Bob Jones III clearly meets WP:PROF: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution"). What critera of this or WP:AUTHOR does Ruckman meet and what WP:RS are there? DaleMoonta1 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't argue from Google or Alexa hits but from Wikipedia's own traffic statistics. Furthermore, I believe White to be a reliable source and Ruckman to be the founder and head of a Bible school.
- At the risk of appearing to bite a newcomer, I'm highly suspicious of someone whose first activity at Wikipedia is an attempt to delete an article that's been up in some form or other since 2004.--John Foxe (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does not having sources and traffic compared to other articles help this discussion? WP:BIO states: "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits or Alexa ranking)." (Also Bob Jones III clearly meets WP:PROF: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution"). What critera of this or WP:AUTHOR does Ruckman meet and what WP:RS are there? DaleMoonta1 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I have no real opinion about Ruckman and his notability or lack thereof, I really have to say that WP traffic statistics have no bearing at all on notability. If that's the best the people voting "keep" can come up with, the case for deletion is solid. If Ruckman is so controversial in some circles, certainly there are reliable independent sources that show this. Having said this, I, too, am suspicious of new editors whose first contribution is to AfD an article. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have now had a moment to look at this bio. No independent reliable sources, only self-published stuff. No evidence of notability at all. --Crusio (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Three independent, non-self-published references mentioning Ruckman and cited in the article:
- David G. Burke, ed., Translation That Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible (Society of Biblical Literature, 2009).
- Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2001).
- James White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995), 1-4.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this article should not exist - however, merging with Greater India is not agreed here. As such, I am closing this as delete PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indian reunification[edit]
- Indian reunification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is full or WP:OR and sourced from dubious sources. There have been a couple of back and forth reverts redirecting the article to Greater India. Except one all the references/external links are to blogs and non WP:RS links. And the Indian Express link is an opinion piece by Sudheendhara Kulkarni which vaguely muses about "unification". I believe this article covers exactly the same ground as Greater India and should be deleted. Sodabottle (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems like a notable concept, distinct from "Greater India" in the same way that a proposal to unite the United States, Canada, and Mexico would be distinct from "North America." The article needs to change its tone so that it is reporting notable people who have advocated this, not that it itself is doing so. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Greater India seems to be a "stalking horse" for this, the real topic of interest. No longer true since much additional material has been added. However I suspect that this whole topic is driven by the will rather than the intellect, for the most part. (Or to put it another way by the future not by the present or the past. I think people reading this will be intelligent enough to understand my meaning, and if honest will agree.) Words to the wise only.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if someone commits to beefing it up. A search of ALL news articles shows quite a few mentions. These news searches for just last few months just don't do the job. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Like before when it was deleted by PROD, the article is essentially synthesis based primarily on an op-ed piece. The concept of reunification differs significantly in context as discussed by reliable sources -- during the British Raj, during the Mughal rule, during Asoka's rule etc. This article is advocating a present day reunification based on archaic inferences that are best dealt with in those particular articles, if at all. —SpacemanSpiff 05:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article is terribly POV and advocates more than informs. But still the Proposal to unite Southwest Asian nations is a notable topic, like or agree with it or not. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Greater India. The current article touches on the idea of "Akhand Bharat" (un-partitioned India - see Partition of India), which is rooted in Hindu nationalism.Redtigerxyz Talk 17:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Greater India. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 18:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dont see a need to merge/redirect. prashanthns (talk) 12:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Greater India; agree with nominator that the article contains mostly original research. Even the theory itself sounds fringed. Mar4d (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No redeeming value. Why merge this OR? Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge to Greater India. That article has been improved and this would fit well in it. I can only express the wish that fewer people will die for the idea of Greater India than have died for greater other nations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Greater India.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge as last resort: I completely oppose this happening in real life (it would mean the end of my country), but it is a piece of discussion in India and Pakistan, with some famous supporters. If Greater Nepal and Greater Bangladesh can aim to stake a piece of India's territory, the reverse should also be kept as well. --67.212.80.105 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR. Delightful idea by the way, but no traction in the real world, unfortunately. --rgpk (comment) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think it would be a good thing, if it could be done peacefully. It would help bring stability and prosperity to the poorer nations. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea too. But wikipedia is not the place for dreams :) --rgpk (comment) 14:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article should stay, it has some famous advocates and isn't original research as 70,000 results for India Pakistan reunification, 82,300 results for Greater India and 319,000 results for Indian reunification come for it on Google. --67.212.80.105 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually 1,980 hits for the exact phrase "India Pakistan reunification" and they all seem to be blogs or random musings on talk forums. Greater India refers to the large region defined by the culture of the subcontinent rather than a yearning for a single subcontinental nation. The phrase "Indian reunification" comes up with a mere 770 results, a large number of which are driven by wikipedia itself while the rest are again random musings on blogs. Google hits, unfortunately, give a big thumbs down to this article. --rgpk (comment) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article should stay, it has some famous advocates and isn't original research as 70,000 results for India Pakistan reunification, 82,300 results for Greater India and 319,000 results for Indian reunification come for it on Google. --67.212.80.105 (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the idea too. But wikipedia is not the place for dreams :) --rgpk (comment) 14:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Greater India has nothing whatever to do with Indian reunification other than similar names, the fact that they both deal with Indian people, and some of the same geographical area. The missing link is the Greater India#Undivided India section, which IS relevant, and thus leads in a stream-of-consciousness sort of fashion to the Greater India#Indian reunification section. I don't really mind it being there, but strictly speaking it does not fit there and it does, here. Information from Greater India not already in Indian reunification should be added to it. Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Shafer (baseball)[edit]
- David Shafer (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league baseball player. He hasn't pitched professionally since 2009, he is going on 29 years old and it doesn't look like he will ever reach the major leagues. Alex (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The previous AFDs for the article are: first nomination (overturned on review) and second nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability for baseball players have been clarified since the previous AFDs took place. The subject has not made any major league appearances based on a check of the MLB site although he did manage to make the 40-man roster at one point. Coverage about him is regular sports news coverage from games and of the trade. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hemp.com[edit]
- Hemp.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable website. Largely promotional article with unreferenced claims of importance. RadioFan (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB, creator, Larkinized may have a conflict of interest. Feezo (Talk) 03:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete isn't notable after looking for news sources at yahoo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaleMoonta1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:SPAM, which it appears to be.--JayJasper (talk) 03:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Lear's Fool 05:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Scripture[edit]
- Bill Scripture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor league baseball player. Hit .252 in his minor league career, which isn't that impressive. Yes, he managed, but managers are not inherently notable. He never even led any teams to the playoffs. Alex (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Was the subject of a lengthy 1987 Sports Illustrated profile that starts out by referring to him as "Baseball legend Billy Scripture". That does it for me, but there's several hundred additional hits at Google News[28][29] that also show that he passes WP:GNG--check out this one[30] or this one[31] as examples.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Minor league baseball players are not generally notable, but this one has enough secondary source coverage to pass GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A profile by SI is certainly not routine coverage. The article does need attention to get it up to standards, though. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ATHLETE does not state that minor-league players are by definition non-notable; it only means that being a minor leaguer isn't enough to be considered notable. A minor leaguer who gets multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources as Scripture has still passes WP:GNG, just like anyone else who gets multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. --NellieBly (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Buddhism Research Institute[edit]
- Buddhism Research Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It has been argued by the creator that this article is exempt from criterion A7 on the basis that it's a school. However, no notability has been asserted, which means the article merely gets a 7-day reprieve unless notability is shown. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:CSD doesn't exactly specify what counts as a school. I can see this being a bit of a loophole, but either way the subject doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements of WP:ORG. Feezo (Talk) 03:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notable - first western branch of an Esoteric school with a 2555 year history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.12.182 (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blanchardb#New_to_this.
the Buddhism Research Institute is a school, exempted from your deletion under the cause stated. please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miao Victory (talk • contribs) 03:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
It might very well be, but please keep in mind that if the Institute has not received coverage in reliable third-party references such as major news sources, scholarly papers, etc., the article on it will not survive a deletion discussion. So your priority should be to show that such coverage already exists. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The following are not reliable sources?
Time Warner Cable local news - http://capitalregion.ynn.com/content/top_stories/519730/amsterdam-residents-vote-on-two-proposals/ CBS Local News 6 - http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/says-1278830-power-solar.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miao Victory (talk • contribs) 04:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miao Victory (talk • contribs)
- Schools are exempt from speedy deletions — they can still be nominated in the regular "articles for deletion" process, which is what this is. The primary criteria for notability is "significant coverage in secondary sources"; I see that the CBS article doesn't actually mention the organization by name. To address your other point, that this is the "first western branch of an Esoteric school with a 2555 year history", the guidelines generally do not consider inherited notability. Feezo (Talk) 09:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you supply citations regarding this notability from neutral, third party sources? If not, I recommend Delete. I also have a problem with the "school exemption" loophole under speedy criteria. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Search for "Lucas Wang" or Buddha "Amsterdam, NY" This has been covered by all three major networks and the Times Union which is syndicated as the front page for most papers across the nation. What am I missing here, what makes all this not notable?Miao Victory (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL "While the property has been purchased for the Buddhism Research Institute, there is no presence for the school yet online, and no reports of a physical opening of the property" - in other words, it's not up and running yet. The references say that agreement for properties to be sold have been made. I've Googled for Lucas Z. Wang, and after eliminating a scientist called Z. Wang (who has an unfortunate propensity for authoring papers with people called Lucas), I found 12 results (of which some were Z. Wang creeping in again). I'm rather suspicious of an organisation like this flourishing claims of billions of dollars and secret teachings hidden for millenia. I would like to see better evidence than any I've seen so far. WP:RS and WP:V are the not very secret teachings to be followed here. Peridon (talk) 22:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, do I understand this correctly? You want evidence of an Esoteric School that has remained private for over 2000 years? Don't you think that if this was available that the School would not have remained Esoteric for over 2000 years? Seriously, think about what you are saying here.
So how do we solve this? This School exists. How do we reflect it in the WIKI?Miao Victory (talk) 19:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The answer is very easy. As the article appears to be not about the school but about the Institute, we ignore the school totally for the moment. The Institute is as yet a paper exercise and not yet up and running. Therefore, CRYSTAL applies and the article goes. If the article is really about the school, then without evidence of its notability BY WIKIPEDIA'S STANDARDS, not whatever it says in your dictionary, then it goes. Simples, to quote a certain Russian meerkat. I have thought seriously about what I am saying here. I very rarely don't. We get many articles posted about esoteric religions and societies, obscure 'known only to a few' legends and customs, hardly known Viking chieftains and so on. Most are hoaxes. Some are shown to be real but failing reliable sourcing WP:RS. Others get rescued (I can claim a Viking or similar to my credit). I do a lot here at AfD, and find that when an author or supporter starts claiming that their subject should be exempt from the requirements of reliable sourcing, then there is usually no reliable sourcing to be obtained. If that is the case, please feel welcome to come back when the organisation is a bit less esoteric and is more covered according to our requirements. Please note that if you claim that you know all about it so it's OK, you fall foul of WP:OR, our policy on original research. To sum up: reliable sourcing is needed - not just newspaper clips that someone got a local authority to agree to a sale, as similar bodies have been mistaken before. Note that I am not accusing anyone of deception. I an basically saying "put up or shut up". Or to be more polite, "Show me". I would be interested to know how this secretive and esoteric body has managed to amass funds of the nature claimed without attracting the attention of a taxation office, whether in China (where under Mao any source of wealth would have been of great interest), or in the USA (where the Infernal Revenue doesn't like to miss any tricks - and nor does my country's version of the Inquisition). Failing any success in complying, come back when you can. Peridon (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike an article about different masonic offshoots, etc., the WPHO is the first publicly visible administration of the Esoteric School. The WPHO has a poorly translated english version webpage at WPHO.org. and has begun classes for the first semester of the Institute. If spending a million in a depressed rural NYS town (used to be a City) to begin this school is not enough, what is?
Separately on the tax issue, all the funds are in non-profits that have to invest in the mission of the org. The org builds temples and schools. All the money goes to buying property and enhancing existing structures to achieve the mission of the Organization. No tax problem, since the monks are more worried about the karma than the tax assessors about fraud.Miao Victory (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the temples and schools in these united States are in the news articles already provided (40 to 50 properties in the Amsterdam, NY area). The temples and schools in China are revealed in Chinese publications written in Chinese. If u can read Chinese you can start here to get the Guang Huan Mi Zong Chinese characters to search in Chinese language publications to verify.
As for non-profit activity what I could find on the orgs are, in order of major use, Guang Huang Mi Zong, American Sports Committee, Inc., World Peace and Health Organization, Inc., and the Buddhism Research Institute.
Be aware the English is really, really, really, etc. bad.Miao Victory (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to meet notability standards, dubious content. bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so two dismissals with no explanation of your assessment. You two get elected to decide for the rest of us?Miao Victory (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No really, make your arguments, baseless assertions are what we are trying to avoid here, correct? Miao Victory (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend you make your case by finding non-trivial citations which establish notability. The two citations in the article currently are, in my opinion, trivial mentions that basically indicate that this institute exists (they're not actually ABOUT the institute). The two users above are terse, but they both state directly a concern about "lack of notability" which is my concern as well. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not established by current cites. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Punk Rock 101 (Music Event)[edit]
- Punk Rock 101 (Music Event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local event. ttonyb (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient coverage by reliable sources make referencing and verification problematic. Feezo (Talk) 03:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Feezo, not really. There is enough. Dookieboy1988 (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the coverage in the review doesn't even count as minor coverage - Punk Rock 101 is only mentioned in a user comment. Found an article called Punk Rock 101 on GNews but that seems to refer to something else. Come back if and when you've got some coverage in reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Chris Neville-Smith. Kudpung (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2010-2011 Arab world protests. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tunisia Effect[edit]
- Tunisia Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologisms should be avoided. This one is born from recentism and can be encapsulated at 2010–2011 Arab world protests. Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, copying any references not yet there to the main article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Merge to Revolutionary wave], per Carolmooredc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge into
Domino effectRevolutionary wave. Feezo (Talk) 04:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — edited 05:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Domino effect seems to be about physics. Did you mean Domino theory? --Muboshgu (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes of course, thank you for the correction. Actually, I agree Revolutionary wave is even better. Feezo (Talk) 05:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It typically refers to a linked sequence of events where the time between successive events is relatively small. It can be used literally (an observed series of actual collisions) or metaphorically (causal linkages within systems such as global finance or politics)." Yes, there is a mechanical element in there, but it is also about the metaphysical domino effect. SilverserenC 04:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of fact Muboshgu is correct (if you follow the links to the articles). The Domino effect article already linked to Domino theory as the Political version of the term. I have now added Revolutionary wave to the See also section of Domino theory. Flatterworld (talk) 06:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect to Revolutionary wave: While the several news stories mentioning the term may be its only use, it is an example of a "revolutionary wave" and material can be merged in there if not kept. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Revolutionary wave. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 05:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010–2011 Arab world protests, because "Tunisia Effect" is about that specific revolutionary wave. Ardric47 (talk) 05:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect per statement of Ardric47 above. I like the graphics very much and they would help illustrate that article. As for Revolutionary wave, the 2010-2011 protests are already included in that so just keep it up to date with the country list. Flatterworld (talk) 06:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. This article represents a neologism too new for encyclopaedic notability to be determined, and an invalid content fork of an existing topic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete neologosim. doesnt warrant much notability. the arab world article covers the spread and a sentence to mention this phrase can fit there.Lihaas (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge text to 2010–2011_Tunisian_revolution#Regional_instability and redirect to 2010–2011 Arab world protests or 2010–2011_Tunisian_revolution#Regional_instability - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. It's not clear to me to which article. One of 2010–2011 Arab world protests or 2010–2011_Tunisian_revolution#Regional_instability or Revolutionary wave and appropriate crosslinks (many of which are already in place). Boud (talk) 19:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. Kurdo777 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content to Revolutionary wave and redirect page to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. Maybe this page can stand on its own in several months' time if news organisations are still using it, but I doubt the phrase will be remembered long. {Heroeswithmetaphors talk} 18:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very good information. I recommend either keeping it or if it must be moved than to merge it with "Domino Theory" article as a section called "Tunisia Effect". - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think this is a good article to keep... - 206.126.56.131 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect — Even if it were a widely used term (which it isn't, to the best of my knowledge), it would still be better served as a redirect to the main article, with only a reference to the term in the lead section identifying it as a colloquialism for the effect of Ben Ali's overthrow. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a very new word yes, but already cited in major media. 76.105.158.121 (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not really care whether this content is in a separate article or not, but it seems to me that all the current content in the article could be integrated into the last two sections of 2010–2011 Arab world protests without too much difficulty. You could also put a flag there
<a name="Tunisia Effect"></a>
to make sure that the new redirect in Tunisia Effect would always point to the correct place in the article regardless of what the last two section are named. Just a thought. 69.205.254.208 (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Keep - It may be new but it is clearly not at risk of dying. The article should definetly be kept. It has too many views and edits from interested people.--68.115.190.162 (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. This will most certainly fit into a subtopic within the article that can preserve its content. Monsieurdl mon talk 15:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010–2011 Arab world protests - this neologism is very specifically coined from the series of events in that article, and coverage and analysis of the term will fit best there, with a "see also" to the more general article on the phenomenon generally. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep well sourced, with multiple non-trivial coverage, which means this topic is notable in and of itself, it should be mentioned in the 2010-11 MENE protests article but not merged as it is a unique topic.Thisbites (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well set out and sourced with clear differnences from other articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.41.130 (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010–2011 Arab world protests. - per above really, not a widely used term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article must not be deleted or redirected and need to be expanded, as it is an important article affecting millions of lives and there way of living. --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010-2011 Arab world protests - not a widely used term; content is fine, but would be better placed in the slightly more general article, which covers a clearly notable topic. I don't think that there is anything relevant to merge in to revolutionary wave. Warofdreams talk 12:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 2010-2011 Arab world protests, there's no need to exist a independent article to describe the later-on effect only. Plus, I think the 2010-2011 Arab world protests ought to be merged into the revolutionary wave, instead of this one.--WWbread (Open Your Mouth?) 15:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect into 2010-2011 Arab world protests. Brandmeister t 15:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew Krystal[edit]
- Andrew Krystal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Appears to be a copy and paste of previously deleted article. RadioFan (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kill with fire yet again. A largely NN person and yet another unsourced BLP. What's more is that it's become a target for utterly unsourced allegations which have required oversight. I can't go into the details other than point out that this is completely unacceptable - Alison ❤ 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the history and the comments - draw your own conclusions :( - Alison ❤ 04:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article has been a target for unsourced and poorly sourced allegations for some time; the man is not especially notable. It's impossible to improve the article because of the lack of sources. --Diannaa (Talk) 05:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recusing for obvious reasons, Panyd is currently re-adding sources that have been lost since this version. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this isn't a G4 candidate and isn't a copy-paste - I hope the nominator will re-word his nom statement a little to reflect that! The previous AfD is also largely useless - three or four votes to delete, the lengthiest argument of which was "because I said so". The Cavalry (Message me) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder, this isn't a vote so the number of editors indicating delete vs. keep is irrelevant. The goal is to gain concensus on whether the article is meets guidelines for inclusion.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True nowadays, but the previous AfD was a vote, from the old VfD process (now deprecated and replaced with AfD) - I've been an admin for a while, and an editor a while longer ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a reminder, this isn't a vote so the number of editors indicating delete vs. keep is irrelevant. The goal is to gain concensus on whether the article is meets guidelines for inclusion.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, this isn't a G4 candidate and isn't a copy-paste - I hope the nominator will re-word his nom statement a little to reflect that! The previous AfD is also largely useless - three or four votes to delete, the lengthiest argument of which was "because I said so". The Cavalry (Message me) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a person who obviously meets WP:GNG as there is extensive local coverage of him. In spite of any issues which may arise over the vandalism which has been perpetrated, this person is still obviously notable as WP:ENT as well. I've added references to support this assertion PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not seeing how this person meets WP:ENT, they've not had film, TV or stage roles. There is no evidence of a large fan base and no indication of any innovative or unique innovative contribution to his field. He also does not meet general notability guidelines as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Articles in the local newspapers about the comings and goings of a local DJ are not unusual and dont really help establish notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I would've said that he does have a cult following having read through the reports on him. He appears to have a reputation as a 'shock-jock' and a following who enjoy that sort of thing. WP:GNG notes that if a person has received significant coverage they are notable. This person has received significant coverage. If 9 sources specifically discussing this person and their work in-depth isn't enough to show this I can add more but I think he qualifies at this time. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to demonstrate notability. e.g.[32],[33],[34], etc. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as subject is the focus of in-depth coverage in major Canadian newspapers, including The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star (as linked by Robofish above) and meets the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Despite the fact that there are some with BLP concerns about various previous edits, the fact that a subject is controversial should not be sufficient cause for deletion. This article subject is clearly the topic of multiple reliable sources, per the footnotes showing, and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amy Parks[edit]
- Amy Parks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ENT and WP:CREATIVE for a journalist. could not find significant coverage [35]. there's an Amy Parks elementary school in USA that gets lots of coverage. this is about as indepth as the coverage gets. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Amy Parks is likely to be a fairly common name and there will be many Ghits for unrelated topics. This Amy Parks fails WP:ENT, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:AUTHOR and the source at ninemsn cannot be considered as significant coverage or WP:RS even broadly construed. --Kudpung (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- she worked for the Nine Network which owns ninemsn so it's not third party either. LibStar (talk) 07:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could not find significant coverage. can you? your comment does not argue for notability though. LibStar (talk) 05:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - According to WP:ENT 1. Amy Parks worked on Quizmania (a notable show), she has been a news reporter for two different Australian TV networks and was a musician for a band that released two albums. I've added references for some information into the article. More references are needed but that's not sufficient reason to delete this article.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons stated above by shaidar cuebiyar. Dan arndt (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias only deal with facts. A core policy of Wikipedia is "Verifiability, not truth". Whatever notability might be suggested here, it must be supported by any of the permissible reliable sources which must be verifiable. This article cannot be kept on a promise of perhaps finding sources at a later date. Kudpung (talk) 07:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have thought that an article in a recognised newspaper would have been a reliable source, as well as the various others cited in the article.Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Kudpung: I believe you have misunderstood my statement. I have provided reliable sources for the major claims made in the article and believe them to be sufficient to verify her notability. However I have not found references for all of the minor claims in the article, e.g. ref [3] verifies release of DVD, its name and a brief description of its use; however it does not give details of where it was released which is why the citation is in mid-sentence.
- Her notability is not merely 'suggested' in this article it is verified by the sources I added (and an additional one by Dan arndt). If there are any claims that you believe are unverified major ones then place a citation needed plate on them. If you believe that any of the additional sources supplied are not reliable then point them out here and we can discuss them.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zachary Oberzan[edit]
- Zachary Oberzan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Not quite sure if this meets WP:ARTIST or WP:NMG. bender235 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is receiving links from other people and pages. The information is accurate and timely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teasle1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Teasel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow continued expansion and sourcing of this mere weeks-old article. Any SNG we look at only allows a presumption that coverage exists. So encouraged by SNGs, we can instead look directly at available sourcing to find 7 years of ctitical commentary and coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple events[37] and so deternmine that we have enough to allow a decent presumption of notability. And with such reasonable presumption, we can encourage this article by a new editor be further expanded and improved.... and I'd be glad to help out. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel somewhat uncomfortable keeping this WP:AUTO. --bender235 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand... even though such has its exceptions, it is discouraged. But heck, even an actual autobio can be kept if it is improvable though found sources and through an author's understanding the community's preference that he refrain from editing an article about himself. But might I ask why you feel that new editor User:Teasle1 might be be the subject of the article? Simply for choice of first article? Or a newb's lack of edits elsewhere? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel somewhat uncomfortable keeping this WP:AUTO. --bender235 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient wp:GNG. Don't know why it is in academic section. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I removed it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, as I agree that it's off-topic there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple reviews in the NYT and other newspapers for significant parts of his oeuvre constitute sufficient coverage under WP:CREATIVE. I do agree that the current biography is pretty spammy and unhelpful, but that's a job for cleanup. RayTalk 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple awards, multiple references. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
African Renewable Energy Alliance[edit]
- African Renewable Energy Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. No indication of notability. Previously deleted as an expired {{PROD}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful topic to have on a continent less covered. It could do with more inline citations with some clean up and wikifying. e.g History section, when it was founded...etc. --Visik (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- see WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing to get enough indepth coverage. [38] more mentions that verify its existence. LibStar (talk) 06:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Knox (polyglot)[edit]
- William Knox (polyglot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find independent coverage of this particular William Knox indicating that he meets our general notability guidelines or WP:ACADEMIC, at this time. Google reveals a few discussion group hits; GScholar shows nothing independent of the subject's own publications when combined with search terms "Celtic" or "Lingo." Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I also see that the article creator has removed Category:Canadian linguists and Category:Canadian lexicographers with the explanation that "polyglot" is the most apt description for what he is and does. Problem is, we don't have a Category:Polyglots. If the art creator is doubtful about the academic notability of the subject and wishes to frame him as a notable polyglot, we would need references to establish this notability as a multilingual speaker, which is a tougher row to hoe, I should think. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is very likely a vanity page. Created by WP:SPA account Kingsleyjulian. No WP:RS whatsoever – all "sources" are either his own webpages, e.g. this or this, or pages that sell his "phrasebook" (published by a house that has at least a partial vanity-press payment model, i.e. "For this type of book we may invite an author contribution to the production costs" from Ylolfa). General puffery (like "hyperpolyglot") and WP:OR (are we sure he's "one of only a handful of people who speak four Celtic languages", really?). Seems clear that this page is nothing more than a means to promote the subject. Uncontroversial delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability per WP:Notability (people) and lack of WP:Independent sources. By the way, speaking 10 languages and learning an eleventh, while impressive, is hardly unique. See for example this magazine article. Cnilep (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MisSiss[edit]
- MisSiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:Notability (music) Safiel (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I improve the article, and add some references. At Wikipedia:Notability (music) asks for "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." MisSiss had the Ö3 Soundcheck, a band contest arranged by the Austrian radio station Hitradio Ö3. That guideline asks too "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country." She made a tour in Uruguay and Argentina.
Gragry (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I note that consensus is weak. lifebaka++ 02:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Karjaluoto[edit]
- Eric Karjaluoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Selfmade page, nothing that shows he is in his own notable GameOn (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles SmashLAB and Design Can Change are from Eric as well. I can't see how these show any notability either. I suggest we delete all three of them for lack of notability. GameOn (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep The article has reference from wikipedia itself. Need reference. Looks like advertisement, close relationship with article writer, But has soeme news coverage. Needs improvement and referencing. --Its019 (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC) (NOTE: This user has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet.)[reply]
- Weak Keep The user Petiep is not Eric Karjaluoto so if "articles are from Eric" is the only reason this is nominated for AfD I don't see the problem. I'll see if I can add more reference links that are not the same ones as deleted by GameOn to beef this article up a bit. Cheers! Aaskw (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to SmashLAB. The sources demonstrate that the company is notable, but there is little or no coverage found about him personally. He is given credit for writing a book, but it is self-published by SmashLAB. Probably should combine Design Can Change and SmashLAB into a single article as well, since they basically cover the same material; Design Can Change is a product of SmashLAB. --MelanieN (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adland[edit]
- Adland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
The blog doesn't meet the criterias on WP:WEB. The article on svwp was deleted for lacking notability. The article on dawp was moved out of ns-0, the article on svwp about the creator of Adland was deleted for lacking notability. The page has been created and maintained by users who are close to Adland (as can be seen on my SPI report). The same text and sources have been added by several new users over the three language versions and almost all of them are used incorrectly as can be seen after a small glance. The article has recently been deleted here on enwp. I suggest the article is deleted and then a creation protection is added. GameOn (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion or criteria? Either way, it would seem a shame to delete a reference to a site that I use to read about the advertising business, and which seems an authoritative source. Enteroform Enterform 09:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We need sources that show that the site is notable. Users comming from the site and claiming that they read it are not helping the article from being deleted. GameOn (talk) 09:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rich Manley[edit]
- Rich Manley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bit part actor, no reliable sources given or found to establish notability of an actor. Notability is not inherited. tedder (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Most of the sources in the article are from IMDB, user submitted, or from the subject's website. Google news shows hits for other people with the same name. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Udploris[edit]
- Udploris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This entire article is untrue and the tool it describes is a non-functioning parody of the original SlowLoris tool, including a nearly direct copy-paste of the reference web site contents. Also does not meet notability requirements. Z0ZedNull (talk) 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Because this topic fails Wikipedia:Notability, and because this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability due to the lack of reliable sources, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:03, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thousand Dollar Bee[edit]
- Thousand Dollar Bee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:TVSERIES: "[T]he presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone[…]a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage." This was the best that I could find:
- Press release that gives less than a full sentence
- Trade publication with a less-than-full-sentence mention
- Trivial mention in a book about African Americans in the media.
To call any of those three significant, third-party coverage would really be stretching a definition. I can't find any scrap of information on the show besides the network it aired on, and that is clearly not enough for an article. It was cancelled too quickly for any sort of media coverage, and the fact that it aired on a national cable network doesn't grant it inherent notability since absolutely no sources of any kind exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The channel is also completely defunct, so there would be no harm in deleting this article. Few sources, little notability and a grand prize that makes a year worth of Turtle Wax look like a better choice. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Montenegrin Australian. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Montenegrin Ethnic Association of Australia[edit]
- Montenegrin Ethnic Association of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. 2 gnews hits [39]. and 2 gbooks hits [40] 1 being a WP mirror. LibStar (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Montenegrin Australian - there's no evidence that this is a notable group. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Montenegrin Australian because it is a logical place for this association and it is unlikely that there will be much content for the stand-alone association page. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 05:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 'Montenegrin Australian'— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
L8r, g8r[edit]
- L8r, g8r (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
contested prod. Not clear how this meets WP:NBOOKS RadioFan (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but clean - Needs some work. It appears that the book series has received some press for controversy over language and subject matter, and has been noted for being on many banned-books lists. Tarc (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfy to User:Pepstar/Giuseppe D.. It should be noted that this is a temporary measure, and I will expect to see work being done on the article - if I see no work done within a 4-week period, I will delete the draft with no further notification. Anyone who would like to help Pepstar with this would be most welcome to do so! PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Giuseppe D.[edit]
- Giuseppe D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The creator has twice removed the blp prod in place without providing a reference for verification. My76Strat 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I did not know prior that those lines weren't supposed to be delete by me, I added references and I also corrected the copyright tag on the picture provided. Pepstar (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My error. I've provided references now knowing how. Pepstar (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article is heavily promotional with phrases such as "With remixing as his bread and butter, and songwriting and production as his heart, Giuseppe continues to develop many up-and-coming and established artists for many labels". The only coverage in reliable sources are passing mentions such as [41], [42], [43]. Very likely an autobiography. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have deleted above mentioned sentence. Please indicate where any more references are required. Pepstar (talk) 02:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement for notability is shown here. This subject fails in this regard. I think Pepstar should have this article userfied, work on it and get the opinion of others before moving it to article space. I would rather work with you, than to appear opposed, The original PROD would have been a better way to handle this, but I think it will end in the same way. That is to again say, move it to userspace until and if ever it is ready. My76Strat 03:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate the help. What you've just suggested sounds like a foreign language to me. Pepstar (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The article has been nominated for deletion as it does not meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. Inclusion guidelines in general area covered by notability, with additional guidelines for those in creative areas covered at WP:CREATIVE. In order for this article to be kept, there needs to be significant coverage about "Giuseppe D." in independent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. Please note that this needs to be significant, so passing mentions of his name, and credit listings don't count; this needs to be indpendent so websites affiliated with Giuseppe D., and press releases don;t count. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is to reaffirm that I believe the article fails to meet inclusion criteria, per WP:GNG. Whpq has succinctly highlighted the relevant facts. Also the articles creator seemed to indicate they would like the deleted article moved to their userspace where they could endeavor to bring it to standards. I intend to contact Pepstar to follow up on their last post which I hadn't seen until today. My76Strat 02:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Society for the Management of Spasmodic Dysphonia[edit]
- Society for the Management of Spasmodic Dysphonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. no third party coverage. nothing in gnews, gbooks or gscholar. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft redirect to wikt:multihyphenate. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Multi-hyphenate[edit]
- Multi-hyphenate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dicdef. Transwiki and delete. UtherSRG (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wiktionary. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as a dictionary definition. No need to transwiki as it is already on wiktionary - see multihyphenate -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Evan Lurie (actor)[edit]
- Evan Lurie (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsourced, does not meet notability Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a prominent composer with this name, I created this page to avoid the confusion of the composer with the actor. Bawtyshouse (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if sources could be found, I don't see how he could be notable, as few of his films are notable. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed Bello Abubakar[edit]
- Mohammed Bello Abubakar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
falls foul of WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If he had 86 wives and 170 children, you could perhaps say he was notable for 256 events ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Never mind most wives in Nigeria. He also has most marriages, divorces, and children. Probably the most hassled and hen-pecked octogenarian on the planet too and he is still alive! There's a few world records there that nobody has even thought up yet. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 17:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that he's already done that. Whatever he has done he has done it serially. It was an accumulation of multiple events leading up to being discovered by the media. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant; "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". Can you show persistent coverage, or just coverage relating to the discovery-and-trial? Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No challenge at all. There are endless persistant references. The media wouldn't let a man with 86 wives and 170 children go. They'll be milking this story for decades. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the media wouldn't...they'll be" mind providing evidence? Without it, and with the attached hyperbole, it looks like you're simply assuming this is the case. Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not take a look at the references I've added including one from the Christian Science Monitor. You'll discover that this gentleman is known by more than one name and there are even more articles listed under that name. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources currently in the article cover the same story from 2008 - where's the "milking the story for decades" that you claimed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My dear Zebedee, you aren't trying hard enough. All you have to do is search on Google for "the man with 86 wives". Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources currently in the article cover the same story from 2008 - where's the "milking the story for decades" that you claimed? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why not take a look at the references I've added including one from the Christian Science Monitor. You'll discover that this gentleman is known by more than one name and there are even more articles listed under that name. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see any news or other reliable coverage dating from any more recently than the 2008 news story. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this one for size: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/man-with-86-wives-alleges-disenfranchisement/85889/ . Does it fit? Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for delay in replying - yep, that looks good, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Try this one for size: http://www.thisdaylive.com/articles/man-with-86-wives-alleges-disenfranchisement/85889/ . Does it fit? Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "the media wouldn't...they'll be" mind providing evidence? Without it, and with the attached hyperbole, it looks like you're simply assuming this is the case. Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No challenge at all. There are endless persistant references. The media wouldn't let a man with 86 wives and 170 children go. They'll be milking this story for decades. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant; "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources". Can you show persistent coverage, or just coverage relating to the discovery-and-trial? Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that he's already done that. Whatever he has done he has done it serially. It was an accumulation of multiple events leading up to being discovered by the media. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E, and in answer to the the above point, WP:RANK or WP:TALENT :o) --ThePaintedOne (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC) Not sure wh[reply]
- Hehe - but you must admit he was good at it! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You really don't know the media very well if you think that "a man with 86 wives" will be able to do anything significant without it being reported. Even the day he dies will be reported as "the man with 86 wives died ...". Then a few years later one of his grandchildren will become famous for something then "grandson of "the man with 86 wives" ...". He'll be mentioned in dinner conversations for decades. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has appeared on the BBC many times. Has television interviews... Genjix (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The link provided above by Nipsonanomhmata shows recent coverage in addition to the original story. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Boring - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gossipreport.com[edit]
- Gossipreport.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable site that only managed to get mentions in local news media. Wikipedia notability requires national coverage or other non-trivial coverage or else EVERYTHING could be deemed notable. DreamGuy (talk) 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't see indepth coverage. mentions in the media merely verify existence rather than establish notability. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A redirect may, of course, be created if desired. lifebaka++ 02:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pibgorn Rep: A Midsummer Night's Dream[edit]
- Pibgorn Rep: A Midsummer Night's Dream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. So not notable. Article claims it's been taught as a text in college and high school, but doesn't substantiate this claim, and the only "review" is from a Blogspot blog. Book form of the storyline appears to be self-published. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:GNG. Lacks reliable/independent coverage and therefore is non-notable. Guoguo12--Talk-- 02:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pibgorn (webcomic). -- Whpq (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect this and Pibgorn (webcomic) (which also has no reliable/independent coverage) to Brooke McEldowney. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs. The consensus is that the blog is not notable in its own right, but I feel that the content could be usefully merged with the parent organisation PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No Left Turns[edit]
- No Left Turns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed notability. Taking to AfD as notability does seem to be arguable with this article. Safiel (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Ashbrook Center for Public Affairs article. I don't see sufficient notability to stand on its own. Safiel (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete nor merge. No Left Turns, a highly referenced conservative blog site, is a creation of the Ashbrook Center, which is notable for its activity and education in public affairs. Ashbrook Center hosts important conferences attended by well-known politicians and public figures. The blog "No Left Turns" is a major source of commentary from the Ashbrook Center. It is notable by itself because it plays a critical role in discussing current events as they unfold and is referenced by a number of other blogs. It has a number of notable authors who are highly regarded. Roesser (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mention in other blogs is not sufficient to establish notability. While this blog is mentioned in other blogs, I don't see any non trivial references in independent news sources. Safiel (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I give up, how does the article meet the criteria in WP:WEB using reliable sources? ttonyb (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets general notability requirements because there are enough references to it and it is not invisible on Google. The only criticism is that "No Left Turns" is used and quoted by so many people and for so many different organisations. At some point in the future it may be necessary to change the title to distinguish between all the different "No Left Turns" that are out there. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 05:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G3. Nakon 21:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Ming[edit]
- Timothy Ming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources given, and from a cursory Google search, can't even verify that this person exists. Amakuru (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maybe even a WP:HOAX. --bender235 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article should definitely not be deleted!-India89 — Preceding undated comment added 06:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an obvious hoax replete with inconsistency (first saying he played for Cambodia and then that Cambodia doesn't have a team), incredibility (a batsman making 999 and a player from Cambodia getting selected for an IPL team with the press not hearing about it) and impossibility (getting Ricky Ponting out three times in one match [a batsman can't be out more than twice in a match]). Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:BULLOCKS!!! There isn't a chance in heck that somebody would be selected to play for an IPL club and manage to avoid any sort of press coverage whatsoever, including unreliable blogs. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SNOW and WP:CSD#G3. We don't need to let this sit here any longer. If some statements in the article were true, it'd be a remarkable achievement to not receive any coverage. —SpacemanSpiff 20:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Cambodia doesn't even have a national cricket team.... why am I saying that???? It's clearly a hoax!!! Terminated! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion as a blatant hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dusk nightclub[edit]
- Dusk nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable corporation. Fails WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep although Google Search produces results, none of them pass WP:RS. Many are blogs and social networking websites. I found just two reliable sources this and this, which apparently is the official website of a band. But, they don't mention anything about the club's origin or history. So, I say a weak keep, leaning towards delete. Novice7 | Talk 09:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)confirmed sockpuppet -- Ϫ 15:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable per Google search (and sockpuppet abuse) - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alana Lentin[edit]
- Alana Lentin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Blatant autobiography, created by her boyfriend Psg116 (talk · contribs) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partho Sen-Gupta). Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC at all. bender235 (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't qualify for Wikipedia:ACADEMIC, after searching her name didn't find any third person comments, what i found just blogs, personal websites, profile data, etc. Bill william compton (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Art is essentially a CV. As above, find lots of promotional websites, but no WP:RS. GS h-index of 6 and WoS h-index of 2. Quite average for a junior faculty member – country mile from being notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. On basis of citations a very long way to go. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, agreement with the above, does not meet PROF, quite a ways to go. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that notability has not been demonstrated. If such evidence can be found (not pre-release material for his film(s), but references after release), then I would not be averse to either restoring this or (preferably) userfying it so that it can be brought up to Wikipedia standards PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hung Chih-yu[edit]
- Hung Chih-yu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In addition to the one film listed here, IMDB lists one more — with that latter (2008) film (zh:一八九五) apparently more notable. I am still not sure whether this is sufficient for notability, as I find no guideline on the issue. Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I note that under the Chinese spelling of his name, there does seem to be coverage for this individual that might meet WP:GNG,[44] but they will require translation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Were you able to translate these in order to be able to make a determination that they were either not reliable or did not demonstrate notability? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't answer for N2e. As far as I am concerned, reliability is not the issue; notability still is. Again, it comes down to one film (一八九五) which got a significant amount of coverage but I have no actual idea whether it ended up being notable or not since most of the coverage appears to be pre-release coverage. (Indeed, that point appears to be confirmed by the Chinese Wikipedia article, which extensively discussed the pre-release promotions but was completely silent about the impact of the film once released.) And the notability guidelines, as far as I can see, don't directly state whether the director of one single notable film (and that's assuming that the film is itself notable, which seems to be the case but I'm not completely sure) is thereafter considered notable. --Nlu (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of the found sources were you able to translate? I understand your concern, but the article asserts several films, not just one, and unfortunately, English-language coverage for Chinese films otherwise covered is not as decent as we might hope. Just asking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took quick scans at the summaries and several of the actual links. Again, reliability's not the concern; notability still is. As for your statement that the article mentioned several films — that is true, but for most of the films there he was the assistant director. The article listed one film as the director, and the actually most notable film is not listed. (That's not a reason to delete it, of course.) But what is concerning is that even the most notable film (and it appears that he's only had two, as far as I can see) does not itself appear to be that notable. And again, I find no guideline on whether directing a notable film makes you notable. --Nlu (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A director falls under WP:FILMMAKER, as the film is the direct result from his involvement in it's creation, and does not neccessarily require involvement in multiple notable productions as does WP:ENT. As I am able I will also dig through the sources and see what I can glean from a google or babblefish tanslations. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I took quick scans at the summaries and several of the actual links. Again, reliability's not the concern; notability still is. As for your statement that the article mentioned several films — that is true, but for most of the films there he was the assistant director. The article listed one film as the director, and the actually most notable film is not listed. (That's not a reason to delete it, of course.) But what is concerning is that even the most notable film (and it appears that he's only had two, as far as I can see) does not itself appear to be that notable. And again, I find no guideline on whether directing a notable film makes you notable. --Nlu (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of the found sources were you able to translate? I understand your concern, but the article asserts several films, not just one, and unfortunately, English-language coverage for Chinese films otherwise covered is not as decent as we might hope. Just asking. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. Thanks for digging up WP:FILMMAKER; couldn't find it. Based on the criteria listed there, I think so far we don't have sufficient evidence of notability:
- Certainly not 1.
- Certainly not 2.
- Insufficient evidence that the film in question is significant or well-known work that became the subject of an independent book or featured-length film, or became subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, so insufficient evidence of 3.
- Of 4, the only possibility is "has won significant critical attention," and I don't think there's enough there; there was pre-release press coverage, but not post-release press coverage as far as I can see, and much of the pre-release coverage was about the promotion of the film.
- 5 is not applicable.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.