Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 22
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. causa sui (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
London Cabbie[edit]
- London Cabbie (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 board game. I have not been able to find any significant, direct, detailed coverage of this topic in secondary sources. The PROD-tag was removed without explanation by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) – which seems rather impolite but no more so than I've come to expect. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The game is documented in detail in reliable sources such as the journal Games & Puzzles. Warden (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked Colonel W on his talkpage if he can provide a working link so that we can assess the source – although a search for "games & puzzles" "london cabbie" doesn't produce any results at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 19:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—not a single Google Books result for "london cabbie" "board game" unless anyone can suggest a better search term? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You already told us in the nomination that you couldn't find anything - there's no need to repeat yourself. I have found plenty already and have only just got started. The thing to understand is that this company flourished briefly in the seventies when the internet was still known as the Arpanet. I know my way around the sources of that era and probably have hard copies in my library. Warden (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to repeat yourself. No, but there's no rule against it. I have found plenty already – well so far you've deceptively linked to a Google Book which contains nothing relevant whatsoever, so I look forward to seeing more of your efforts. I wonder what you're going to link to next and claim it has content about this game! Pevsner Architectural Guides? Bradshaw's? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deception? This is a good example of why it's a waste of time communicating with you. Warden (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deception? Well, if I'm going to cover all the possibilities it's either deception or rather desperate negligence. You said, "The game is documented in detail in reliable sources such as the journal Games & Puzzles," despite the resource linked not containing a single mention of the game, let alone "detailed documentation" as you stated – or at least as you extremely strongly implied. ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 22:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deceptive use of sources has been uncovered in the past. [1]. Perhaps a page number from the cited book and a quote of the passage here would be useful?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it was a specialty monthly magazine in the UK that published from '72 to summer '81. Not a book. Apologies. So what's needed is the title of the article (if there is one), specific edition (date and volume), the authors name, sense of the contents, then it could be considered as a useful source (or not).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deception? This is a good example of why it's a waste of time communicating with you. Warden (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need to repeat yourself. No, but there's no rule against it. I have found plenty already – well so far you've deceptively linked to a Google Book which contains nothing relevant whatsoever, so I look forward to seeing more of your efforts. I wonder what you're going to link to next and claim it has content about this game! Pevsner Architectural Guides? Bradshaw's? ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You already told us in the nomination that you couldn't find anything - there's no need to repeat yourself. I have found plenty already and have only just got started. The thing to understand is that this company flourished briefly in the seventies when the internet was still known as the Arpanet. I know my way around the sources of that era and probably have hard copies in my library. Warden (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no indication of substantive third party coverage. The sole potential source given for it is a Google Books hit (not an actual sighting of material -- so no indication of depth of coverage) for Games & Puzzles, a magazine serving the board-gaming community, published by Edu-Games (U.K.), Ltd, London. Given that one of the purposes of such a magazine would be to review games that were new (and thus have gained no notability) and unknown to their readership, that it reviewed an (explicitly geographically local) game does not offer any indication of notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Games & Puzzles was distributed throughout the UK and USA, having a cover price in cents as well as pence (it's good evidence of inflation too!) I have added a citation to the Chicago Tribune to further demonstrate international coverage. Warden (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually sighted the full text of either of these publications (as opposed to mere 'Google snippets')? If so, I'm sure we're all interested in the full amount of what they actually have to say on the topic, in order to test whether or not they contain "significant coverage" of the topic (quotes please!). If not, then I would question the probity of their citation in the article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have seen full text and provided some quotes in my citations. The accusations and insinuations of dishonesty by yourself and Treasury Tag are improper, being contrary to our behavioural guidelines. It has been apparent for some time that your contributions to AFD are contrary to other behavioural guidelines too. As you seem to be acting in bad faith, I shall make minimal responses to your baiting and insults. Warden (talk) 12:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, having read a great many very similar magazines (Wargamer, Dungeon, The Wyrm's Footprints -- to name but the few that I can recall immediately to mind), I am well aware that a review of a game in them does not render a game notable (or even assure its continued availability). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those publications are irrelevant to this topic. The Chicago Tribune is a mainstream source and so we now have a good mix of general and specialist publications confirming the notability of this topic. Warden (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I remember the day when this used to be a popular alternative to Monopoly. Noteability well established by editor Warden's improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would note that, as of these "improvements", most of the article is cited to "the board game itself and its instruction manual published by Intellect(UK) Ltd., 1971". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Three, maybe 4 of the 5 references are other sources.
- 1. ^ "Cabbie", Games & Puzzles' (Punch Publications Ltd) (20): 16, December 1973, "Inventor: David Drakes"
- 2. ^ London Cabbie Game, BoardGameGeek LLC, http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1581
- 3. ^ Horace Sutton (Dec 21, 1975), "Christmas gift ideas for travelers, Dec. 21, 1975", Chicago Tribune
- 4. ^ Peter Watts, Taxi! and London Cabbie, "London board games", Time Out
- 5. ^ From the board game itself and its instruction manual published by Intellect(UK) Ltd., 1971
- This collector site shows a picture of the game, and claims it "won game of the year when it was released". Don't know what this is referring too. Maybe the name after the AFD should be named London Cabbie Game? Okip 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep nice improvements to the article. Shows notability. Okip 18:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources in the article now prove it is notable. Google search for "London Cabbie" and "Board game" and the first link is http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1581/london-cabbie-game which proves it exists, and gives some information to add to the article, and start searching for information from. Most news articles about it are behind a paywall. Can anyone access this? [2] or [3] Dream Focus 17:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - with improvements made.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 6 August 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 incubate (Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Nephilim (film)). Please feel free to create an appropriate redirect in place of the article. Material in the incubator can be used in other articles, provided there is proper attribution. Mkativerata (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nephilim (film)[edit]
- Nephilim (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film is in pre-production. WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 23:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate for a short while. As article's current sources indicate, the planned film IS getting coverage... enough to tickle at WP:GNG if not at WP:NFF. Incubation for continued work as more become available makes sense to me. While okay too with userfication instead if author wishes, my sense is that an incubation encourages a more collaborative effort. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am much in favor of an incubation. There was a lot of good sourced information and was tempted to merge it, but it had no where to go. BOVINEBOY2008 20:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep the nominator has appeared to withdraw their nomination, and the film's development (despite being in pre-production), is well-documented by third-party, independent sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the nominator has withdrawn their nomination by any stretch. Instead, they have suggested that it is incubated until it meets Wikipedia's criteria. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can make out, production stalled in 2009 - are there any sources to suggest anything has happened since then? Ordinarily, I'd be in favour of a delete, but as there appears to be an earlier film that doesn't have its own article (and apparently some comic books), how about a restructure and move? This could either be to the director, or how about to Darkest Days (film), with the emphasis for the article being on the earlier film, and this film in a sequel section? The article is a bit all over the place anyway, and could use a tidyup! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although... A further look makes me ponder the notability of this and of the first film too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Gulshan Grover is still talking of the film's release as of November 2010. Susan Kay Moses, the film's producer, still has the film listed as many of her projects. Emphasizing the earlier film Darkest Days (film) is an interesting thought.Faronshapter (talk • contribs) 01:11, 29 July 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 David O. Russell#Nailed. Spartaz Humbug! 08:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nailed (film)[edit]
- Nailed (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film was shut down before production ended. All major cast and director have moved on. WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 23:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to director David O. Russell#Nailed where as an unfinshed/failed film project it is already spoken of in context to the director's other projects. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:19, 23 July 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. Sandstein 06:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kreegan[edit]
- Kreegan (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 Might and Magic fancruft. Despite my very best efforts and an extensive search through web archives, couldn't find a single third-party source on them, reliable or otherwise. --Monere (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ... So where should this article be merged, then? It's got a clear parent article that you've mentioned yourself, so per WP:ATD it ought to be merged somewhere, albeit probably with appropriate trimming in process. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything even barely notable on Kreegans is already in the parent article. Unless you're talking about trimming this down to one or two sentences, no point. There's nothing left to merge, and quite literally no external source covering them. I'm a fan of the series, I've searched extensively. No avail... --Monere (talk) 13:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources about this fictional race from a video game series. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article does not demonstrate why this topic is notable, nor is it written from a real-world perspective, nor is it based on secondary sources. WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:V. Marasmusine (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Might and Magic as a search term, and to preserve history for possible future expansion. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:07, 28 July 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers[edit]
- Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Institution of Mechanical Engineers are collectively the editors of this journal, SAGE Publications are the publishers (using their brand MetaPress), Web of Science and Web of Knowledge are brands of Thomson Reuters which is in a re-seller relationship with Sage / IMechE, Journal Citation Reports is a service of Thomson Reuters. User:AntonV is a paid employee of SAGE. Given these commercial links, my contention is that no references from any of these sources meets the requirements Independent of the subject requirement of WP:GNG. By this measure this page has no references. My further contention is that linking to content in Web of Science / Web of Knowledge (a million+ page website hidden behind complex paywalls) using only a link to the homepage is entirely inappropriate referencing behavior. The page creator (and only significant contributor) has previously defended his editing based on Wikipedia:Notability_(academic_journals) (see my talk page) which as it says in the header has not been accepted as a Wikipedia policy or guideline. I have googled for references, but the use of the name in references makes it very hard to found sources about the journal. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per below. LiteralKa (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Over the last 3 years, the Notability (journals) has been always accepted as a practical guideline, whether for keeping or deleting. This is one of the most important groups of mechanical engineering journals in the world, as can be proven by the numerical data, on the individual journal articles. The argument for deletion is utter nonsense, and I've never said that before that I remember . All the commercial and society publishers in the world, and all the rest of the scientific journal system, is inter-related. The IME is an independent professional society. Most independent society journals are published for them by commercial publishers. Sage, a formerly independent publisher, is now an imprint of Thomson Reuters. Web of Science is published by Thomson, true, but is nonetheless the most respected and discriminating indexing service in the world. The journal is also indexed by Scopus, published by Elsevier, Thomson's main competitor. It is also indexed by Inspec, published by the independent IEE, and by every relevant indexing service in the world. Inclusion by the indexing services is the major standard. Being behind a payroll is irrelevant. Essentially every indexing service and journal in engineering is behind a paywall. We actually have articles for every one of the component journals, each of which has sufficient standing to be independently notable. The impact factor data and the rankings, are on those individual pages. They could be tabulated here also, but it is not necessary. Ideally journal publishers should not edit articles on their own journals, but many do, and almost all of them do a proper job of it--the articles are formulaic enough that the conflict of interest is irrelevant. (A few had some problems in editing properly in earlier years, but I've taught them, in some cases by personal explanation to the relevant senior executives. I suppose the nom will think that too a conflict of interest.) As for sources, they (or their predecessors) are all listed in Malinowski's standard Science and Engineering Literature, and in every existing guide to the scientific literature. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for confirming that there is even more financial interlinking between these parties than I was aware of. On you user page you seem to indicate that you have a librarianship background, as I do; please be aware that the wikipedia concept of notability is not related to bibliometric or academic concepts what we may be used to but is spelt out primarily in WP:GNG and a small number of other places. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Web of Science is published by Thomson" regardless of how respected it is, we need independent sources. LiteralKa (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment DGG correctly pointed out that I'm doing this as a test case. I should probably have said so before. DGG and I are going to keep our further comments here and try and avoid making this personal (see my talk page). Stuartyeates (talk) 04:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —202.124.72.35 (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Institution of Mechanical Engineers is of world importance and its publications are also. We all know that commercial publishers have a stranglehold on their field but that does not make it any less important. A totally misguided nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Yes, AntonV works for SAGE. However, I have been following this editor almost since he started and he seems to be well aware of our policies concerning POV and such. His articles are devoid of promotional language. In addition, I patrol the new pages log every one or two days for new journal articles and screen/edit them if needed. I actually missed this particular article, but it is very factual and NPOV (and from the history it can be seen that it was vetted by Headbomb, another longtime editor of journal articles, who certainly would have removed any promotional language if it had been there). In short, AntonV is in my opinion a valuable editor, who openly has disclosed his COI (and remember that having a COI with a certain subject does not mean that one is not allowed to edit on those subjects). As for the reference to WoK, AntonV has actually copied that from me (I have used that reference in many articles). Headbomb recently pointed out to me that this reference was not very helpful and suggested another format (which I have just used in this article). The fact remains that it is behind a pay-wall, so that no direct URL can be given, but that is no impediment to using it as a reference (we also use printed sources as references, even if they are not online). As for the JCR not being independent, you've got to be kidding. Many newspapers, for example, are owned by the same mother company, yet the principle of editorial independence ensures that the sources remain independent. Thomson Reuters is smart, as soon as the JCR would start being less objective and treat journals published by one of their imprints differently from others, the JCR would lose its value and subscribers would defect in droves. This is also why large companies like them set up all these different subsidiaries, to keep some "walls" between them to avoid this kind of thing. Having said all this, even if you feel that the JCR is not independent, as DGG has pointed out, these journals are also indexed in Scopus (a competitor to the Science Citation Index and JCR published by rival Elsevier) and a slew of other independent, highly-selective, databases. In short, there's no doubt that this is a highly notable publication. --Crusio (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and trout. Nomination is self-confessedly in breach of WP:NJournals, which is our standard guideline. The journal is indexed in standard indices and has been around for over 150 years. It is notable. -- 202.124.72.35 (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ our standard guideline is WP:GNG not WP:NJournals. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NJournals has been used for journals for well over a year, just as WP:PROF is used for academics. This article satisfies the more general WP:GNG as well, with the journal appearing in multiple journal indices and books about engineering literature, but we use subject-specific guidelines to avoid pointlessly repeated debates about what WP:GNG means. -- 202.124.72.35 (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ our standard guideline is WP:GNG not WP:NJournals. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and I support trouting as well. It easily passes WP:NJOURNALS with flying colors. Also per Crusio and DGG. In addition, AntonV's behaviour has been exemplary, coming to WP:JOURNALS for guidance on how to write these articles (see here and here). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does no harm to have guidelines tested from time to time to see if there is continuing consensus. Normally, this is done by using a borderline article as the test case, but perhaps it is more realistic to use an ordinary level article or even a strong one. What does harm is to continually test established and well supported guidelines to the extent that it becomes a nuisance but I do not think that is the case here. I made my original comment thinking this was an erratic AfD not a deliberate test , and I would have worded things differently in my first response had i realised. WP attempts to judge what the world considers important, not what we at Wikipedia personally consider important. For most types of subjects, the usual GNG criteria make sense, for others they make no sense at all, either in a positive or negative direction. For academic journals, a journal is important if people cite it, and there is no other relevant meaning to notability that has any relation to the RW. This can be examined directly in citation indexes for the fields that have them, or by proxy relying on its inclusion in the major indexes, for if it is not in the major indexes, nobody will find the articles and cite them. It's a self-perpetuating system, as for the academic world in general. There is no point in having Wikipedia content diverge too greatly from the RW, in either direction, in any subject--it would make the encyclopedia useless in that area. There are some real problem areas , where the GNG does not work very well and there are also no external standards, like computer programs or fictional characters, which cause some of the bitterest debates here). Some areas do have a formal standard, the Olympic sports is the best known example here. Academic journals is also one of them. There is another completely separate argument: these journals are used as references in Wikipedia articles, and we need some convenient way by which the readers can judge their reliability. Providing information about the sources used in Wikipedia articles is a valuable auxiliary goal of importance to the project, increasing the usefulness of the encyclopedia , and would justify an exception if justification were needed. The rules are not here because of their intrinsic merit as rules, or as examples of brilliant conceptual thought or clear logic, but because they are useful to the goals of the project. Everything here is to be judged in that light, and we've even managed to codify that as one of the foundations of the project in what I think actually is one of our conceptual brilliances: improving Wikipedia is a sufficient justification -- and indeed the only justification -- for any rule or any exception. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Individual AfDs are not a good way to change policy, and in any case this is a bad test case as it seems to pass WP:GNG (e.g. the mentions in Stankus, added to the article, and the JCR listing). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks to User:David Eppstein for adding what appears to be an independent reference, for a total of one, by my count. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is JCR not an independent reference? I don't understand your "reseller relationship" comment in the nomination statement. Sage and ISI are different companies and I have no reason to believe that ISI is in any way non-neutral in choosing the subjects for JCR or conducting its reports. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I meant was that ISI resells / packages Sage-published journals to institutions, usually there's quite a bit of infrastructure involved (Shibboleth authentication, proxies, etc). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is JCR not an independent reference? I don't understand your "reseller relationship" comment in the nomination statement. Sage and ISI are different companies and I have no reason to believe that ISI is in any way non-neutral in choosing the subjects for JCR or conducting its reports. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Crusio, DGG and Headbomb. —Ruud 14:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily passes Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals), which, while not an official guideline, still provides the most useful guidance on evaluating notability of academic journals. Nsk92 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the only "delete" !vote (apart from the nom) just was changed to "keep". Given the large number of policy-based "keep" !votes, I think that we have some unseasonal (atleast for the Northern Hemisphere) snow here. --Crusio (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article looks useful for historical research. I don't know these British journals but an analogous U.S. one is the Transactions of the AIME (American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers) which I have studied at length and can say with certainty was historically important (and it deserves an article when I can get around to it). In such journals new discoveries, inventions, and findings on 19th century iron and steel work were discussed, including railroad technology which helped economic growth happen. Even if one were to argue they only recorded past stale discussions, these journals are cited for evidence on what happened and what important people knew and thought back then, ergo are important for the activity of "doing history" now. The Library of Congress entry on the journal(s) under discussion suggests to me that it has a similar significant history of 160+ years, and from my bookshelf I see that MacLeod's Heroes of Invention (a significant work of economic and technology history of the industrial revolution) cites these Proceedings and the Institute. Happily I see in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) this category of Notability: "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history." Present-day citations are not the only criterion of inclusion for an encyclopedia. (It would be good to see information in the article of present-day circulation or influence, but it's not necessary.) Side note: The arguments above include some hints of a sublime significance here that I can't interpret well: (a) This is a "test case" ... of what? (b) Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) isn't "policy." Well, it's a "guideline" and looks good to me; is someone saying it should or should not be "policy"? I don't know whether making it policy is worth the trouble; (c) it can be argued that professional/institutional journals are not academic journals; is that in play here? perhaps different criteria apply, because e.g. they were not always been peer reviewed and have plainly for-profit participants; I don't see a need to get into that. -- Econterms (talk • contribs) 19:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. All these so-called "commercial" connections are of a superficial view, although I am sure it is in good faith WP:AGF. As was stated above by DGG (in so many words) these "Proceedings" are part of a supportive and interconnected system. Even a seperate and competing publisher has faith in the impact factor [4] as a rating system. This set of journals are also listed in other Thomson Rueters' databases [5], [6], [7], etc., etc. There is no playing favorites here. Here are the services that index two of these journals [8], [9]. Also, I see no problem with Anton's editing behavior. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fact that academic journals are a bit incestuous and often make a profit doesn't invalidate the journals' clearance of the WP:NJournals bar based on independent references to, citations of, and indexings of them. I'll admit, the for-profit journal industry sort of gives me the creepy-crawlies, but since there's no WP:GIVESFLUFFTHECREEPS guideline, that does no one any good. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 26 July 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kurtis Patterson[edit]
- Kurtis Patterson (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 person, the only reliable source I can find about him says he was an unused sub for a football team in a semi-pro league. His name is not mentioned on the cast of any of the productions listed on the article. Quasihuman | Talk 22:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sadly not enough. WP:ATHLETE requires sportspeople to play in the fully professional game, and WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple works. The History Boys and Harry Potter are both major works, but his appearance (if verified) is being used in some video footage in one, and presumably a background character in the other. That's not really significant roles. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. He fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:ACTOR. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable as a footballer, not notable as an actor. GiantSnowman 14:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:NACTOR. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 16:07, 26 July 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jamarkus gray[edit]
- Jamarkus gray (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 vanity article about a non-notable high school athlete and teen performer. And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:14, 22 July 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. -- Lear's Fool 05:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dancing to the Rhythm[edit]
- Dancing to the Rhythm (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 the requirements of WP:Notability (music) as it relates to individual songs. Limited independent reliable sources relating directly to the song. Most mentions are either trivial or blog related. Song has not come close to charting. Nor does it meet any other of the requirements for having a separate article. Most of the article data belongs and should be placed in the artist's article. Note that the ABC News reports cannot be considered as reliable sources as ABC has been heavily promoting the artist and thus is not an independent source. The other source given is a promotional site. The artist herself is of dubious notability, but I will wait for the results of the AfD on this song, before going into the subject of the artist herself. Delete. Safiel (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete utterly fails any possible notability criterion for WP:NSONGS due to lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per TPH's reasons and inaneness of entire promotion by GMA and ABC in the first place, which never left that network because they're crazy to think anyone else but ABC would promote this thing. Nate • (chatter) 04:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a classical example of a novelty song. It is also very pioneering in its concept and execution. In three days, "Dancing to the Rhythm" was decided upon (as a song and as the person who will perform it), was recorded in a studio, a music video made and song launched on a truly famous program followed by millions of viewers. As for claims of chart success, songs should not be judged solely by their chart success. There are hundreds of other non-charting songs that fit some notability criterion. This is probably the first time that a song unveils in front of our eyes in just three days in a true interactive manner and pioneering fashion in which we feel we are personality participating in its launching and propagation. It is notable and relevant for these reasons given. Keep. Incidentally I have also addressed the reference issues raised by original request for non-ABC sources and now we have additional independent sources talking about the song werldwayd (talk) 05:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which amount to a fan-written blog, a gossip blog, a PR piece and a site that has nothing but its lyrics. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable song. Did not chart. Sources are inadequate.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NSONG in a major way. Fails WP:GNG; most sources provided are promotional and lack independence. The two sources which are the most reliable and the most independent frankly disparage the song. While both do "make comparison between Rebecca Black and Lexi St. George", the comparisons are not favorable ones. Humorous to see the sources ridiculing the song and artist misused in this promotional way. BusterD (talk) 00:49, 30 July 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. Sandstein 06:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New You Magazine[edit]
- New You Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for a magazine of questionable notability. Article creator has a clear WP:COI - article previously speedied as advertising. Google search on "New You Magazine" shows a lot of hits, but little coverage from reliable sources - most are primary sources, press releases, blogs, subscription, or sales links. Google news search shows no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable coverage. When I searched Yahoo!, all I found was this PRNewswire article....not enough to sustain the article. SwisterTwister talk 06:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and foregoing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:03, 30 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Buffalo Green Code[edit]
- The Buffalo Green Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Buffalo Green Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
No wide coverage of this recently launced planning code. Doubtfull if it is important enough for a encyclopedia because it looks rather promotional. Night of the Big Wind talk 21:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's just a revision of local zoning bylaws. I see no significant coverage bout this outside of Buffalo. In particular, if this were truly innovative, or notable in some fashion, there would be academic material written by those studying urban planning. -- Whpq (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: article has been moved to Buffalo Green Code. I have not retitled the AfD, but I have added the link into the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article fails to assert the significance or importance of the code outside of Buffalo. I agree with Whpq's analysis: were this a notable code, there would be coverage of it in urban planning journals or similar publications. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article as well as its subject matter are both still in their early stages of development. A series of workshops are taking place at various universities throughout the city and region to gather citizen input as well as report the goals of the plan. Both local and national experts on regional planning and urban planning have been giving talks throughout the city. ~SAB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.45.221.166 (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Has this been documented in reliable sources such as peer-reviewed urban planning journals or something similar? That you say that this subject is "still in there early stages of development" would seem to indicate that it is too soon for this to have received much coverage at all. -- Whpq (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have edited the article for prose and accuracy, and have added external references and links to place the project within its national planning context. I am not the author of the article. For full disclosure, I am connected to the project through my employment at the City of Buffalo. Kahawa (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This has no notability. Local bylaws are constantly being reviewed and revised all over the place. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no substantial third party coverage. Sandstein 06:17, 30 July 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. Courcelles 20:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chromatic scale for flute[edit]
- Chromatic scale for flute (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 pedagogical tool being promoted by its creator. No evidence that anyone else uses it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this is different from any other chromatic scale for any other instrument. Guy's just trying to get his name on the internet. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources other than WP:SPS by the creator of the topic. Nothing at all found in a Google search. The notability of the creator (Daniel Theaker) is in question; note that his bio is currently being considered for deletion on grounds of non-notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: Daniel Theaker was considered for speedy deletion in 2006, and apparently was deleted (and then recreated soon after without anyone noticing?) — not currently under consideration for deletion, but I imagine it probably should be. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Daniel Theaker bio has since been deleted yet again. User:Racehorse87 (talk · contribs) 16:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: Daniel Theaker was considered for speedy deletion in 2006, and apparently was deleted (and then recreated soon after without anyone noticing?) — not currently under consideration for deletion, but I imagine it probably should be. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Author is trying to take public credit for transcribing a chromatic scale in what he claims is a unique format. It's not unique. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 16:57, 29 July 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. A7 Ronhjones (Talk) 20:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammed dolphin[edit]
- Mohammed dolphin (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 indication that WP:NMUSIC is met. Claims to be a "top ten producer" bu there are no sources to back it up. SmartSE (talk) 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 Obvious puffery like "top producers in the middle east" without sourcing shouldn't be used as reason to circumvent A7. With that bit of peacockery gone, this is now a slam-dunk A7. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:11, 22 July 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. Courcelles 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welfare trap[edit]
- Welfare trap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of citations and tone issues CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. As you may see from google, it is a well-known concept. The article may be easily cut to a reasonable stub. Lorem Ip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Nominator has not provided a deletion rationale: poor referencing and tone can both be corrected through normal editing. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But will it be corrected if no one makes it known? Slapping up maintenance tags does nothing. I just know that the instant this AFD closes, the article's gonna stagnate, and 4 years later it will be no better off than it first was. If you're gonna say it can be fixed, PROVE IT or GTFO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TPH, you are way too pessymistic. The article content is reasonable; otherwise the first thing I would have done I'd decimated it. Per WP:V, if things are not doubted, you don't have to put refs right away. I have already added a ref, by the way. There is nothing horrible in the article to be outright deleted. Yes, wikipedia lack workforce in many areas, but the solution is NOT to delete what is not maintained. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a WP:NOEFFORT argument. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yours is a WP:SEP. I say we're even. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. OK. I am done with fixing the article to a decent state. Sadly, it seems that TPH was right: nobody cares. Lorem Ip (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable social policy concept. I'm not 100% sure this is the correct academic phrase for the concept, but it works. Obviously this is a potential magnet for POV commentary, but that's neither here nor there in an AfD debate. Per a comment above: be advised that Articles for Deletion is not the Article Improvement Workshop. Articles come here and either live or die based upon notability standards and past practice; voting keep in no way requires one to contribute content to the challenged article in question. Indeed, it can be argued that too much stuff hauled to AfD with insufficient reasoning steals editor time away from content creation elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. Any real American can tell you that those in poverty deserve it. Any attempts at evoking sympathy are just "commie liberal" extortion schemes aimed at stealing money from the government and hard working taxpayers. This is a blatant attempt at subverting wikipedia to install a left wing bias. --Dumpstercake (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I just found this article organically from a Google search when I wanted to check if the terminology I was using on a blog was correct. The article is brief but accurate and informative; it could probably use some expansion, but there's a terrible reason to delete something useful. —Brent Dax 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-the Google results speak for themselves. Definitely not a made-up neologism. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Any well-read person has heard of this phrase, and any of our core readership who may be less than well-read would like to read this article. The large number of possible sources online shows the notability of the phrase. Its long chain of evidence indicates that it is not a neologism. Newbie Dumpstercake's argument appears to be either illogical or a snark. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 26 July 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. Courcelles 20:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polarity (game)[edit]
- Polarity (game) (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 board game. I have not been able to find any significant, direct, detailed coverage of this topic in secondary sources. The PROD-tag was removed without explanation by Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) – which seems rather impolite but no more so than I've come to expect. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Was awarded the Smart Toy of the Year in 2006 by the Science Museum. Warden (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I obviously don't wish to belittle the magnitude of the Science Museum's award, the game has to have significant coverage, not simply have won a prize. This isn't WP:ANYBIO we're talking about. ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 19:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See The Daily Telegraph for an example of detailed coverage. Warden (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden. The game won an award and is covered by third-party sources. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 04:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 18:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Djurumani[edit]
- Djurumani (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 is a biography of a living musician that does not meet notability. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm unable to find any notable reference to this artist, beyond a few scattered mentions on obscure music sites, nothing that indicates notability. That being said, I did find one of his songs on Youtube, and it's somewhat pleasant to listen to, especially while sitting out in the sun on a beach... still, fails WP:N, so delete. AP1787 (talk) 21:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not seeing any evidence of notability for this WP:BLP. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 26 July 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. Courcelles 20:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese Horror Anthology: Legends[edit]
- Japanese Horror Anthology: Legends (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 notability evident in the article; PROD was disputed by article creator. I'm not finding anything useful for sourcing or notability in an (English, as unfortunately I don't read Japanese) google search. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not only was the PROD removed, but it was without any explanation on the talk page. This subject is obviously non-notable, but I shall change my vote if a Japanese speaker can shed some light on the other sources. Interchangable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. No sources at all cited in the article. If it is notable then someone needs to present evidence that it is, but at present no such evidence is visible either in the article or, as far as I can see, anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and request the author to try again (and in a sandbox), as we have a few serious problems. When searching IMDB for Japanese Horror Anthology: Legends, it took me to Inagawa Junji no shinjitsu no horror [10]. Fine. That seemed to make sense. But when searching for the purported director Kiyomi Yada,[11] IMDB led me to Inagawa Junji no densetsu no horror... a similar but different title.[12] With what the author provided, I found two different titles, two different sets of production and cast, and both films being a compilation of six horror shorts and released in 2003. It almost seems the author took the cast and plot description from one film and director and production information from the other. I began an honest effort to expand the stub, but when realizing the contradictory information offered by the author, I realized that I was honestly unable to determine of just which of the two films the author intended writing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 25 July 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Santhosh Pandit[edit]
- Santhosh Pandit (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 per WP:FILMMAKER; no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Speedy deletion per db-repost was declined on the grounds that the article had substantially changed, but there's still no indication of notability here. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related article, because it likewise offers no indication of notability per Wikipedia:Notability (films), and has no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources:
- Krishnanum Radhayum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. No evidence of notability. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Santhosh Pandit. Nothing has come forward to show notability since this article's snow deletion of 4 weeks ago.[13] And with its recreation, could an admin please look at the histories to see if this current version was different enough from its deleted predecessor to have not qualified for a G4 speedy? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete should be G4 speedied. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Krishnanum Radhayum per WP:TOOSOON. Searches find it written of only in blogs, forums, and other unreliable sources.[14] Maybe later... but certainly not now. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - All reference cited here are NOT "Independent of the subject" - works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. Looks like self-publicity/advertising/self-published material by the subject, autobiographies. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 08:32, 25 July 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. Courcelles 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Panda Kid[edit]
- Panda Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article about a musician who appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. The article used to have some references but I removed them because they pointed to non-reliable sources ([15]). Rymatz (talk) 13:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete -- No credible assertions of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - agree with above. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 18:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : fails WP:Music, unsourced, advert. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:26, 22 July 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. Courcelles 20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anticorruption Education[edit]
- Anticorruption Education (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-encyclopaedic essay of opinion per WP:No original research, and WP:Synthesis, POV advocacy for an idea. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Makes good points - but... Personal opinion is not encyclopaedic. I wish the author success against corruption, but this isn't the place for campaigning. Peridon (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete POV and OR violations and I couldn't find RS to improve it. Of course, this could be changed to a keep in return for an, ehm, small favour :) Puchiko (Talk-email) 09:58, 26 July 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. Courcelles 20:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mona's Dream[edit]
- Mona'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)
No evidence film has ever entered production. WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 11:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The sources are unreliable, and I think this may even be a hoax. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The film's official web site still says that they are aiming to being production in the spring of 2010, but that they would need to raise more funds to be able to do so. Given that the site was apparently never updated to indicate that they started production, and the film is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database, I assume that the filmmakers did not succeed in raising the funds they needed and never began production, and I don't even know if they are still trying to do so. I suspect this is more likely a project which failed to be realized due to a lack of funds rather than a hoax, but either way it isn't notable per WP:NFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In either case above, delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No reviews, no books, no journal articles, no reliable independent online sources. Nothing on which to base a keep outcome. BusterD (talk) 18:25, 29 July 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. Sandstein 06:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Business-to-consumer[edit]
- Business-to-consumer (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 and redirect to Retailer (redirect to Retail. Si Trew (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge
Keep and improve and make more clear. This article seems to deal with electronic (online) transactions. Retail expressly says it is about in-person transactions only.This could be a section in Retail, which is now very confused. It starts out saying it is only about shops, etc. and a couple of sentences later adds online retail (which seems to be the topic of this article.) Steve Dufour (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete. The current text reads like original synthesis if not entirely original research. The actual subject of the piece seems to be online retailing. There does seem to be some vaporing and general bamboozlement going on here, and the overall tone is let's make money fast on the Internet:
B2C e-commerce went through some tough times, particularly after the technology-heavy Nasdaq crumbled in 2000. In the ensuing dotcom carnage, hundreds of e-commerce sites shut their virtual doors and some experts predicted years of struggle for online retail ventures. Since then, however, shoppers have continued to flock to the web in increasing numbers. In fact, North American consumers adopted e-commerce so much that despite growing fears about identity theft, they spent $172 billion shopping online in 2005, up from $38.8 billion in 2000.
By 2010, consumers are expected to spend $329 billion each year online, according to Forrester Research. What’s more, the percentage of U.S. households shopping online is expected to grow from 39 percent this year to 48 percent in 2010. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Yes, it's one of the worst articles on Wikipedia. I suggest that any pearls of wisdom contained within the text (if there are any) should be moved to Retail, as suggested, and the article be deleted. nagualdesign (talk) 15:48, 23 July 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Mine[edit]
- The Mine (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 evidence the film was ever release. No notable coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 11:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. Nothing specifically notable about the production itself. IMDB is generally not acceptable as a reliable source (per WP:IMDB). Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy back to its author per WP:NotJustYet. I found a decent November 2010 article in the Daily Herald on director and producer Jeff Chamberlain and his filmiing in Utah,[16] and an Italian language mention in Eco del Cinema [17] refering to the film. BUT, and as even their "official" Facebook page states the film is still in post production,[18] this one is simply to soon for an article. I'm hoping new contributor SychoSide wil understand our requirements for better sourcing and accept it back into a userspace sandbox until such time as it is completed, released, and gets more press coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy is a good alternative. Let's give it some time... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:21, 30 July 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. -- Lear's Fool 12:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. |
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Lear's Fool 12:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GOES Project[edit]
- GOES Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ephemeral project. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is an offsite project encouraging the creation of these meritless articles about EU academic projects. Most of them, like this one, are written in ponderously vague grant-application language, promising the moon while the only concrete proposals are to hold meetings or collect data, and as such deliberately uninformative and promotional. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced and poorly written without meeting WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't find any media coverage on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 18:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Tiemens[edit]
- Mark Tiemens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP since 2009. Can't seem to find any RS relating to him through Google, but some of the claims here seemed to prompt closer examination than a BLP prod. Dweller (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Same issue for me as for the nom. Google News archives only turn up articles about a football player, there's at least one brief reference to the song Tiemens wrote in an encyclopedic type book about music for films (it just verifies that the song was written), and otherwise I'm not coming up with anything. I think we can probably verify that he exists and that he wrote or co-wrote a song that was featured in a film, but I don't think we can verify much beyond that and there certainly is not significant coverage in reliable sources. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 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. -- Lear's Fool 12:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal[edit]
- Syed Abdul Rasheed Koya Thangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"great Islamic saint who lived in the Indian subcontinent". No sources in article, and can find no reliable ones. Christopher Connor (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable source found on google. Sehmeet singh (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing verifiability unless someone can at least find a reliable source. Then we could discuss notability, and whether there are sufficient reliable and independent sources to satisfies WP:BIO. The article does not even state when he lived, but claims that "He has thousands of devotees around Sri-Lanka and India." That being the case, there should be numerous sources available. Perhaps someone could search in likely non-English references for India. Nothing turns up for the name (as spelled) at Google Book search or Google scholar. Leaving out various of his names might generate spurious matches. Edison (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on Google and Yahoo except for social networking sites. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 24 July 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. (non-admin close) While some cleanup is in order, clearly no consensus to delete. BusterD (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of cultural icons of Scotland[edit]
- List of cultural icons of Scotland (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:IINFO no inclusion criteria, it seems to be mainly a list of Scottish stuff. Also of the references I checked about 20 in total not one of them supports the idea of the person/place or thing being an icon but rather simply excising and being scottish Gnevin (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The basis of the list seems self-evident and there are similar lists for lots of other countries. Warden (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not surprising it is "Scottish stuff" since it relates to Scottish culture. Seems an obvious topic for a Wikipedia article. Periodic cleanup is an obvious requirement for such a list, to restrict it to things which have or which are notable enough to potentially have articles, and to remove vanispamcruftisements. The topic "Scottish cultural icons" is itself found in five results at Google Book Search, and "Scottish Icons" turns up additional relevant books such as [19] which lists "tartan, whiskey, smoked salmon, bagpipes and the Scottish landscape," as well as Harry Lauder, ancient castles, the kilt, bloody clan history, & Braveheart. [20] lists as "Scottish icons" Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Battle of Culloden. Google News archive hasmany articles discussing "Scottish icons." A candidate for membership on the list should have a reference stating that it qualifies, if not in those exact words. Not everything in Scotland is or was a "Scottish icon" but many such can be readily referenced. (I would keep "cultural" in the title to make it clear it is not about Greek Orthodox religious images). One book noted that they are the things depicted on postcards one sends home from Scotland. The list is appropriate and maintainable. Edison (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Inclusion criteria is fuzzy and sourcing is non-existent, but this is a worthy addition to Wikipedia-as-pop-culture-compendium. A decent mine of in-links. That's not a stellar AfD argument, but ultimately this piece improves Wikipedia and that should really be the bottom line in deletion decisions. Carrite (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - some dubious entries, but is supposed to be a list of erm, Scottish stuff.-MacRusgail (talk) 21:58, 26 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 18:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
J.C. Piedrasanta[edit]
- J.C. Piedrasanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod notice removed without reason (along wiht BLP tags) by IP. Unreferenced BLP since 2009. Couldn't find anything on Google that wasn't Wikipedia mirror. Also, no article on spanish Wikipedia, which might have helped. Dweller (talk) 08:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no source available on google about the BLP and fails WP:BLP Sehmeet singh (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable sources, none of which were found on both a Google and Yahoo search. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 24 July 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lalla Latifa Hammou[edit]
- Lalla Latifa Hammou (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 wife of someone notable - unworthy of her own article - some contentious uncited also in the article - templated uncited since ten months - If someone can assert she really exists and was married to him then I support a deletion and then a protected redirect to stop this article being recreated, if not then delete and salt. I notice the detail about her is in Hassan II article but it is uncited there as far as I can see - anyway this person is not wiki notable and shouldn't have a BLP here. WP:NOTINHERITED - Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that she really exists and was married to Hassan II. [21] I agree with your suggestion of a protected redirect (to Hassan II). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 7 July 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) 00:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well she certainly exists since her son is the current king of Morocco. Article is worthy of existence in my opinion given that she is a member of the Royal house of Morocco and was "First lady of Morocco" for 39 years. Tachfin (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-->
The (possibly imprisoned?) mother of the current king whose brother attempted to kill King Hasan II is a non-notable...? ...and Iron Man's enemy "Whiplash" isn't? You guys are beyond laughable with all your little codes - it's breathtaking. "Wikipedia is Second Life for Corporations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.45.36 (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The immediate family of ruling monarchs are notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 22 July 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, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect - Not sure I agree with DGG that " The immediate family of ruling monarchs are notable" some Kings have scores of children, do all the children warrant WP articles? of course not. I suggest that immed family members of national leaders are notable only if sources discuss the family member in a significant way (such as Albert, Prince Consort, Mary Todd Lincoln, etc). Lalla Latifa Hammou appears to have virtually no mention in Google Books. The best solution, in my opinion, is to include mention of her in the Hassan II of Morocco article, where she is already mentioned. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes - I agree with Noleander's comments. Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED: <<does not apply, to situations where the fact of having a relationship to another person inherently defines a public position that is notable in its own right, such as a national First Lady. In other words "Inherited notability alone is not necessarily enough notability.">>. This is WP rule found here
- As I said, she was first lady for 39yrs with the title "Mother of the princes" (King Hassan II only had one wife), and that constitutes enough notability in the royal case. If this gets deleted than all first ladies articles should be. With the exception of Hillary Clinton, i don't see any other first ladies worthy of any notability on their own. This is exactly why WP:NOTINHERITED has the exception cited above. Tachfin (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not accurate to say "With the exception of Hillary Clinton, i don't see any other first ladies worthy of any notability on their own." Each of the first ladies that have WP articles have hundreds of WP:Reliable sources that discuss them, often there are entire biographical books on them. The point here is that the subject of this article has virtually no mention anywhere in books or other key sources. No one is suggesting that she be eliminated from the encyclopedia, merely that she be described in a section in the King's article, and this article redirect to that. --Noleander (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect. Notability is not inherited. Some "royal families" where the rulers have multiple wives are so large that it is doubtful all members satisfy WP:BIO on the basis of multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, especially in small countries, and especially if they are somewhat closed societies. Being a family member of a ruler does not automatically make someone a public official. Not every family member of every ruler travels the world giving speeches and making appearances, or is in the press all the time for other reasons. One cannot automatically equate a wife of some king to a "First Lady" of the US or the spouse or heir of a British monarch as having "a public position that is notable in its own right." (Seems like there should have been some press coverage of Hassan marring "Lalla#1" and "Lalla#2," both in 1961. Was it sort of a double wedding?) Google news archive had only a handful of passing references to her, listing her as the mother of her offspring, not sufficient to support of WP:BIO. Where is coverage of her personally? Edison (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The subject seems to be more commonly known as just "Lalla Latifa", so these sources should be considered: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lalla Latifa did undertake public duties covered by the press,[22] and is covered on 5 separate pages of this book, with the coverage on pages 77 and 79 appearing (with my basic Spanish) to be substantial. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the wife of a head of state she is notable as per both DGG, and Noleander along with the coverage found by Phil Bridger. VERTott 08:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability guidelines don't say - all wives of heads of state are notable. I can't find any mention of such a clause in the notability guidelines? Would you please point me to where it is asserted, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hassan II per Noleander. I don't see any policy stating that such people are automatically notable, and also note that all of the couple's children have articles; I'd make a pretty good guess that most
if not allof these are in a similar position. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that you mean that the article of an active head of state should be deleted too? Good guess indeed Tachfin (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously not, hence my use of the word "most". I will however strike the "all" to make it clearer. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (@Off2riorob and Black Kite) I moved the discussion on from the claim that such people are automatically notable. How do the sources that I linked not satisfy the general notability guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at those. Even the newspaper article admitted that she is hardly ever seen in public, whilst I suspect (with my ropey translation skills) that the majority of the book mentions are in terms of her relationship to other people - mainly Hassan and her son. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Discussion has shifted, best to let it continue. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC) 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It has been consistent practice that immediate family of heads of state and usually heads of government are notable. The attempt to change this consistent practice is inappropriate, for there is always both importance and interest. For an area where sourcing is difficult for us, the extent of sourcing needs to be relaxed, or we will never escape WP:Cultural bias. WP:V is of course necessary, and has been met. DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Phil - the citations you have presented do not assert a requirement that this person warrants their own Wikipedia biography, so my moved to a position of redirect is unaltered - nothing is lost with a redirect - all the detail currently in the article is already in the husbands article - if someone reliably expands the detail there about this wife then a case can easily be made to recreatew a bio under her name - right now from presented evidence here they seem notable in the husbands bio only or a mention in a list. Off2riorob (talk) 18:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without coverage, nothing is notable, and I'm not seeing any coverage, certainly not to the level of WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The coverage highlighted by Phil Bridger is likely to get it over the line, in my view. When the "Hammou" is dropped from searches there is a fair bit out there, although admittedly not in a huge amount of depth/ Add to that a reasonable expectation of more coverage in the subject's native language (Arabic) and a separate article is warranted. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Fascinating, I added a few references to the article. Though she has less coverage than a normal spouse of a king might have, she has coverage for being so kept out of the public eye, which has not escaped frequent attention. There's nothing gained by deleting this article.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - thanks for the improvements. The privacy content is not really about her, more about privacy in general. Anyways, if its kept, which is looking likely at least is sourcing is improved. Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 1 August 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. -- Lear's Fool 12:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandre P. Smith[edit]
- Alexandre P. Smith (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 find no matches in GNews or GBooks and the article fails to make a case against the criteria of WP:AUTHOR. It seems unlikely that reliable sources to demonstrate the impact required will be added in the near future. Though http://www.paisano-online.com appears in the page history (not in the version at the time of nomination), this is a student-run weekly newspaper circulated on campus, which would not address impact. PROD removed, along with all prior improvement tags, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No Sources. --Thompson.matthew (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable media coverage, and I didn't get any hits on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 06:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 23 July 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 Paul Simon. v/r - TP 20:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kathy Chitty[edit]
- Kathy Chitty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was deleted in a previous AFD, but there was no quorum and closed by Cirt, so one user suggested it deserved another AFD. causa sui (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Paul Simon. WP:BLP1E. --causa sui (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To amplify on this, I feel that very little content (if any) should actually be merged (per strong arguments below), so this !vote should be counted as in a coalition with delete !voters. causa sui (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Paul Simon Songbook is also a good merge target. causa sui (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Do not merge or redirect, since there are BLP issues. (Maybe a tiny merge of a small portion would be OK.) Regarding the BLP issues: "Kathy was quite shy and wanted no part of the success and fame that awaited Simon" and "Kathy is a very private person; all attempts by the press to cajole information or her whereabouts out of Simon have failed" are the operative factors here. Assuming these are true statements, then Chitty would probably be horrified at the existence of this article and we should treat this situation as if she had contacted the Wikipedia or the Foundation and requested the removal of the article. This is not a request the we will always honor (if the person is truly very notable) but it something that we do consider. The very most that could be said is the she just sneaks in below the lowest threshold of notability (I'd say not even that), so we should consider the WP:BLP cost versus the very low encyclopedia value.
- OK then. Putting aside for now the serious BLP concerns, and turning to the merits of the case. I think that we do, and should, include articles for person who are artistic "muses" -- persons who inspired the works of notable artists. However, we want to be reasonable about this (especially as most of these people are essentially private persons) and I think reasonable criteria for inclusion would be:
- The artist is a very important A-list artist, and
- The person was truly an important inspiration for major works or otherwise a significant factor in the artitst's life or output.
- It's hard for songwriters to be truly A-list artists for this purpose because songs are so short that it's difficult to develop deep and fully realized characters in them -- the kind of character (such as we might find in a novel or long poem or screenplay or (for that matter) a portrait) where we can recognize a person and the influence of their personality on the character.
- I think an exception could be made for Bob Dylan and Lennon/McCartney because they are so very popular, influential, and (according to many critics) of high artistic merit. Steven Foster, Irving Berlin, maybe a very few others. Does Simon make this select company, either through notability or artistic merit? Maybe. It's debatable.
- OK then, moving on, what about Chitty's influence on Simon? Are you kidding? There isn't any, not compared to real muses like (let's say) Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe or Gala or Zelda Fitzgerald or people like that. If I may take the liberty of copying in my comment from the previous recent AfD:
- It's instructive in my opinion to compare this article to Barbara Bakhmetev. (Bakhmetev was Mikhail Lermontov's muse and inspiration, as Chitty is claimed to be Paul Simon's.) I translated Bakhmetev'a article, so I'm not averse to articles about literary muses. But in my opinion Barbara Bakhmetev is marginally notable -- notable enough to have an article, but not inarguably so. Chitty falls quite far below this standard.
- I mean -- Lermontov anguished over Bakhmetev his whole life and not only wrote much poetry (and made paintings) about her but also based a major character in the seminal novel "A Hero of Our Time" on her as well as (in part) characters in other works. In contrast, Simon had a short affair (about 1.5 years) with Chitty such as young men have, moved on and married three other people, and wrote one song about her ("Kathy's Song") which was an album track and not a hit song, an acknowledge great artistic achievement, or otherwise notable.
- He mentioned her briefly in three other (more important) songs, but only in passing.
- The reference in "America simply uses the name "Kathy" as a name -- the pair was never together in America and the events described could not have involved Chitty.
- Another song has the throwaway line "It was 1964. I was living in London with the girl from the summer before" which hardly bespeaks a profound influence.
- The reference in "Homeward Bound" (the refs are off-line so I'm taking on faith that statement that it's "widely believed that this song is also about Chitty", although off the top of my head I can't see why that would be so or who the "widely" in "widely believed" actually is) is slightly more developed, although the song is mainly about the touring rather than Chitty and the joys of home life.
- It's not enough. It's not even close. I'm granting that the recent AfD (result was delete) did not have a quorum or a proper close, but can we put this one to bed now? Herostratus (talk) 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This page was deleted for the reasons stated by Herostratus above. I missed the 2nd nomination discussion and so have reinstated the article pretty much as it was when it was deleted. My reasoning for wanting to keep the article was that Kathy Chitty either inspired or is mentioned in a number of Paul Simon songs and consequently her involvement is worthy of note. Most of these songs have an article of their own so a large part of this article could be included in the individual song articles to put their inspiration into context. However, on balance it seems better to have a separate article regarding Ms Chitty rather than repeat the same wording in the different song articles.
- This article had originally been longer but has been (quite properly) edited down to remove references to Kathy Chitty's later life, but those references indicated that Paul Simon considers Ms Chitty to have been important to his inspiration at the time. For example, at least twice at huge concerts Simon has mentioned from the stage that she was in the audience. These were not casual references to a passing acquantance but to someone he ackowledges to have been his muse at the time.
- We must be very careful of BLP issues but I believe that the reference to the reason Ms Chitty broke off the relationship 45 years ago is acceptable. If others feel that is too intrusive then that is a separate argument but not one for deletion of the article.
- Also, I think the views expressed during the discussion for the 1st nomination for deletion are still valid.
- So a "keep" from me. It may well be close to the boundary, but definitely on the "keep" side.
- If there are factual mistakes as Herostratus indicates, then these need to be corrected. Rickedmo (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My vote last time as WP:BLP1E. To be frank, I'm not sure even that covers the situation, and WP:NOTINHERITED comes closer. Ms Chitty was Paul Simon's girlfriend whilst he was in England. He was thinking about her when he wrote some of his songs (to which, I am tempted to add, so he should have been), he was attached to her (ditto), she was doubtless a source of comfort and encouragement. If he had married her and she had gone with him to the US it would still not make her notable in her own right without some much more significant and verifiable influence on the music. So the argument for keeping the material in the article is that it is relevant to the songs and to the biography of the artist. That I understand, and the same situation can arise with visual artists and novelists for example. No coverage of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood would be complete without Elizabeth Siddal, but her involvement with DG Rossetti was of an altogether different order. I still think that Ms Chitty should be mentioned in Wikipedia only insofar as it is directly relevant to the context, for example where it is verifiable that a reference in a song is to her, or the relationship had a direct impact on Paul Simon's mood at a relevant time, and not have her own biography. --AJHingston (talk) 10:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or (2nd choice) Merge and redirect to Paul Simon. WP:BLP1E, WP:BLP. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Paul Simon. Suze Rotolo is a good example of a solid article of a person with a similar relationship to a pop star. However, this particular article is just a line or two of Simon-related biography and long quotes from song lyrics. I suggest we move the line or two to the Paul Simon article and a solid article can be broken out later, if a solid article can ever be written. Gamaliel (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And re Rotolo, that's Bob Dylan. While Paul Simon is very very notable, Dylan is in a Valhalla of notability with very few other artists, the place where one's used kleenex are notable (I exaggerate, but Dylan has his own category (38 pages + 7 subcategories), his own wikiproject, a Nobel Prize movement, yadda yadda. Dylan is ranked the #2 artist of all time by Rolling Stone, behind the Beatles and ahead of Elvis; Simon, together with Garfunkel, comes in at #40). And even then, you might compare Chitty to Echo Helstrom -- and Helstrom's article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo Star Helstrom) notwithstanding that 1) she is willing to talk about her past with Dyan and 2) she just might be the the Girl from the North Country). Herostratus (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - really, it could just be deleted G4 as nothing whatsoever has changed since it was deleted before. The previous AFD was closed as delete ... an editor asked the deleting admin to restore it to userspace so that it could be referenced/improved/whatever ... the article was moved back into articlespace with no changes. That's a horrific circumvention of our deletion process. --B (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a technical, not a horrific, violation. The previous AfD had a grand of total of one vote (not counting the nominator) even after relisting. That's not really a quorum and it should have been relisted again probably. Herostratus (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m sorry if I did not follow the proper action by reinstating the article in the way I did.
- The reference to the Suze Rotolo article is interesting. She is definitely worth having an article about. However, if the BLP policy were applied to the article when she was alive very little of the article would remain – it would be comparable to the present article on Ms Chitty.
- If we consider what should be done with the article generally, Kathy Chitty is only notable for her connection with Paul Simon. The options seem to be:
- delete the article. This does not seem to be the correct thing to do as Kathy Chitty has some notable connection with Paul Simon and someone coming to Wikipedia searching for Kathy Chitty should be able to find something.
- merge part of the article with the article on Paul Simon. The obvious place to place it would seem to be in the section “Personal life.” A couple of the paragraphs of the original article would fit here. However, the references to the individual songs and their circumstances would be out of place here, so that is not entirely satisfactory.
- merge parts of the article with the existing articles that deal with the relevant songs of Paul Simon. That would work but would mean repeating identical wording in a number of different articles and you would loose the overall connection between the background to the songs.
- leave the article generally as it is. It may be a small article but to me this option seems to work best.
- The article must be accurate and consider BLP policy. Rickedmo (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a chunk of the article that helps to set the context has already been deleted while we are debating its future. I feel that is a pity so I have re-instated it. Rickedmo (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to be quite a private person attached to a notable boyfriend for a while, clearly does not quality for a wikipewida BLP under her name. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, main claim of note is to have been mentioned in a few of her boyfriends songs. and has clear WP:BLP1E issues. [[Off2riorob (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable in her own right. Notability is not inherited. Arzel (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I stand by everything I said in the first discussion (which by the way was an overwhelming keep). There is nothing in here unsourced or controversial,and so what if she's a marginal case for inclusion? Over the long term, somewhere between 50 and 80 people a day look at this article - I don't see the point in deleting something two years old that has survived two AFDs already, and which people obviously find useful / interesting. This is the kind of thing that drives people away from WP. Is it ethical to just keep nominating articles until people get so tired that they don't care any more? Chris (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirectDelete - While it is understood that Ms. Chitty was at least as great an influence on Simon as Patti D'Arbanville was on Cat Stevens, and that Simon is far closer to being "a very important A-list artist" than Stevens is, Ms.D'Arbanville is not notable solely as being Stevens' muse. Having one song written about her, being mentioned in another and being alluded to in two more is probably not enough for Ms. Chitty to be a notable muse
- Anything relevant to Kathy's Song can be added to The Paul Simon Songbook, anything relevant to The US bus trip that inspired America (Simon & Garfunkel song), which Herostratus states did not happen but for which a reference is cited in the article, can be mentioned in that article if the citation is genuine, and other cited and relevant information about their relationship can be mentioned in Paul Simon#Personal life. It is probably best to transfer the information before the article is deleted. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge I said keep previously, on the basis that while my knowledge of this music is pretty minimal, even I know the relevant songs and would be interested in the person behind them. As far as BLP goes, I am unwilling to assume from the information given in the article what the person might now want over 40 years later. However, the suggested merge to the Paul Simon songbook is plausible and might solve the problem. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 24 July 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Giarratano[edit]
- Joe Giarratano (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 has questionable notability, no Google news hits on subject, cited sources are vague, article may have been created by subject Jweiss11 (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Joe Giarratano is well known in the US professional taekwondo circuit but there isn't much online coverage of the sport to cite more accurately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.15.14 (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My search found nothing to show he meets any of the notability criteria--either WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE. The article doesn't show notability and the sources are weak. The above keep vote was by an SPA and smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. Papaursa (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no evidence he is an "international competitor". I didn't find him mentioned at the USA Taekwondo website, even when I searched the hundreds of pages of results. Being a state champion, which is not even verified by reliable sources, is not sufficient to show notability and I don't see notability for anything else. Astudent0 (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find evidence that he was a state champion, much less an international competitor. The article doesn't have any supported claims of notability and lacks good sources. Actually, I'm not sure there are any claims of notability, supported or otherwise. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 03:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Francisco Flores (Mexican footballer)[edit]
- Francisco Flores (Mexican footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Has not debuted professionally, he has only appeared in a youth tournament not a senior tournament. It also fails WP:NFOOTY GoPurple'nGold24 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Don't see any evidence that this player meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. All coverage of him is routine and trivial, meaning he fails WP:GNG, and he has not played in a fully pro league, or for his country at the senior level, meaning he also fails WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 23 July 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. joe deckertalk to me 03:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Elliot's Party Boats[edit]
- Captain Elliot's Party Boats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Serious concerns about notability and verifiability. —Emufarmers(T/C) 02:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My search for reliable sources yielded a single passing mention back in the 1990s. This company is not notable by Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per lack of notable mentions. On my Google and Yahoo search, all I found were Facebook and YellowPages websites. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per a literal interpretation of WP:WHOCARES. There are 800 companies on this 'exceptions' list and that they got one is immaterial in any sense. No sources at all to speak of, and even then, it's just your average charter boat, of which there are many. Nate • (chatter) 06:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This business apparently charters sport fishing boats. They're an outfit with 10 employees that got a waiver from some requirement of the Obama health care bill. I don't see either of these claims meeting the minimal claim of importance needed to make them an encyclopedia subject, much less a significant impact on history, culture, or technology. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability — membership in a list of companies with waivers doesn't establish notability, and there is no evidence of individual notability of the company based on the cited sources. If the article is kept, it probably requires work for WP:NPOV; note the use of the "Obamacare" epithet to explain an otherwise unrecognizable abbreviated form of the health care reform bill's name. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:25, 28 July 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. (non-admin close) While "we should not dismiss the subject's concerns out-of-hand", the BLP subject's wishes can't figure overmuch in the weighing of sources or notability. Several editors make the case notability and verifiability were assessed in successful A-class or FA review. No consensus to delete or merge. Fairly clear consensus to keep. BusterD (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Making sure I address editors concerns, WP:GNG is amply met, so WP:MILPEOPLE doesn't figure in at all. WP:BLP1E instructs that in cases of a significant incident, persistence in sources is the guideline for involved parties. However, as an executive in a significant maritime military contractor, the subject is notable for other reasons. BusterD (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Moosally[edit]
- Fred Moosally (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 the original creator of this page and later successfully nominated it for Featured Article. Upon review of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People, however, this individual does not appear to meet WP's standards for notability of a military person. The event for which he was most known was for being captain of a battleship upon which occurred one of the worst peacetime maritime disasters in the US Navy. He, however, does not appear to have been directly responsible for the accident. His career and life since the accident don't appear to be particularly noteworthy. Cla68 (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ahem. Good luck in your quest having an FA deleted. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It would have to be a most unusual situation that would lead to a featured article being deleted from Wikipedia. Our procedures for vetting featured articles are so stringent that only a small fraction of one percent of our articles qualify. Since the nominator has gone through this process, certainly this person knows that better than I do, because I haven't. Notability of this person is well established. Blame is not assigned unfairly. If the article, though featured, needs improvement, then the nominator (or other informed editors) should improve the article through the normal editing process, rather than arguing for its deletion. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly a notable subject, even if one of the sources has potential issues (which were never specified), that doesn't change his notability in the slightest. To make it to FA status, it seems very out of place to say that the subject is not notable. SilverserenC 04:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:SOLDIER indicates those standards as guidelines for inclusion. The subject of the article has definitely received significant coverage in reliable sources, which is enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Rymatz (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Would Wikipedia be better off with or without this article? Easy call. "Meets General Notability Guidelines" for those of you who enjoy following rules... Carrite (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOWstorm in July Keep - A featured article? On my AfD? Is this some kind of bizzaro Wikipedia I have found myself logged onto today? The subject satisfies WP:GNG, and he has clearly gone through the citation rigamarole of FA discussion. He doesn't need to be a notable solider, he just needs to be plain notable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with USS Iowa turret explosion or Delete. Seems to me like a pretty obvious case of WP:BLP1E. That it was a featured article seems to prove that there is a flaw in the featured article approval process. Perhaps we see a long, well-researched, well-written article, as this one is, and we tend to overlook fundamental flaws. I'm unclear why it is being nominated at this time, but the nominator is to be commended for taking action upon reconsideration. I urge the closing admin to base his/her action on policy, and the wishes of the subject, not that it was a featured article. ScottyBerg (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BLP1E just isn't the case here:
- Moosally was involved in an explosion on the USS Iowa . Moosally's role in the event was covered in-depth by many sources.
- Moosally was the subject of a film based on that event.
- Moosally's (and others') lawsuit against the company who made the film is also covered by secondary sources because of issues over libel, etc..
- Later working for Lockheed Martin, Moosally was involved in a whistleblower scandal regarding their Deepwater program.
- And no, I'm not trying to say these latter events are nearly as well-covered as the ship explosion. But they are covered, and that is sufficient. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, but I doubt very much we would have an article on this man were it not for the explosion. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad you noticed, but your doubts carry no weight supporting deletion. The coverage is persistent, regardless of the reason. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that, but I doubt very much we would have an article on this man were it not for the explosion. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BLP1E just isn't the case here:
- Keep. Plenty of non-trivial mention in sources. Binksternet (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge to articles on the notable events. --JN466 21:10, 24 July 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. v/r - TP 20:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Namecoin[edit]
- Namecoin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to locate significant coverage in reliable sources that would suggest notability. Cybercobra (talk) 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has not distinguished itself as anything bigger than something made up at school one day. Shii (tock) 04:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment oh come on, it is hardly something that was made up at school. it's a real project with real users. a better argument against it existing would be the lack of references that lead to non-partisan sources. or the lack of a real history section. but it is not something just made up at school. i vote to merge with bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.73.110 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The most popular Namecoin exchange[23] traded roughly $20,000 in the last 24 hours. Imperi (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE --Cybercobra (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I vote keep because I found this notable source from CNN: http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/06/17/the-clock-is-ticking-on-bitcoin/ . Relevant quote: "Now there are even other Bitcoin-like currencies, such as Namecoins, which are bought with Bitcoins and used to pay for domain name hosting." Tommy (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That single sentence is the entirety of that article's coverage of Namecoin; one sentence is definitely not "significant coverage". --Cybercobra (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article does not significantly cover Namecoin according to the "significant coverage" definition. Would anyone have anything against a merge with the Bitcoin article instead? And if so, why? To everyone who is upset about a likely deletion: Namecoin will probably become notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability very soon anyway. We can re-add it when CNN or someone considered about equally notable writes a complete article about it. Do we need to make a backup of the Namecoin article until it becomes notable or is there a way to restore deleted articles? Tommy (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To your very last question, yes: WP:REFUND --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article does not significantly cover Namecoin according to the "significant coverage" definition. Would anyone have anything against a merge with the Bitcoin article instead? And if so, why? To everyone who is upset about a likely deletion: Namecoin will probably become notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability very soon anyway. We can re-add it when CNN or someone considered about equally notable writes a complete article about it. Do we need to make a backup of the Namecoin article until it becomes notable or is there a way to restore deleted articles? Tommy (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That single sentence is the entirety of that article's coverage of Namecoin; one sentence is definitely not "significant coverage". --Cybercobra (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is it with rampant deletionism on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.245.148.129 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not notable? Many thousands of people are mining namecoin, the hashing power today is 1 terahash. It's certainly new, but the adoption rate has been exponentially faster than bitcoin (BTC) already and there are no signs it's going away. In fact, in a month or less, NMC will be mined by everyone mining BTC. At that point it has to be considered every bit as notable as BTC, moreso if you consider the p2p dns system of namecoin has the potential to remove the need for internet applications to use centralized DNS for name to ip services. A deletion now will certainly mandate an addition later, at the least. I could see the benefit in merging it into an 'alternate block chain' article as other competing alternate blockchains such as beercoin, multicoin, and weeds deserve mention, if only in the history section of such an article. Some external links of interest: http://exchange.bitparking.com, http://namebit.org, http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/18/ruxum-wall-street-level-security-comes-to-bitcoin-with-new-exchange, http://namecoin.us, http://dot-bit.org. Note the new exchange (ruxum) is supporting NMC to many new currencies. ---- comment added by Bougyman (talk • contribs) 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No strong opinion. Long term, this article is going to exist. Delete it a few times in the meanwhile if it helps meet some internal wikipedia standard, or whatever. Note that one way to organically grow it could be to have a "derived blockchains" section on Bitcoin. That'll give a place to keep developing and sourcing the topic, at least until it becomes proportionally too big to stay in the Bitcoin article. 99.58.56.123 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The only real article about Namecoin I've found is this, which indeed is a significant coverage of Namecoin, but one can argue against the reliableness of download.bg. Also some of the editors here should take note that AfD discussion is not a voting process, but searching for consensus. Rymatz (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin | http://github.com/vinced/namecoin | https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Dot-bit | http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=6017.0 | http://www.reddit.com/r/namecoin | http://bitcoinweekly.com/articles/technological-jailbreak-bitcoin-to-namecoin | http://thebitcoinsun.com/post/2011/06/07/The-Rise-of-Namecoin | http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=23505 | http://www.tribbleagency.com/?p=8072 | http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2546815 - This seems to be nothing more then a Troll to get this entry deleted. Anyone using google can tell that namecoin is indeed a real project and has the right to be on Wikipedia, if you delete this entry you might as well delete the bitcoin entry. comment added by (netxshare) 00:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Those sources appear to all be either primary or unreliable. Re: your last sentence, see WP:OTHERCRAP. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A logical argument against the premise above as well as logic for denying notability of a currently actively traded currency, rather than repetition of the initial technicality of reliable sources; a subjective metric, would be appreciated. Bougyman (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's far from mere a "technicality", it's a key leg of one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. We likewise have guidelines for determining source reliability: WP:IRS. The generally-accepted yardstick is the general notability guideline, not arbitrary statistics (including number of users or market volume). --Cybercobra (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If bitcoin entry is valid should the bitcoin wiki not be a valid source? comment added by (netxshare) 01:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to cite itself. And please Don't abbreviate Wikipedia as Wiki --Cybercobra (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I was talking about https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin that Wiki, I was saying since bitcoin has a entry on Wikipedia should their Wiki ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Namecoin ) not count as a valid source? (netxshare)
- Ah, my apologies. Probably not, since it's an open wiki; see WP:USERGENERATED. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Shii. LiteralKa (talk) 01:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that canvassing has occured. LiteralKa (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm What an horrible link, filled with calls for ballot-stuffing and irrational hatred. Oh, none of that? Oh well, good thing the shields are up now, or God knows what would happen to this page. Also, thank you for erasing half of the article you wish to see deleted. — 99.58.56.123 (talk • contribs) has made no meaningful edits whatsoever, not even within this topic. 21:32, 23 July 2011 (CDT)
- Delete How dare people presume they are good enough to appear on this fine website? We can't just start letting riff-raff like "namecoin" in here to sully up our image amongst professors and esteemed universities as a first class source of all things knowledge. Delete it I say, delete it at once!--Dumpstercake (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bitcoin is a big, front-page deal now, and Namecoin is a similar project in a different application space; both projects are technically interesting, socially important, and increasingly widely used. I look forward to this article being expanded as the project grows, but it's definitely worth keeping this stub. I like the joke delete vote above, btw. Fang2415 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- lacks reputable independent sources. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Obviously there's a major canvassing issue here. But that aside, this lacks the significant coverage from independent and reliable sources needed to pass the GNG.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bitcoin. Not notable in its own right according to WP:GNG, but worth retaining as part of a parent article due to popularity and future notability. Yunshui (talk) 07:50, 27 July 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 G7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erotically shaped plants[edit]
- Erotically shaped plants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather unencyclopedic, subjective article. Is there some objective classification of 'erotically shaped'? If there were is this a subject notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia? No and no. Prodego talk 01:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Of course there are objective classifications of 'erotically shaped'. It is well known fact that coco de mer and orchids shaped erotically, it is clearly seen at the images. It is also clearly stated in the reliable sources I'm using. So, nothing subjective there.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems like a non-notable and artificial category of plants that doesn't deserve its own article. The content is ok, it just should be in the respective plant articles, not synthesized into a combined article. I would say the same about an article on Urn shaped plants. Rkitko (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. If a reader is looking for the plants that are shaped erotically or sexy plants for that matter (and I am sure many readers would), how he/she, the reader, should know what individual articles to look at? This article, if it is to survive AfD, will be expanded in November, when "The Untamed Garden – A Revealing Look At Our Love Affair With Plants" with lots of interesting info is published. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, reluctantly. I think this is a really interesting article, but I have to admit it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. I made a small effort to search for sources, and although there is plenty on the plants individually, I can't find any sources about erotically-shaped plants in general. I agree that we should move the content to the respective articles, as I would like to see it stay in Wikipedia even if it can't have its own article. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw the comment above about "The Untamed Garden". It looks like there will be a reliable source available in the future, which I think we can definitely take into consideration here. Is anyone aware of any other sources? If we can find the sources I will change my vote to keep. Also, I think this topic might be better off presented in list format - pending confirmation of notability, would anyone else support a move to List of erotically-shaped plants? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, This is going to be a reliable source that mentions orchids and coco de mer together. So why to delete the article now? Besides practically all sources I am using call one plant or another "erotic" or "sexy". This source mentions coco de mer and Phallus impudicus together. It could have been added to the article, but why to loose time, if it is going to be deleted? --Mbz1 (talk) 02:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just saw the comment above about "The Untamed Garden". It looks like there will be a reliable source available in the future, which I think we can definitely take into consideration here. Is anyone aware of any other sources? If we can find the sources I will change my vote to keep. Also, I think this topic might be better off presented in list format - pending confirmation of notability, would anyone else support a move to List of erotically-shaped plants? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps we should consider userfying this article for now, since there's a reasonable expectation that we'll have better sources in the near future. (Also, why isn't Banana on here!) Qrsdogg (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the content is sourced but that it's not a stand-alone article. Does the proposal for list-ifying suggest trimming the content that's there, because I'm not in favour of that idea. The upcoming source being mentioned in the lede I find waaayyy out of bounds, and normally seeing that I'd suspect conflict of interest. And disagree with userfication, as even accepting that the book would be a reliable source, it would just be one such source. I am, however, suprised that this topic is does not have more sources. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as combination of separate topics unified by one solitary book which hasn't even been published. Articles on the individual plants already exist (
most created bythe same user who created this article [ed. see below]), and there is no need to propagate the information into more and more articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Question. What articles I created coco de mer or maybe orchids or maybe Peter pepper? What?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you're right. Let me adjust: the same user who created this article also created the Legends of the Coco de Mer content fork and a number of pictures of these plants; there is no need to create yet another pointless fork article as another venue to post your pictures in. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 22 July 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. v/r - TP 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of books about hyperinflation[edit]
- List of books about hyperinflation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List based on personal opinion. Inclusion on this list, especially fiction entries, is debatable at best and original research at worst. Comprised mostly of red links to articles that likely wont meet notability WP:NBOOKS RadioFan (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up/reference as necessary. That includes
deletingremoving any works which are not obviously and incontrovertably about hyperinflation (e.g., Hitchhiker) unless a Reliable Source says they are. Red links are not a problem. Matchups 04:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which works on this list do you see as obviously about hyperinflation? What reliable sources say that they are?--RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reading them, I'd say only the ones with "Hyperinflation" in the title, but the content (or even the ToC) of others may make matters equally clear. They are reliable sources regarding their own subject matter, but my understanding of policy is that sourcing is not necessary for obvious or well-known facts. Most of the articles on integers have unsourced statements that are easily proven. Matchups 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment we really dont need to read them to categorize them, that would be original research. We do need a reference to base this list on however.--RadioFan (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Without reading them, I'd say only the ones with "Hyperinflation" in the title, but the content (or even the ToC) of others may make matters equally clear. They are reliable sources regarding their own subject matter, but my understanding of policy is that sourcing is not necessary for obvious or well-known facts. Most of the articles on integers have unsourced statements that are easily proven. Matchups 03:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment which works on this list do you see as obviously about hyperinflation? What reliable sources say that they are?--RadioFan (talk) 13:20, 18 July 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, Courcelles 00:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why is it when I read that list of titles that I get a sneaking suspicion that this entire piece is Hitchhiker's Guide cruft? Carrite (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wondered about that as well, but the only other articles the creator (and pretty much only contributor) of this list have been involved in appear to be in promoting a group called the GoldMoney Foundation May be an attempt to legitimize that (now deleted) article on the foundation.--RadioFan (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. "Hyperinflation in fiction" is not a valid category for search or study; the list of non-fiction is comically incomplete. No definition of hyperinflation is presented. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge into hyperinflation article - This list of nonfiction books could very nicely be placed into the existing "Further reading" section of the hyperinflation article. As for the fiction works, they could be placed into a new "Hyperinflation in fiction" section in that article. However the list of books needs to be scrubbed to ensure that hyperinflation is a major theme of all of them ... some of them look suspect. --Noleander (talk) 22:52, 22 July 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. J04n(talk page) 00:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anila Naz Chowdhury[edit]
- Anila Naz Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N? Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this Bangladeshi singer. While I attempted Bngladeshi searching as well as English, I recognize the language challenge, additional sources welcomed as always. joe deckertalk to me 16:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:19, 15 July 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, Courcelles 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no coverage in reliable sources. Incidentally, when I tried searching on the Bangladeshi name, I got only Wikipedia mirrors and such, so I suspect it's misspelt - if anyone manages to figure out the correct spelling, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll re-evaluate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - My research shows only very minimal, very marginal coverage. Does not meet WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable coverage, I didn't get any hits on Google or Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 23 July 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. v/r - TP 20:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gustavo López (musician)[edit]
- Gustavo López (musician) (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 biography, looks like it has been written by a family member. Notability per WP:NMG seems dubious. bender235 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:23, 15 July 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, Courcelles 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable coverage. I didn't see anything stand out on a Google and Yahoo search. SwisterTwister talk 05:29, 24 July 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. (non-admin close) Discussion has revealed precedent of etymologies as notable enough to support a WikiProject. Retaining and improving such a list is common practice. No consensus to delete. BusterD (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of English words of Irish origin[edit]
- List of English words of Irish origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Etymologies belong in a dictionary, delete per WP:NOT#DICT Gnevin (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is one of a substantial set of articles under Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin and a smaller set under Category:Celtic loanwords. So while te article itself has been copied to Wiktionary, should it nonetheless be maintained here as part of these wider structures? AllyD (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the nominator's right to say we need to remove all the etymologies from Wikipedia, then someone had better tell Wikipedia:WikiProject Etymology to go and get their coats. :) But in fact, a consensus about this has already established in 2009, following User:Wolfkeeper's unsuccessful one-man crusade to purge the encyclopaedia of etymologies. Discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-logy or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-onym have established that etymologies belong on Wikipedia. I also want to say that AllyD's remarks are perceptive and relevant—Lists of English loanwords by country or language of origin is also worth considering.—S Marshall T/C 18:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 15 July 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, Courcelles 00:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep per Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin and because the influences on English of foreign languages is an eminently notable and encyclopedic topic, and this page is essentially a subset of that. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 11:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As explained by TreasuryTag, see Category:Lists of English words of foreign origin. --Noleander (talk) 22:59, 22 July 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. -- Lear's Fool 06:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +70 kg[edit]
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +70 kg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating:
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -70 kg
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -65 kg
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -60 kg
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -56 kg
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -52 kg
- Women's Low-Kick at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -48 kg
another sprawling series of non notable sporting results. almost all of the participants are non notable. women's kickboxing gets far less coverage than men's coverage and thus dismally fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Most divisions just had 2-4 fighters and no indication of notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:44, 19 July 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, Courcelles 00:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Essentially, these are more non-notable fights that don't belong on WP becuase this isn't a catalog for every single fight that ever happened. No coverage and no notable fighters means no article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - per IJethrobot. --Noleander (talk) 23:02, 22 July 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paris 2005[edit]
- Paris 2005 (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 due to lack of notable coverage on internet (most hits are booksellers). Night of the Big Wind talk 02:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 July 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, Courcelles 00:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RS (currently no sources at all) and, thus, WP:NBOOK. I tried a Google search but couldn't find anything other than bookseller sites and Wikipedia. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Richwales. I can't find any coverage that would indicate notability, just booksellers sites. -- Lear's Fool 06:34, 29 July 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) 00:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 MAX Canarias 2009[edit]
- K-1 MAX Canarias 2009 (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 non notable sporting result that fails WP:GNG. one notable fighter does not cut it. fails WP:EVENT also. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Actually, there are no notable fighters in this one-- that bluelink in the article leads to a disambig which doesn't appear to match up with the fighter in question. All the more easy that I support deleting this with a clear conscience. Also, with of these types of nominations that so precisely resemble each other, martial arts matches are becoming very run-of-the-mill and it's unfortunate that WP was basically a catalog of these fights. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article gives no indication of notability and appears to be routine sports coverage. It also appears to lack sources and notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is on an event that doesn't have reliable sources, notable fighters, or reasons given why the event is notable. Astudent0 (talk) 17:41, 25 July 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. We do not accept unsourced WP:BLPs. Sandstein 06:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Valdez[edit]
- Wendy Valdez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability. Unable to find wp:rs to satisfy wp:creative. Note failed speedy long ago. Ariconte (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It would be useful if the nominator could explain how the hundred or so sources found by the Google News archive search linked in the nomination don't satisfy the general notability guideline. Are they unreliable, non-independent or do they not amount to significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I didn't find sources there to satisfy points 1 to 4 of wp:creative for the model / actress.... Many of the articles found are for other people in NY, Sacramento, etc. I did not think the articles on this person amounted to significant coverage about her. Possibly wp:42 should have been mentioned. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just being a contestant on BB doesn't do it, nor does a list of guest appearences and minors roles. Fails WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 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) 00:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google News search results return several reliable sources dated only a few days ago mentioning her, this is taking into account that Google News search has notoriously poor coverage of non-American (and non-English) news sites. Most regular Google search results are obscured by the hundreds of Filipino gossip sites, but I'm sure enough reliable sources can be found of her with a little effort. I found some in a few minutes of digging: Manila Bulletin, ABS-CBN News, ABS-CBN, Manila Standard Today, Philippine Entertainment Portal, FHM, GMA News, etc. Some are not in English. Try adding the keywords 'GMA' and 'ABS-CBN' (the two largest TV networks in the Philippines) in the search box.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News currently does not have "notoriously poor coverage" of at least news in the Philippines. Considering only English sources in the Philippines are good enough for WP:RS means that they have extensive coverage. What's wrong here is link rot -- news sites (not entirely restricted to the Philippines -- don't archive their articles. Fortunately, most major Philippine news websites don't delete old articles, and they can be accessed at Google News; if those don't have articles with in-depth articles about this person, then you can't look elsewhere. –HTD 04:07, 28 July 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, Courcelles 00:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until such time as anyone can provide any significant coverage in secondary sources. I would have thought that this was obvious. ╟─TreasuryTag►collectorate─╢ 11:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Let's start with the fact that this is an unsourced BLP and take it from there... Carrite (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources provided by Obsidian Soul appear to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. While a couple of them may be questionable with respect to independence (ABS-CBN runs PBB), I'd guess that MB, MST are independent. I'm open to data on that point, though. --joe deckertalk to me 04:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Still unsourced BLP. Lots of folks talking about sources, nobody's adding them to pagespace. I agree that sources can be found, in English, with no difficulty. However, everything I saw was WP:ROUTINE television entertainment coverage. Everything presented by User:Obsidian Soul met the same description. Everything I saw in other languages looked the same. Nothing directly detailing. Nothing rising to the standard of WP:IRS: "The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." BusterD (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er... I think you misunderstand what WP:ROUTINE is. You're saying so because of the mention of wedding announcements as an example, yeah? When a neighbor is getting married and publishes the announcement in the paper, it's WP:ROUTINE. When a paper publishes an announcement of a football game next Sunday at this and that, it's WP:ROUTINE. Winners of the pie-eating contest and the sack race in the last town celebration is WP:ROUTINE. A list of people who passed last week's licensure exam is WP:ROUTINE. Common, brief, light.
- Coverage of marriage failures, television roles, being listed in Philippine FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2011, a walk-out scandal, winning a place in a national-level high-profile beauty pageant (the actual winner of this represents the Philippines in Miss Universe), signing a TV contract, an abrupt ending to her TV series, etc. is not routine. Sure they're not that in-depth, but the sheer number of sources should already give you a pretty good idea of how notable she is. At the risk of doing WP:OTHERSTUFF, people like Paris Hilton base their notability on things like this. Valdez is an actress (with lead roles, not just supporting ones) and a former beauty queen. We don't need to know her favorite color or the name of the elementary school she went to. I don't even watch any of her shows and I won't actually be bothered if it ends up getting deleted lol. Just speaking up because even if I haven't watched TV for years, I recognized her name, and I suspect this whole deletion thing is merely a manifestation of WP:WORLDVIEW or maybe people just look at the 'Big Brother' thing and pass judgement immediately.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If User:Obsidian Soul feels so strongly about these sources, I'm wondering why the editor isn't putting some into pagespace? Over three weeks at AfD and the BLP is as yet wholly unsourced. IMHO, the coverage I'm reading ranks somewhere between program listings and tabloid journalism, so I'm still satisfied with my assessment of the sources as defined by WP:ROUTINE. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I'm currently working on Drynaria, Drynaria fortunei, Siebenrockiella leytensis, Cleome rutidosperma, Drynaria quercifolia, and have been invited to help as well with Paederus. Haven't seen it until a week ago, and was working on Timema, Palaeontinidae, and Snowmastodon site back then. That a good enough reason for you? I ask you the same thing. The text in that article is short enough. Remove the unverifiable stuff, source the rest instead of deleting everything unfamiliar for you. Don't ever imply that I'm lazy, kthxbye.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If User:Obsidian Soul feels so strongly about these sources, I'm wondering why the editor isn't putting some into pagespace? Over three weeks at AfD and the BLP is as yet wholly unsourced. IMHO, the coverage I'm reading ranks somewhere between program listings and tabloid journalism, so I'm still satisfied with my assessment of the sources as defined by WP:ROUTINE. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage of marriage failures, television roles, being listed in Philippine FHM's 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2011, a walk-out scandal, winning a place in a national-level high-profile beauty pageant (the actual winner of this represents the Philippines in Miss Universe), signing a TV contract, an abrupt ending to her TV series, etc. is not routine. Sure they're not that in-depth, but the sheer number of sources should already give you a pretty good idea of how notable she is. At the risk of doing WP:OTHERSTUFF, people like Paris Hilton base their notability on things like this. Valdez is an actress (with lead roles, not just supporting ones) and a former beauty queen. We don't need to know her favorite color or the name of the elementary school she went to. I don't even watch any of her shows and I won't actually be bothered if it ends up getting deleted lol. Just speaking up because even if I haven't watched TV for years, I recognized her name, and I suspect this whole deletion thing is merely a manifestation of WP:WORLDVIEW or maybe people just look at the 'Big Brother' thing and pass judgement immediately.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:34, 30 July 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth George (Christian author)[edit]
- Elizabeth George (Christian author) (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 cannot find any independant sources to confer notability for this author. Angryapathy (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google News finds a few independent sources (mostly reviews) for each of her books (e.g. [24]). Not enough to make any of the books notable, but enough for this article, per WP:AUTH #3 ("a collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews"). -- 202.124.73.230 (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of these reviews from reliable sources? The one you provided spelled "Oregon" wrong. Angryapathy (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: phrasing the Google News search to catch multiple book reviews in one go ([25]) finds a plethora of material, mostly reliable sources, including a (rather negative) newspaper review from Australia ([26]). -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 07:19, 10 July 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) 00:14, 15 July 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, Courcelles 00:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If the sale of 4.3 million books could be documented, that would steer towards keep. There's no real sourcing showing here though and nothing whatsoever for that assertion. Carrite (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- her name and book titles are familiar enough with anyone who's visited a Christian bookstore. Online searches reveal plenty of possible sources. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Now the article reads 6.5 million total copies sold with a link to a publisher's website. Using the Ronald Reagan principle of Trust But Verify towards her purported million seller, A Woman After God's Own Heart returns 489 copies on the book site ABE.com, which is in line with what a million seller would show there. This article needs further sourcing, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 27 July 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.