Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 July 29
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Absolutely no consensus to do anything here, but it appears that this is not a deletion issue anyway, but a question of where certain articles should be located. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation)[edit]
- Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This nomination was mistakenly placed at WP:MFD. Since there were a number of good-faith comments before the mistake was noticed, I am transferring the discussion already underway rather than closing and re-opening. See original nomination statement by Toddst1 below. RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a completely unnecessary DAB page. Apple (disambiguation) doesn't point to Fruit as an entry. Apple is not an ambiguous term for fruit just as Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) is not an ambiguous term for broadly constructed Religious Fundamentalism.
This was originally tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#A6 but the article's creator protests. I've restored it and am taking it to XFD as a courtesy. (note the article's creator removed the CSD tag). Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Speaking as the Creator Keep. The issue here is when people search "Christian Fundamentalism" it has grown into an ambiguous catch all term to refer to diverse number of movements not affiliated with the movement founded on "Bible Institute of Los Angeles's The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth" the Scofield Reference Bible and Calvinist principals or . This is an important distinction and one lost on many people who have never studied the issue. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of you might be unaware of the history of the term "Christian Fundamentalism." Definitions are tricky since terminology shift frequently.
- Christian Fundamentalism historically referred to Theological School of Christian thought that peaked around the 1920s. This movement centered itself The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth (Thus the name "Fundamentalists") and the Scofield Reference Bible as holy texts.
- Example of Scholarly Literature using that definition: Joel Carpenter's Revive Us Again: The Reawakening of American Fundamentalism.
- That Historical movement is a separate from the Anthropological/Sociological/Psychology phenomenon of "Religious Fundamentalism." This is a much broader category of phenomenon which happen to share some characteristics originally observed in in the Christian Fundamentalists. Religious Fundamentalism has been observed in movements among Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and of course within Christianity.
- Example of Scholarly Literature using the definition: Ralph W. Hood's "The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism"
- The issue here is in common discourse, many groups fitted with the label "Christian Fundamentalists" are completely separate from the theological school. From the Social Science definition "Christian Fundamentalists" includes group such as Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventist Church who are appropriately categorized as such. However, the traditional usage does not cover such a broad scope of christian religious groups.
- To sum it all up: Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) were Christian Fundamentalists from the Study of religion perspective. However not all groups labeled from that perspective were/are a part of the historical movement of Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement). The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This shouldn't be a disambig, though; it's a WP:CONCEPTDAB. We should have an article similar to your explanation above that covers the various historic and modern meanings of the term; that would be the best service to the readers. We can do that by restoring and modifying the "religious movement" article, or by creating a new article. --JaGatalk 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unnecessary dab. The subject is a type of religious fundamentalism, and as such does not need to be disambiguated (agree with the apple and fruit comparison above). More suitable as a hat note, maybe. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jsfouche. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unnecessary. Paul foord (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Kleinzach 04:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ResidentAnthropologist. American Fundamentalism needs to be clearly disambiguated from the catch-all pejorative that "fundamentalism" became. --Kenatipo speak! 21:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient ambiguity to disambiguate. Someone searching for "Christian Fundamentalism" should be taken to Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement). That article has a hat link to Fundamentalism for searchers who didn't really mean to type "christian". This dab page only additionally lists "A form of Religious Fundamentalism", but Religious Fundamentalism redirects to Fundamentalism (since October 2002). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For future reference, mainspace pages, including disambiguation pages like this, should be listed at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but then it would make sense. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see. You're Wikipedian Fundamentalists. :) Toddst1 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but then it would make sense. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A hat note seems sufficient. ~~ Hi878 (Come shout at me!) 23:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, resubmit to AfD The reason we have different XfDs is because of community attention. There is obvious difference of opinion that requires the attention of the editors of the correct namespace. If this were a snowball I wouldn't raise this point, but it isn't. Is not about being a rules freak, is about being fair to the content.--Cerejota (talk) 04:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We must find a better peer review than this peer review? Really? Excuse my fuckup by posting it at the wrong *fd but that comment seems pedantic. Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to be moved, tt is not necessary to close it to move it. Just move it with the above !votes intact. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a complex issue beyond the existence of the dab. I have some comments, but since this may not be the appropriate forum, I'll wait till the discussion is moved. It has to do, however, with the fact that Christian fundamentalism redirects to the dab, and that there is no article on Christian fundamentalism as such, since over at Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) they insist that CF capitalized is a proper noun for a defined "movement". I don't know anything about that formal movement, but I do know Wikipedia needs a neutral article on Christian fundamentalism, even if it's a mythical beast. We have plenty of articles explaining mythical beasts, and as a lifelong resident of the American Midwest, South, and the Appalachians, I can assure you that there are frequent sightings of something called Christian fundamentalism. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is to be moved, tt is not necessary to close it to move it. Just move it with the above !votes intact. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We must find a better peer review than this peer review? Really? Excuse my fuckup by posting it at the wrong *fd but that comment seems pedantic. Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to AFD. There are a few steps, so I will update when it is completely moved. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: Transfer complete. I left the MFD page as a redirect in case anyone looks for it, but the discussion is now exclusively listed at AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, my !v now is Keep. There should be an article on "Christian fundamentalism" itself, rather than just a general "religious fundamentalism" article, but until which time as it is possible it is necessary to make a clear distinction between the religious movement and the common usage of the phrase. The hatting suggestion seems to not understand that overwhelmingly when people use this phrase, they are not referring to the religious movement, but the epithet.--Cerejota (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this article may or may not be related to Fundamentalism because its exact context is not known. As written this article could go in any number of directions regarding content.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure the idea behind this disambiguation page, but it seems POV. As a two-item DAB it is certainly not necessary, at a minimum, and a violation of guidelines, at a maximum.Keep - Concerns resolved by addition of more items to list. Probably needs to lose the second capital letter in title, which is a minor editing issue. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 30 July 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]DeleteKeep, with question.I agree that this dab doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose.But what happens to Christian fundamentalism when it's deleted? Christian fundamentalism redirects to the dab. A contingent at Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) asserts that there's a proper noun and formal "movement" called Christian Fundamentalism that can be distinguished from "Christian fundamentalism" (as the phrase is widely used in journalism and everyday conversation). Christian fundamentalism, however, has no article: it redirects to our dab to-be-deleted, which also offers the user Religious Fundamentalism (again the uppercase), which violates dab style by being a piped link to Fundamentalism, which presumably is capitalized only because it's the first word of the article title. At the section Fundamentalism#Protestant Christian views, however, we are told that if one is interested in Christian fundamentalism the main article is Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement), where, as I've already exhausted your patience by pointing out, editors on the talk page maintain that the article mustn't deal with Christian fundamentalism, lower case, and where the first paragraph presents a definition of "Christian Fundamentalism" as framed by an individual scholar by name. I think Carrite is right to suspect something to do with questionable content forking here, since Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) is tagged for neutrality issues. My point is, if you delete Christian Fundamentalism (disambiguation), then Christian fundamentalism will presumably go to Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement), where it is unwanted. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete It does not meet gng Pass a Method talk 08:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You got to pass us all some of that primo stuff you been smoking, cause dude, of all the problems with this article, GNG aint it. I highly dislike google tests, but in this case the quantity of sources is a quality in itself: [1]. Notice they are books on the subject, not media mentions. --Cerejota (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are (rightly or wrongly) multiple articles about Christian Fundamentalism, using multiple definitions of the term, so a dab page is useful. -- 202.124.75.246 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I agree that some of these can be solved by hatnotes, I don't see a good way to cover ALL of these meanings appropriately. I think keeping a disambiguation page makes the most sense here. Jclemens (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Several !votes date from the time that the page had only two links; it has more than that now. -- 202.124.72.198 (talk) 12:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a step in the right direction, and I've changed my opinion to "keep." Still think we need Christian fundamentalism, lower case, as an overview article that addresses the questions readers are likely to bring to Wikipedia if they see "Christian fundmentalism/fundamentalists" used in, say, news stories and want a neutral description of what that means. The overview article would take a historical approach and have short sections on the more specialized, capitalized usages, to which the reader would be directed. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Classic WP:CONCEPTDAB. We need to restore Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) to Christian Fundamentalism and improve its coverage of Reformed Fundamentalism and Conservative Christianity (it already has a section on the Christian right). There would be no problem with keeping this dab as long as we have the religious movement article restored as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --JaGatalk 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another option is to create a whole new article that covers the history of the term, taking some of the content from Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement). --JaGatalk 15:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with JaGa's reasoning here and the application of WP:CONCEPTDAB: A disambiguation page should not be created just because it is difficult to write an article on a topic that is broad, vague, abstract, or highly conceptual. The current dab page is OK by me, but Christian fundamentalism needs to have its own article, not redirect to the dab. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, the concept is confusingly interpreted in multiple ways. However, with no article at Christian Fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism, this disambiguation page should be located at Christian fundamentalism. older ≠ wiser 20:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteand move the main article to Christian fundamentalism which currently redirects to the redundantly titled Christian Fundamentalism (religious movement) - should just be Christian fundamentalism. Paul foord (talk) 01:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Improper use of a disambiguation page. Szzuk (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this page failing WP:DABCONCEPT because the items listed are not clearly distinct, and move main article to the non-disambiguated title per Paul foord. That article can and should cover all variations of this phenomenon with sources and explanations. FuFoFuEd (talk) 03:19, 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 keep. v/r - TP 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Santorum (disambiguation)[edit]
- Santorum (disambiguation) (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'm proposing this "DAB" be deleted because:
- There at most two plausible entries in it: the dude, and the proposed neologism, for which there are no reliable sources (English dictionaries, etc.), so the dude is the clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. See also RfD for Santorum. "Santorum", the neologism, is nowhere near lynching or gerrymandering as far as sourcing is concerned. A Google News search, which is technologically restricted to mostly reliable sources does not return the alleged neologism on the first page.
- There were some more entries added to this DAB pointing to articles about some of Santorum's activities [2], which have sub-articles, but entries those clearly fail WP:PTM as partial title matches.
So, this dab is not justified under Wikipedia guidelines. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor note here, the creator of this page, User:Lir is now banned. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is banned, but not for creating DAB pages like this. causa sui (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even know he was banned until after I had nominated this page for deletion. I found out when Twinkle failed to post to his talk because it's protected. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [3], [4], [5] – Do your research. Lir moved "Santorum" to "Dan Savage". He wasn't creating an attack page. This is what the original "Santorum" article looked like. What Lir did was to turn what could potentially turn into attack article on Rick Santorum if there wasn't anything done into the basis for the Dan Savage article. Lir resolved the Santorum article dispute of his day, and now FuFoFuEd is attempting to say, "A bad guy created this page." --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even know he was banned until after I had nominated this page for deletion. I found out when Twinkle failed to post to his talk because it's protected. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If we are to have an article on the Googlebomb, it just doesn't make sense not to be able to get there fairly easily when typing the "neologism" itself into the box. This is not a violation of WP:PTM, as the text near the end of that section makes fairly clear; "Add a link only if the article's subject (or the relevant subtopic thereof) could plausibly be referred to by essentially the same name as the disambiguated term in a sufficiently generic context". The other two entries might violate PTM; they're basically a "kludge" (as someone on, I think, Talk:Santorum called it), to help avoid undue weight to the Googlebomb term; I think it's a good kludge, but I'm not positive that it's backed up with policy. Your arguments would make more sense in a discussion about whether the article on the Googlebomb should exist, but that ship has already sailed. Given the fact that it exists, the dab page needs to exist too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the part about neologism is a violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand; even when there's a primary topic, we still have dab pages. Am I misreading you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that was further down in the WP:TWODABS section: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. No, I pretty strongly disagree with using a hatnote at the top of the Rick Santorum to refer people directly to the Googlebomb page; an undue emphasis that IMHO would be a BLP problem, no matter how carefully the hatnote was worded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the current solution is just a cheesy BLP violation then. Two clicks don't make it less a BLP violation than one click. Because the whole shebang is related to Rick Santorum#Statements regarding homosexuality, I've added it to the top of that section [6]. Deleting this unnecessary dab does not imply a hatnote at the top of the dude's biography needs to endorse the neologism, for which there seem to be no reliable sources. I said there are at most two plausible topics here. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see. No, I pretty strongly disagree with using a hatnote at the top of the Rick Santorum to refer people directly to the Googlebomb page; an undue emphasis that IMHO would be a BLP problem, no matter how carefully the hatnote was worded. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that was further down in the WP:TWODABS section: "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed – it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand; even when there's a primary topic, we still have dab pages. Am I misreading you? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the part about neologism is a violation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep as a useful kludge (I'm afraid I'm the one who first called it that a while back) to avoid the intense heat of the raging wildfire then in progress across several talk pages. In a perfect world, Santorum would redirect to the former Senator and a tasteful hat note would point readers to the article about the term santorum. This is not a perfect world. I'm not happy that we need a disambiguation page to keep the peace but it is keeping the peace. (In a few months, when the former Senator returns to obscurity and/or cable punditry, the issue can be revisited out of the campaign spotlight.) - Dravecky (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SOAP as this seems to be overt political campaigning rather than a genuine dab page. Warden (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I've misinterpreted your meaning. The options are 1) a hatnote at Rick Santorum pointing the reader to the article about the neologism, and 2) the status quo: a hatnote at Rick Santorum pointing the reader to "other uses". It is probable that option 1 will give more prominence to the disparaging neologism and, to some extent, boost the neologism campaign. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Look, Rick Santorum is an asshole. I get it. But this is a POV escapade intended to steer casual inquiries to the neologism campaign page. And that, my friends and comrades, is out of bounds. Carrite (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment immediately above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sure, it looks like a dab, but we all know its purpose, and that purpose is not appropriate at Wikipedia, even in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this is helpful due to how obscure the butt juice term can be in many circlesFireTool87 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP this term requires disambiguation. im surprised the santorum Amendment was removed from this page. im not overly familiar with wp policies and politics, but i am a fan of common sense. -badmachine 08:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)i have reconsidered this, and since there really are only the two terms requiring dab, a hatnote at the top of rick santorum's article should be sufficient... so:[reply]- DELETE and place a hatnote for the neologism at the top of Rick Santorum. -badmachine 05:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: not only is this technically an entirely correct case for the use of a disambiguation page, as there are at least three different things that need disambiguating (the politician, the surname in its various forms, and the frothy by-product) but, as Dravecky says, it also serves as a useful kludge to avoid political battles over the hatnote on the Rick Santorum article. -- The Anome (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per The Anome. The disambig is useful. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Santorum as first choice. If deleted, I agree that there should be a hatnote to the article about the neologism (whatever we've ended up calling that article) at the start of Rick Santorum. We should be providing navigational assitance to readers, not fretting about politics. WJBscribe (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: All this debate over the Santorum article reminds me that Rick Santorum still thinks he has a political future, hence disambiguation is needed.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, allows us to have a neutral hatnote at Rick Santorum (who is clearly the primary topic). —Kusma (t·c) 08:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "To disambiguate" does not mean to list related subjects. This page lists a person and an article about an attack upon that same person – there is no ambiguity. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - better than a hat-note. Off2riorob (talk) 18:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, using the page instead of the hatnote doesn't provide any benefit for disambiguation and hinders users by sending them through an unnecessary extra page to reach their target. The idea that a hatnote is giving the linked article "undue weight" is silly -- it's giving the linked article the weight of being the only other article reasonably likely to be searched for under "Santorum". Hiding it behind an extra step simply because you find the article's topic distasteful is a clear violation of WP:NOTCENSORED. If the article were, say, about a tiny town called Santorum, or an obscure species of frog called the Santorum, or a 1980s pop group called Santorum that only barely squeaked by the notability standard to be included here, and that article drew only a minute fraction of the number of readers that the neologism article draws, I highly doubt that there would be objection to linking to any of those topics with a hatnote or that a hatnote would be accused of giving the topic "undue weight." Discussions about content navigation should be based on usability, not subjective feelings about that content. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Off2riorob, it's better than a hatnote, which may confuse newbies. Bearian (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kusama, allows for a neutral hatnote AIRcorn (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Inviting readers of Rick Santorum to the neologism page in a hatnote at the top of the article would be, to some extent, advertising the neologism and so joining in the attack on this execrable person. With the status quo, readers looking for the neologism will find it, but we're not promoting it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 5 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 deleted as a hoax. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luke Bayliss[edit]
- Luke Bayliss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was originally created by Luke Bayliss (talk · contribs) as a user page that looked like an article, and after several edits by anonymous users was moved to article namespace by Gowan95 (talk · contribs) (whose user page also resembles an article). There is no evidence of notability or verifiability - should this be deleted or moved back to user namespace? Peter E. James (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plays soccer for London FC, just needs a few references from reliable sources. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely un-notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The international statistics are complete fabrication. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced BLP. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 13:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as blatant hoax. I just tagged it WP:CSD#G3 without reading this AfD first (oops...) WP:FAKEARTICLE would suggest it shouldn't be restored to the creator's userpage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - one of the most blatant hoaxes I've ever encountered. GiantSnowman 14:25, 31 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 19:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And Now This[edit]
- And Now This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam vandalism. Ring2011 (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete No indication of the significance of the subject, but doesn't fit CSD criteria. causa sui (talk) 23:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's nothing worthwhile here. It fits G3 as a hoax, doesn't it? SilverCityChristmasIsland 00:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete G3A1 deletion was denied, thus we have to go through the 7-day process of AfD. This article is to be plain, a mess, none of this is true at all (why would a broadcast network air reruns of a cable show for eight years?). Nate • (chatter) 01:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]G3. The speedy that was turned down was an A1; it doesn't fit that, but it plainly fits G3 as an obvious hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Google search is turning up hits that fail to establish significance but consistent with the show being real. [7] Also listed at List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon since 2005 [8]. causa sui (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, what do you know? Google News in February 1998 shows this was actually a real short-run sketch show with guests like Coolio and Shaquille O'Neal. Maybe the items about it having a long run, repeating on the WB and whatever "Did-Villian" is was complete bunk, but it is an actual show that did air for a short time on the channel. Great job on digging up that hit. I'm wavering now towards a Weak Keep with sourced information or a redirect to the List of... article with a short synopsis as a short-run series. Now I shall go off and have a delicious New Era cap for a after-dinner treat... Nate • (chatter) 03:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete anyway since I've found nothing but "Nickelodeon debuts And Now This in 1998". No substantial coverage, just mentions that it debuted. Nothing in Google Books, and the only news mentions are as I already pointed out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 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 Withdrawn due to sources identified on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MC Azeem[edit]
- MC Azeem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Unsourced BLP. A search didn't find any significant coverage. Michig (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[9] What gives, Michig? 86.44.30.207 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What gives appears to be that most of these sources don't refer to him as 'MC Azeem' and some as 'Azeem Ismail' and not 'Ismail Azeem' as stated in the article, hence not finding anything when searching based on what's in the article. Looks like there's enough coverage, so I'm withdrawing the nomination. If you could add sources to the article it would be good - otherwise I'll try to do it tomorrow.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah i'm not sure it should be called this, rather than Azeem (rapper). 86.44.30.207 (talk) 21:50, 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. v/r - TP 19:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Norway 2011 Attack Victims[edit]
- Norway 2011 Attack Victims (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 Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory; for the same reasons we don't list victims of disasters and attacks, we don't need a list like this. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 100% agreeable. Does not follow WP:MOS in any case, little value.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. DES (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nothing prevents from creating articles about individual victims or groups of victims, if they are sufficiently covered in press per WP:Notability. Biophys (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Subject, of course, to the considerations at WP:BIO1E and WP:VICTIM. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL Miguel AG (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the obvious reasons. This is beginning to look like a WP:SNOW candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. These are other places where to post this kind of lists. Chiton magnificus (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. It's fundamentally the same article as Casualties of the September 11 attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin Ninja (talk • contribs)
- It's nothing like that at all. This article is simply a list of non-notable victims. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed; the articles are quite different, and anyway it is an irrelevance - see WP:OTHERSTUFF. RichardOSmith (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nothing like that at all. This article is simply a list of non-notable victims. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. Like 9/11, this is a highly visible and popular topic, many references. It is very valuable (keep or merge). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially WP:OTHERSTUFF ("Like 9/11"), WP:POPULARPAGE ("this is a highly visible and popular topic"), WP:PLENTY ("many references") and WP:VALINFO ("It is very valuable"). RichardOSmith (talk) 09:26, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is still an article about the attack. This is simply a list of victims. We don't have a list of victims for the 9/11 attacks either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We do and lots more as well.
- Casualties of the September 11 attacks.
- Memorials and services for the September 11 attacks.
- Rumors about the September 11 attacks.
- Health effects arising from the September 11 attacks.
- Motives for the September 11 attacks.
- Planning of the September 11 attacks
- Even List of audiovisual entertainment affected by the September 11 attacks.
- This is obviously to Norway what that was to America. i.e. MASSIVE. Group of casualties covered by press around the world of massacre covered by press around the world continuously for days and going into weeks. Victims from all over Norway, the equivalent of just about every state. Valid references available. WP:CHANCE. Has potential. (I am neither Norwegian nor American) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.100.111 (talk • contribs)
- Retain. I agree with last two retains. I feel this detail gives a deeper view of the attack, he killed fellow Norwegians from all parts of Norway.--Dmresearch (talk) 02:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, also mindful of Wikipedia:Victim lists. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Also, I'm sure that there are other websites which list the names of those killed in the attacks, and a reliable one could be placed as an external link on the 2011 Norway attacks article. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. Like 9/11. Two countries two different standards?? AugustinMa (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We don't have a list of victims for the 9/11 attacks either. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. No hard reason to delete, and there are plenty of victim pages for other events on Wikipedia. This was pretty significant in Norway, and so should be kept, albeit cleaned up a bit. 99.227.141.18 (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — 99.227.141.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:NOTMEMORIAL says it all. I still remember when we were swatting articles about 9/11 victims regularly. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It does not look like a "memorial" and seems not to be created as a "memorial" (what sometimes happens but seems not to be the case here). It gives just useful factual information about the victims. IQinn (talk) 01:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : per WP:NOTMEMORIAL--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and WP:NOTMEMORIAL.V7-sport (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- deletei changed my mind Pass a Method talk 09:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very inappropriate - per the above WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but also WP:NOTDIR, and in consideration of this excessive information; knowing their dates of birth, and the names of these non-public people, does not help encyclopaedic understanding at all. An encyclopaedic summary of the victims (number, age, sex, origin) can easily be appropriately incorporated into the article about the event. This article should be deleted, ASAP. Chzz ► 10:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge This event has seen a lot continuous media coverage all over the world. The list better shows the differences between the victims of the bombing and the victims of the shooting. The list shows the wide range of places from all over Norway the victims were and can better explain why it is called a national tragedy in Norway. It gives a hint of the (lack of) immigrant background of the victims based on their names. And with more information that is possible to add. With even more information, for example if they died from gun shots or drowning, etc, it is possible to gain more (morbid) information for those interested. Also, several other mass murder articles list their victims by name and age. To list a few: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laniala (talk • contribs)
- Strong delete clear violation of WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, and serves no encyclopaedic purpose Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Regrettable, but it's been Wikipedia's long-standing policy that memorial pages of this kind aren't encyclopedic. Prioryman (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial site. On Wikipedia we're not supposed to note the victims (only notable ones, if any), and the numbers (e.g. how many of the victims were in this age or male/female) aren't relevant. I concur with the nominator. HeyMid (contribs) 20:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a memorial. WP:SNOW --Pstanton (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (first choice) or keep (second choice). The practice on Wikipedia (part of which is shown by the links provided by Laniala) seems to be that we do list victims of mass murders. My preference would be to do so in the article on the event itself (which seems to be the more common practice), but that article is already a bit long. We do have some separate articles, such as List of Charles Whitman's victims (listing the victims of the 1966 U. of Texas "tower shootings") and List of victims of the Rock Springs massacre (about an 1885 event I had never heard of before.) I don't think this is an "other stuff exists" argument because it it involves exactly the same type of information found in many other articles on Wikipedia. To the contrary, it shows what the policy/guideline really is (since policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are "descriptive, not prescriptive." And WP:NOTMEMORIAL does not even mention victims of notable events; it is really just an elaboration on the notability guidelines, to tell people not to create an article on their otherwise non-notable relative or friend. Neutron (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm afraid both precedence and guidelines are pretty unambiguous on this. It would be a different thing if it was rewritten in prose form. Lampman (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unambiguous case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Analysis of the victims, by age for example, can be in the 2011 Norway attacks article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Arsenikk (talk) 11:02, 4 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 speedy close; discussion opened in wrong forum. Will open RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GeniusIQ165[edit]
- GeniusIQ165 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Spam. This GeniusIQ165 has no link with American Idiot album Bonzon (talk) 19:47, 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PakExperts[edit]
- PakExperts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails Wikipedia:CORP no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources plus BIG conflict of interestTeapotgeorgeTalk 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC) TeapotgeorgeTalk 18:58, 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. v/r - TP 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eoin McDowell[edit]
- Eoin McDowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted under expired Prod - concern was "Article subject fails WP:NRU, appears to be a vanity article created by the subject, sources cited do not meet WP:RS." Restored on request - User_talk:SilkTork#Eoin_McDowell. Article does not appear to meet our inclusion criteria. Only two sources mention the subject - one is a home made video uploaded to YouTube, the other is this. There is insufficient coverage to establish notability. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nominator pretty much says it all. AIRcorn (talk) 12:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be a vanity project. Concur that it does not meet notability for a biography. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:RU/N. --Bob247 (talk) 19:28, 3 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. v/r - TP 19:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Benjamin Potter[edit]
- Benjamin Potter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Independent filmmaker of questionable notability. Was nominated but did not win for one award, but no other significant claims of notability. Google search is inconclusive due to the common name, but I couldn't find any significant coverage outside primary sources or social media sites. Does not appear to pass WP:FILMMAKER. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed that this appears to be a non-notable filmmaker who does not pass WP:FILMMAKER. I additionally tried to find any significant coverage which could pass WP:GNG but was unsuccessful. Several of the movies associated with Potter have also had articles created and either deleted or are currently having deletion discussions or PRODS pending such as [10], [11], [12], [13]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article appears to lack references, but it is clear if you Google "Benjamin Potter" there are a string of useful articles surrounding his films and achievements. I came across a website that indicated Mr. Potter had written and directed several commercials, including a global TV advert for a major shoe company. Mr. Potter also appears to have been nominated for a major screenwriting award at an early age. I found no reference however that this helped him achieve a place at Purchase College, as stated in a previous edit. With that said, Purchase College is a prestigious school for the artistically gifted, and it is clear Mr. Potter did attend the school based on numerous online articles. His films have also played at several film festivals, and I came across the information on Google that he was a recipient of a major award from his university, recognizing his excellence in filmmaking while he was still attending the university. Again, this would need to be backed up by more than one source, although it did seem reputable since it was through the university website. Mr. Potter also appears to be an established golfer, where he was voted Skyline Rookie of the Year playing NCAA golf. This is no longer available on his page, but several news outlets online have reported this information. — Theonlinewriting1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability in general. His film work does not meet WP:CREATIVE, and being an NCAA golfer fails to meet WP:NSPORT#Golf. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 3 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. v/r - TP 19:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delicious Flat-Chest[edit]
- Delicious Flat-Chest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD with no evidence of notability per WP:NEO. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obscure neologism apparently with almost nill use even among Anglophone otaku. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "often used by ..." ummmm Cite needed, even 1 would be nice. WP:NEO Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 21:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if two references to prove this are not added by the end of the week! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searching Google News Archive with the topic in quotes yields nothing. Searching without the quotes yields a 100 year old newspaper article where those three words appear at random. Next, a 97 year old article. Anime not yet thought of. Not notable. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - What, there isn't a speedy deletion criterion like "G13. Stupid bullshit"? Carrite (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research of a neologism. —Farix (t | c) 11:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lolicon. The article is hardly OR - that is exactly what DFC means. But it's a pretty obscure term, much less widespread than Zettai ryouiki or many other things we have seen fit in our infinite wisdom to delete, so a redirect is enough. --Gwern (contribs) 14:07 30 July 2011 (GMT)
- A redirect would be a likely candidate for deletion per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 and #8. —Farix (t | c) 14:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hardly see how #3 applies, and #8 clearly doesn't apply inasmuch as this is not a foreign phrase such as a romanization of a random Japanese word nor is it a once-in-a-lifetime typo. --Gwern (contribs) 17:47 2 August 2011 (GMT)
- Delete What does it mean "prod contested by -84.85.189.88" [14]. Can you remove a prod on someone else's behalf? Also, why was it prodded for three years before someone removed the prod? This article is original research and rather stupid. To say people will suddenly be attracted to small breasts because they see them less often, makes no sense at all. And flatchested is NOT lolicon. The examples of flatchested women in anime are series dedicated to a female audience, and women hate it when someone has bigger breasts than them. And The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya has one of its main characters with big breasts, the smaller breasted main character stating her jealousy of them early on. Someone just tossed random examples on the page without checking apparently. Dream Focus 12:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For a prod deletion it can be contested at any time, even after it is deleted. But after it is deleted it needs administrator assistance to bring it back, so people ask at WP:REFUND. This happened in this case! This Afd is popular so a clear consensus will override prod objections. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No references from verifiable sources.--Zalinda Zenobia (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete The article fails per WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NOTABILITY. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 2 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. v/r - TP 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crossharbour (2011)[edit]
- Crossharbour (2011) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, unreleased independent short film - no claims of notability, no significant coverage from independent sources - fails WP:NFILMS. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe it has a release at a film festival, but until then, this article (which is mostly plot content) can wait per WP:TOOSOON. Also, it's 7 minutes long? They are really stretching the definition of "short film" these days... I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Prod was contested by an SPA account. This unreleased short makes no claims of notability, and I am unable to find any significant coverage to satisfy WP:FILMS or even WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice per WP:TOOSOON. This short film may achieve notability once it is screened at the Albuquerque Film Festival, or not. But as it stands, it does not yet meet WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of notability whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 3 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 Speedy deleted already by User:Fastily, who forgot to close this AfD. Pontificalibus (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hellenologophobia[edit]
- Hellenologophobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly a WP:DICDEF. ukexpat (talk) 17:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find no evidence that this is a notable condition.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Wiktionary and then delete on wikipedia. Have marked the article with {{copy to Wiktionary}}. --Ben Ben (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikitionary using the above suggestion by Ben. This subject isn't sufficient for an entire article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & Salt - does not exist. Hoax. (ps Its actually Xenoglossophobia Fear of foreign languages. It's already on wiktionary so I have removed the template Ben Ben put up.) Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:12, 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. v/r - TP 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fateh Ali Khan Umrani[edit]
- Fateh Ali Khan Umrani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unreferenced BLP. Plausible possible claims of notability if this could be verified, but I was unable to find reliable, secondary sources that verify the claims of the article. The person likely does exist, e.g., there's a legal case mentioned here: [15], but it's difficult to impute much abut the person from that refernece, and I was unable to find more. Note that there are several similarly named people, and I was unable to search in languages other than English for lack of a translation of the name. Additional sources would be gratefully welcomed, as always. joe deckertalk to me 17:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Both a Yahoo! and a Google search didn't find anything mentioning him under the name Fateh Ali Khan Umrani. SwisterTwister talk 03:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 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. v/r - TP 19:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Irish companies that failed to pass on 2011 VAT reduction[edit]
- Irish companies that failed to pass on 2011 VAT reduction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unexceptional list that is unlikely ever to be completed. Could also be construed as an attack on the businesses listed in it. NtheP (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is only one source, and that states it's conclusions are "according to an informal survey". So, the current title is actually misleading, since it should be Irish companies that supposedly failed to pass on 2011 VAT reduction according to an informal survey. Is there data available to create an appropriate article with this title? I think not, because it can never be proved that a failure to cut prices by the amount of a sales tax reduction is due to companies failing to pass on that reduction. Companies raise their prices all the time for all sorts of reasons, and such a price rise may coincide with a tax reduction in some instances. You can only ever make allegations about such a thing, and article listing allegations is not going to be encyclopaedic.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - you're understating it, it's Four percent of the Irish companies that supposedly failed to pass on 2011 VAT reduction within one day of that reduction according to an informal survey. Non-encyclopedic, with little hope of it becoming so. Article is based entirely on one sentence of one article, bringing up WP:GNG questions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this doesn't seem to be a notable topic for a list, it probably isn't verifiable, and I can't find an article about the VAT reduction that it could be merged to. If there is enough coverage for this, the information could be added to the companies' articles. Peter E. James (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Pont... Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. May have qualified for speedy. Szzuk (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. There is no speedy deletion criterion that would apply to this article, so it does not and would not have qualified for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD:G13 applies. Szzuk (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the WP:CSD policy page. It clearly states that the explicitly listed criterion are the only ones where pages may be speedily deleted. "Garbage" is not so listed and any administrator speedily deleting any page using that reason would be leaving themselves open to sanction. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CSD:G13 applies. Szzuk (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. There is no speedy deletion criterion that would apply to this article, so it does not and would not have qualified for speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:42, 3 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 keep. v/r - TP 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Electro-Wave Human Tackle[edit]
- Electro-Wave Human Tackle (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 search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fictional characters. Neelix (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a fictional character who has existed for 36 years. Obviously, Neelix has not made any such searches by using the character's original Japanese name 電波人間タックル. From this we can see that she has been featured in a 2009 toy line (as mentioned in Hyper Hobby magazine's January 2009 issue, as reproduced here) and again in a 2010 release (as seen here), as well being featured in the 2009 film Kamen Rider × Kamen Rider W & Decade: Movie War 2010 (as mentioned in Figure Oh issues 141 and 142, reproduced here and here). This obviously does not cover the original character's appearances as in 1975's Kamen Rider Stronger, but searches in English (915,000 results) and Japanese (755,000 results) show that by far the character is notable to some extent, even if I cannot give you citations for the original incarnation of the character from 1975.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator - Contrary to Ryulong's assertions, I have searched for reliable, secondary sources for this fictional character and have not found a sufficient amount of significant coverage to establish the character's notability. All of the sources provided by Ryulong above come from a blog that does not appear to be reliable, and the searches provided do not appear to reveal reliable sources either. A fictional character's notability is established by significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, not by age or raw Google hits. Neelix (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not citing the blog as a reliable source. I am using it to show that the character appeared in reliable sources that the blog is reproducing, which is from magazines such as Figure Oh (フィギュア王) and Hyper Hobby (ハイパーホビー) as I mentioned in my keep rationale. If possible, I can get full page scans from the magazine to show that the character was featured in them. For example, here's Figure Oh issue 141. Now I see that she's not in that one, so I'll look at one of the other magazines the blog covers. Here she is in a book published by Televi-Kun in January 2010. There's coverage of her in Figure Oh 142. There's an interview with the actress of the 2010 version in this magazine on the Newtype imprint. If there's that much coverage in the Japanese press, even if it is in the publications geared towards the nerdier or younger audiences, then that must mean that the character is notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Well Ryulong certainly has proved that wrong. There is no point for deleting this article. Honestly its completely riduculous to start deleting an article thats been there for awhile as well as having notable and reliable sources. ~Marvelous2011~ ( ★ AlienX2009 ★ ) 21:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on sources found by Ryulong. Edward321 (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 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. v/r - TP 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Best Night[edit]
- Best Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NSONGS. not a single source, no charting, no third-party coverage, unsourced future single claim Mister sparky (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 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 closing, nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes. Tnis probably does have some historical value. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Packard Bell Navigator[edit]
- Packard Bell Navigator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested WP:PROD. Lacks independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Msnicki (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Msnicki (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracting nomination. A Google books search turns up sources (e.g., Infoworld and a book about it) that I missed earlier. But it'd be nice to get a few of them cited in the article. Msnicki (talk) 17:11, 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 delete. joe deckertalk to me 17:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WebSPOC[edit]
- WebSPOC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advertisement for a non-notable software product from a technology management solutions company. Article is full of meaningless, promotional bafflegab:
- The WebSPOC suite attempts to embody the principles of the ITIL methodology to support IT Service Management practices.
- includes a service catalog with integrated product standards[10] to help organizations consistently deliver technology to end users. Services in the portal incorporate functionality for service level management, workflows, categorization, quality assurance, satisfaction surveys, escalations, and automated approval hierarchies in order to automate the service request process.
- The WebSPOC CMDB is for the management of components that comprise the IT infrastructure and environment, the relationships among those components, and the values attributed to those components.
Reference section is a snow job. Listings, press releases, and directory listings are all that's there. Google News finds 16 hits. 15 are press releases or directory listings. One is behind a paywall and looks like an incidental mention in an unrelated story. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per lack of notable media coverage. I didn't see anything on both a Yahoo! and Google search, except for the company website. SwisterTwister talk 21:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. All the sources I could find for this software were either from the company's website or press releases issued by the company. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:PRODUCT, I would not find it objectionable if some information from this article was merged into ValCom. Sailing to Byzantium (talk) 07:47, 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. joe deckertalk to me 17:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yukito Nishii[edit]
- Yukito Nishii (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 close one to call, but I for one could not find any reliable sources, none were provided, and he does not appear to have had "significant", "multiple" roles in "notable" films. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 15:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per lack of notable mentions, as none were found on Yahoo! and Google except fansites, IMDb, and Wiki pages. SwisterTwister talk 19:26, 4 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 speedy delete. Speedyspam GedUK 18:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Holyrood magazine[edit]
- Holyrood 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)
- Delete. Non-notable publication, no independent references, fails WP:GNG, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Happy to discuss notability when we've got something that isn't such an obvious advert. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:54, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merudia[edit]
- Merudia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless article. I was going to merge it to Parsley, but there is nothing substantial to merge: it is just a translation. Even talk:Merudia highlights the futility of this article. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Rymatz (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Should be in Wikitionary, not Wikipedia.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nominators reasoning that the article is only a synonym for parsley. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:11, 4 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. joe deckertalk to me 17:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Hughes[edit]
- Gregory Hughes (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 screenwriter. No reliable sources provided, none found. TNXMan 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have searched but have been unable to uncover any reliable source citations which would help to pass WP:CREATIVE, and I did not find anything that would even pass WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ConcernedVancouverite. Films are all all short films of no significance, no references or significant coverage for other claims, which wouldn't be all that notable either. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 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 speedy delete. GedUK 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athena and the 11th Muse[edit]
- Athena and the 11th Muse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to describe a "new mythology" but in the end is merely an overblown description of an artist's work (written by the artist himself). Originally proposed for deletion as something made up one day. Qualifies for deletion as promotion and lacking notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete shame you didn't just speedy this. Calling it original research would be over-generous, it's patent made-up nonsense. Yunshui (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G3 and/or G11. Rymatz (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G7 as the author has attempted to blank the page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G7. "Pepper" 17:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G7 and the author's attempt to blank the page, which has since been reverted. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:58, 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 by User:Spartaz, per WP:CSD#G3 and WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin closure. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 09:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Achuthanand[edit]
- Achuthanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources given are unintelligible or do not relate to the information give. I've tried to find information about the subject but have failed; as such it fails WP:N. Seems to be largely an imaginary autobiography. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete massively fails WP:CRIN. Yunshui (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable mentions. What I find funny about this article is that they cite a ESPN article on him, that doesn't have any information on him! SwisterTwister talk 03:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - This 'same' article was deleted via AfD in June, see here for it. The user who created that article was warned at the time. Maybe there is enough to warrant going to WP:Sock puppetry as this version of the article was created by a different account, but obviously run by the same person???? Although I'm no expert on that aspect of this wiki, so will leave that decision to someone else. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, while I'm on about sock puppets, User:Mohansairam2447 uploaded the picture on the article and also removed the AfD tag - one and the same? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:36, 31 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roberto de la Rocha[edit]
- Roberto de la Rocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only claim to fame was being the father of pretty much the best vocalist in a band ever. Other than that, the article looks like a stub. If this article can be expanded much further upon, I might consider withdrawing. Rainbow Dash 03:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 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 00:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He was a notable Chicano artist starting in the 1970s and his work with Los Four was discussed in the Los Angeles Times and other newspapers over a fifteen year period well before his son's musical career even started. Here's a link to a book, one of many, that discusses him and his work. Here's another. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:23, 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(see below) I've just tried doing some searches which exclude references to his son and the Los Four group - not a lot, in books, news or anything else. It seems that he's only notable as a member of Los Four or as Zack de la Rocha's dad. Cullen's sources are good ones, but they both discuss his work only in reference to the Los Four Chicano art movement, not in its own right. I've gone through a number of other books as well; the only one specifically about de la Rocha is a good old Betascript wikimirror. Thus, I recommend merging the article to Los Four. Yunshui (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment without having looked into this deeply, my feeling is that this is commonplace for artists who are also in movements. for instance, sources about picasso will tend to mention cubism, but it was picasso that made cubism notable, rather than the reverse.
I would !vote keep, but I have nothing to add to what Cullen328 and SunRiddled have said.Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment without having looked into this deeply, my feeling is that this is commonplace for artists who are also in movements. for instance, sources about picasso will tend to mention cubism, but it was picasso that made cubism notable, rather than the reverse.
- Keep He was a very influential muralists. I do think it needs to be improved. But I don't agree with deleting it for the reason the nominator mentioned. His son is not his only claim to fame.SunRiddled (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I did a little research and decided that I had enough to add to the discussion to be able to !vote. de la rocha is discussed or mentioned, albeit usually in connection with los four, but see my comment above, in 7 of the smithsonian's oral histories of artists, which seems to me to be enough to establish notability as having been a memorable and (at least for some participants) influential member of the chicano art scene in los angeles in the 1970s: [smithsonian oral histories of artists search on RdlR] Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've added a little bit of info to the article which distinguishes between de la Rocha and the rest of Los Four. What do you all think? I know it's not much, but I mostly wanted to show that it could be done. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to Keep on basis of Alf's additions, which effectively counter my earlier contention that de la Roche was only notable as part of Los Four. With these additional sources taken into account, he definitely merits his own article. Yunshui (talk) 07:59, 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 keep per WP:SNOW, nomination has successfully been impeached. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silence of the Heart[edit]
- Silence of the Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be even remotely notable Da rkness Shines (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I did a Google News Archive search, adding Chad Lowe's last name to the search to disambiguate the common wording of the film title. I immediately saw in-depth 1984 reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Milwaukee Sentinel. The reviews were favorable, though that shouldn't matter. Two years later in 1986, the Ocala Star Banner called it one of the best TV movies of 1984. Nine years later, in a profile of Chad Lowe published in the Los Angeles Times on May 16, 1993, his performance in this TV movie was still being praised. Many other reliable sources discuss the film. Many TV movies are not notable. However, this one is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep. I found a full page NYTimes review in about 2 minutes. HERE Szzuk (talk) 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and close. At the time of nomination, an article from The New York Times was already IN the article as a source. And in using even minimal WP:BEFORE, it was easy to find in-depth coverage over several years[16] in such WP:RS as The Vindicator Kentucky New Era Free Lance-Star Gainesville Sun Sumter Daily Ocala Star-Banner St. Louis Post-Dispatch Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Philadelphia Inquirer Chicago Tribune New York Times Milwaukee Journal and many more, as well as write-ups in several books.[17] Easily found reviews in multiple reliable sources meets WP:NF, even if the nominator failed to find them in his looking and even if they are all not used to source the article. Deletion is never the answer for notable topics that may only use a minimum of the many sources so readily available. For THAT, we use regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:36, 3 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.
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. joe deckertalk to me 17:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ayulduz Baku[edit]
- Ayulduz Baku (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 of notability, no sources Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. There is no evidence that this club meets any of the relevant notability guidelines. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 5 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. v/r - TP 19:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectionalism[edit]
- Redirectionalism (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 that it meets the WP:Notability criteria per WP:GNG. Sole source is a 2010 self-published book by one Donald Perry, the creator of the article. WP:COI is not a reason for deletion, but searching for the term with "-Perry" returns only 521 GHITS, 6 of which are about sexual redirectionalism, a completely unrelated term. Nearly all mentions of the term online are sales pages for the book, with no mention in WP:Reliable sources online. Proposed deletion contested without comment by the article's creator. Gurt Posh (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MADEUP. StAnselm (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to... Just kidding. Delete as inarticulate and/or promotional companion to NN book. Jclemens (talk) 05:11, 31 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yohan: Adhyayam Ondru[edit]
- Yohan: Adhyayam Ondru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As per WP:NFF. Film has been announced only, it's not even in pre-production, filming will start only next year. Also meets WP:CRYSTAL, other claims are pure speculation. Johannes003 (talk) 08:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Other than the producer being Gautham Menon, movie release date and location of the shoot, there's no other information in the source given. Shouldn't be in Wikipedia now. Suraj T 09:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Gautham Menon#Future ventures, 2011-present Although the project is concrete, shooting is unlikely to start until mid 2012. Furthermore, looking at Menon's track record for films which never take off, I suggest it's best to merge it into this section until production begins. TamilFilmsUpdate (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It's only announced. --Commander (Ping Me) 12:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Johannes003 and Commander, too early to say if this will even be released. Yunshui (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, per all reasons given above. A creation prevention should be done to the title until the topic meets notability. EelamStyleZ (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable (yet).--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Movie is not even started. Usually, some movies never even get produced. Unnoticeable till fair amount of pre-production is done. -BiLLa- •talk• 04:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Film has not entered principal filming and does not meet WP:Planned Films. See WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 02:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very poor concept and detail. ~Red Rover (Talk to me!) contribs 11:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spartak Baku[edit]
- Spartak Baku (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 of notability, no sources Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Can't find anything indicating that this club is notable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goldogob FC[edit]
- Goldogob FC (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 of notability, no sources, too short article Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim to, or evidence of, notability. GiantSnowman 09:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:08, 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 keep. I think we can close debate on this one, this doesn't have a snowball's chance of closing any other way. Also recommend MakeSense64 be barred from creating new AfD requests due to his COI vendetta for off-wiki banishment from a web site. This is just another pointy nomination. CycloneGU (talk) 14:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National Council for Geocosmic Research[edit]
- National Council for Geocosmic Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. An editor added two references, but this seem to be trivial mentions in "astrology from a-z" type directory books. Notability is too poor. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While I agree that this article needs more references, the subject is notable as it says in the article it 'has a membership of over 3000 and has established 40 Chapters worldwide in 26 countries' and ' National Council for Geocosmic Research' has about 30000 Google hits.Miguel AG (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added several sources, seems to clearly meet the general notability guidelines.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:31, 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 speedily deleted per A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tia's Magic[edit]
- Tia's Magic (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 nice book [...] written by a seventh grader". Google returns nothing. Enough said. --Σ talkcontribs 04:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —--Σ talkcontribs 04:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. A clearly non-notable book, and there may be a conflict of interest issue with the original editor. —C.Fred (talk) 04:44, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 13:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Konkord Kabul[edit]
- Konkord Kabul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
doubtful notability, no sources, too short article Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
--Postoronniy-13 (talk) 02:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:07, 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. v/r - TP 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Paul Henry, Jr[edit]
- Matthew Paul Henry, Jr (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- only casual mentions in local news. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 02:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced biography of a living person that makes no plausible claim of notability. Google search fails to show any sources that would demonstrate notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 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. Courcelles 00:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Advantages and disadvantages of fuels[edit]
- Advantages and disadvantages of fuels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay. I'm choosing AfD in hopes of snow and a quick closure. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a personal essay including original research, and is unreferenced. This is a first contribution by a new user who seems to be acting in good faith. I have welcomed the user and tried to guide them to some of our core policies. However, this article has too many problems to stay now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thanks to Cullen above for welcoming the creator, but unless anything here can be sourced, there isn't anything from this article that is salvageable. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per the above. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really an encyclopedia article. Steven Walling • talk 22:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per the above. Beagel (talk) 20:21, 3 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. Courcelles 00:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +94 kg[edit]
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje +94 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)
here we go again, another sprawling series of sporting results that fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. also nominating:
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -89 kg
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -84 kg
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -79 kg
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -74 kg
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -69 kg
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -63 kg
- Men's Light-Contact at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 Skopje -57 kg LibStar (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All, Starting to think we should have a CSD category to cover "Sports Events with no indication of lasting significance". All Fail WP:GNG Mtking (edits) 06:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all These articles are just routine sports coverage and the topics are adequately covered at W.A.K.O. European Championships 2006 (Skopje). Astudent0 (talk) 13:01, 2 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. the five that remain nominated Courcelles 00:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 Scandinavia MAX 2008[edit]
- K-1 Scandinavia MAX 2008 (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:
- K-1 Europe MAX 2008 in Italy
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Amsterdam
- K-1 Fighting Network Austria 2008
- K-1 Hungary MAX 2008
K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Fukuoka – Japan GP -K-1 World Grand Prix 2008 in Yokohama
another sprawling series of non notable sporting results. fails WP:GNG. no indepth third party coverage and sherdog.com does not cut it for extensive coverage. LibStar (talk) 08:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All of these events were held by a large promotion and feature notable fighters. Some even feature world title fights. -- WölffReik (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- notable fighters does not meet automatic notability. please provide evidence of third party sources to meet WP:GNG. they are not world title fights merely part of a fighting series held in different countries. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All Again, WP is not a sports results service, no significant third party coverage, fails WP:GNG. Mtking (edits) 00:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but the 2 events in Japan Both of those events featured K-1 world title fights, but the other events don't seem notable. Astudent0 (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the five that are left in the nomination. Despite featuring notable fighters and being heavily promoted, these events seem to have singularly failed to receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, unless someone knows better. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:25, 21 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, causa sui (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment While the discussion is obviously weighed toward delete, I felt that it would be a good idea to get at least a few more opinions before closing an AFD considering deleting multiple articles. If any administrator disagrees with my view that this is necessary, please feel free to close it. Regards, causa sui (talk) 21:33, 21 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, causa sui (talk) 00:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see no supported claims of notability in any of the remaining 5 articles. The articles just appear to be routine sport results reporting. Papaursa (talk) 00:40, 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. v/r - TP 19:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darker Projects[edit]
- Darker Projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources except self-published. No evidence that it meets the WP:GNG. Edited mainly by single purpose account claiming to be affiliated with the subject, it reads like a fan site/advert. causa sui (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator unless external sources establishing notability are found. causa sui (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why there is a need to delete this page. Darker Projects has been in existence for eight years; For further reference, you can visit wwww.darkerprojects.com
We have had repeated attempts by anonymous sources to discredit us here on the Wikipedia page, hence my earlier request for protection. I did not report these issues to Wikipedia to have the page summarily deleted without any kind of consideration toward our cause. I implore you - please do not delete the Darker Projects page. Mutarada (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Mutarada[reply]
- Delete =- Lacks signficant coverage in reliable sources indpendent of the subject to establish notability. There is one mention in this article behind a paywall, but it appears to be a rundown of web sites which lists Darker Projects as one of them. There is a brief mention in this book. None of this is sufficient to notability, and I am unable to find any other sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll try to find reliable sources about Darker Projects, most notably the audio drama review on blogspot. 115.133.196.143 (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Blogspot isn't a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've had a look on Google, Google News, and Google Books and haven't turned up any reliable secondary sources that cover the subject in detail, as required by WP:N. Note that anything relevant should turn up on Google, as we're talking about a group that only started in 2003. I suspect that the article creator is new to Wikipedia, and is unaware of the strict inclusion criteria that we use here (in which case I refer him to WP:N). Also the statement in the first paragraph that the subject is "one of the longest running modern audio drama companies" is highly misleading. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 00:50, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I do not see any references at all in Google Books or Google News. In Google Web, the references appear to be blogs, promotional, or otherwise non-independent. --Noleander (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Try some fan sites, such as Trekunited.com and others. - 115.133.195.126 (talk) 10:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Cannot find reliable sources to verify information in article.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the anonymous IP poster(s) above please note that if you are the same person, you should not post a bold Keep or Delete more than once. If you are the same person, please remove one of your bold Keeps. Obviously DO NOT remove your message after it. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Added some references. They are reliable. 124.13.168.214 (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources. Sources used call this a fan group. No assertion of notability which can be sourced. Unless better sources are presented, delete. BusterD (talk) 14:45, 5 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 06:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Allsport GPS[edit]
- Allsport GPS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 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, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just an advert. Delusion23 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Certainly needs a rewrite / culling but appears to have a fair amount of coverage in independent press. Nikthestoned 14:01, 27 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, causa sui (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Indeed, there are some independent mentions in the press, but they are all of the ilk "product of the week" or "gadget review" ... such things tend to be mere press releases that have been re-published by magazines. Not notable enough to meet the WP requirements. --Noleander (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reviews are often used as sources in articles about songs and albums, and the reviews cited in this article don't look like press releases. The article could be improved by editing, and it doesn't look like an advert as it provides information about the product, and includes criticism. Peter E. James (talk) 08:41, 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The South (band)[edit]
- The South (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New band of questionable notability outside their prior version, The Beautiful South - no significant claims for the new group at this time, except for the connection to the original. Tried redirecting to The Beautiful South, but an editor constantly reverted, so going this route to gain a wider consensus for the redirect. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The pointer at The South is sufficient, and this version of the band is already covered in the article The Beautiful South.--Michig (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Michig. I tried to redirect this to The Beautiful South soon after it was created, but the redirect was reverted by User:Thesouthband with an accusation of WP:COI (!) in the edit summary. The original version could have been speedied G11, but with all of the WP:PROMO stripped out there's no assertion of notability here per WP:BAND outside of them being a re-launch of the original band. Gurt Posh (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 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. Courcelles 00:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 ColliZion 2009 Croatia[edit]
- K-1 ColliZion 2009 Croatia (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 event that fails to get third party coverage. 1 gnews hit. [18]. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 20:58, 26 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) 00:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a minor sporting event, with little mention by independent sources. See List_of_K-1_events for a large list of martial arts events. Some editors are, in good faith, creating WP articles for each individual event. Better is to merge all results into one article, because most of the individual events are not notable. --Noleander (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is some reliable coverage in the Croatian media: [19][20] The second link is definitely more than just WP:NOTNEWS, it is a rather detailed account of the event with full results and descriptions of the individual fights. Granted, it is a minor sporting event, arguably of borderline notability, so this really is a weak keep. GregorB (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even though the Croatian article gives a detailed report of the fights it still seems to be mainly routine sports coverage of an event with few notable fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While that second article was an excellent report on the event, I don't think it shows notability. It still seems to be ordinary sports coverage to me. Papaursa (talk) 00:37, 3 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 merge to Psychedelic#In popular culture. Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Psychedelic Festival[edit]
- Psychedelic Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD of a type of event that seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM. (The PROD was also endorsed by Rising*From*Ashes). The article seems to contain a great deal of original research and trying to equate the term "Psychedelic Festival" with events such as Woodstock. A google news search provides no hits for the term. As the information is not verifiable, I recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done my best to clean up this article, and I did find one decent source using Google Scholar, "Neotrance and the Psychedelic Festival" which at least substantiates the use of the term. All my other searches just yielded promotional websites for these festivals, with no third-party commentary. One of my concerns for this article is that its original author and main contributor only seems interested in promoting the subject with descriptions of how these festivals can "improve the life of the human beings all over our planet." I am worried that this article will not be able to maintain an encyclopedic tone, especially since there are so few reliable sources for it. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I applaud the above editor's efforts to find articles that I was unable to, in order to verify this info (seriously, nice detective work!). However, I share their concerns about maintaining a non-promotional tone. In addition, I feel like this article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub. One possible alternative is merging the article into Psychedelic experience, Psychedelic#In popular culture, or Psychedelic music. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is absurd , the Woodstock happend in the 1969 , and Wikipedia does not have this in the encyclopedia ? How come ? Why ? Thats why im trying to help Wikipedia in creating a more complete encyclopedia • Gene93k (talk i disagre totally with you, i didint promote anything its out there its happening its never going to change , this culture of Psychedelic Trance and ravers are a huge comunity , im just puting in the encyclopedia something that exist and its real and it happends all over the world since 1969 , Im sorry , I am a fresh user so i need help , THIS ARTICLE WILL GROW as hit a major subject wicht is not usually discusted by alianeted people , as new things will be added hitting many many subjects , i hope you guys help me put this thing toguether, i love wikipedia , i was never a user because i dint need to be one, now I DO and Want to Stay - i dont know how to talk to you guys still learning this tx coding thing sorry i apologize for that , thank you very much - drop me a line please ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Startigenix (talk • I sugest , this topic should be straight to the point to point and thanks for The Editor i did think you improved significantly my article for that i ty and respect your effort, im going to make this topic more complete i just dont have the time now so should stay so i can keep working on it for the next years . . .
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Startigenix (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
contribs) 09:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC) Startigenix[reply]
I agree some quotes were wrong and miss quoted , i think all the DATA necessary to proove to you it will grow beiond a Stub as you said Gene93k (talk) please check the meaning of the work *PLUR so you can better understand the main goal of the Psychedelics Festival goers are about and follow upon, you wont find sources source to sustain my article BUT I WILL and theres planty outhere i guarantee you ,there books, movies ,music , art and other things that originated directly because of these Psychedelics Festivals that basicly started in the 70`s them moving to GOA INDIA, the rest of the world , if you do a better serch you might find many things to support this since it englobes such a rich subject for Wikipedia , im gonna show you show you and prove to you what Psychedelic Culture really is about , the quote changing the world i agree was stupid its out , im gonna work on it - its hard to define such a rich Culture. thank you have a wonderfull day help me if you think this will be important for future generations as we all know this Wikipedia will never die !!!! never so !!! (Startigenix) — Startigenix (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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) 00:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Psychedelic#In popular culture. Neologism of limited popularity; sources demonstrate that the term has been used, but do not indicate that it is notable in and of itself. Yunshui (talk) 07:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge I agree with the above.SunRiddled (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 17:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. I believe there is such a phenomenon of experience being promoted, but I'm not sure this neologism has become the accepted term. I see insufficient evidence on the page itself. The Woodstock reference seems a mere headline construction, but it could be reasonably argued an accidental coining. The sources and section will improve the target article and give some context to the subject. BusterD (talk) 14:31, 5 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 no consensus. Courcelles 00:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silicon Valley Homebrew Mobile Phone Club[edit]
- Silicon Valley Homebrew Mobile Phone Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. no extensive indepth coverage. [21]. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. At least two of the sources (San Jose Mercury News and Wired Magazine) appear to me to constitute "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as required by WP:ORG. Richwales (talk · contribs) 19:29, 25 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) 00:04, 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 keep. Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
European integrated hydrogen project[edit]
- European integrated hydrogen 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 about this project. De-prodded with reason: "Enough search results by Google Scholar to establish notability". However, a GS search only renders articles (with medium-to-low citation rates) that acknowledge funding through this project and are not about the project. In the absence of any further evidence of notability, my !vote is delete. Crusio (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although this article needs expansion and better references, there are enough reliable sources to establish its notability. Claims "No independent sources about this project" and "GS search only renders articles (with medium-to-low citation rates) that acknowledge funding through this project and are not about the project" are incorrect and, therefore misleading. Sources like this and this are reliable and valid sources for WP:GNG. Also Google Books gives a number of results about the project.Beagel (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I seem to be unable to figure out where the two PDFs that you provided have been published. Also, on GBooks, all I find are in-passing mentions of this project. Can you give an example of a source about this project? Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 11:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Beagel, please help us out here to better evaluate the notability of the subject. The first paper was apparently read at a conference, and that usually does not amount to a peer reviewed paper, just that someone told the organizers "I want to read a paper on topic X." Was it published somewhere? The second one lacks info as to where or if it was published. Which Google Book results have significant coverage of the project in independent and reliable sources? Edison (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of these papers are provided by Google Scholar. By my understanding, for WP:GNG you does not need necessarily peer reviewed paper. As for books, maybe Can Cars Come Clean?: Strategies for Low-Emission Vehicles by the OECD, which just not mentions, but describes phase I and II of this project. Probably there are more as 85 books mentions this project. Beagel (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paper is published in ADVANCES IN CRYOGENIC ENGEINEERING: Transactions of the Cryogenic Engineering Conference - CEC. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 710, pp. 35-40 (2004) [22] Beagel (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the value of possibly unpublished documents retrieved through GS, see the story of Ike Antkare. --Crusio (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The second paper is published in ADVANCES IN CRYOGENIC ENGEINEERING: Transactions of the Cryogenic Engineering Conference - CEC. AIP Conference Proceedings, Volume 710, pp. 35-40 (2004) [22] Beagel (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of these papers are provided by Google Scholar. By my understanding, for WP:GNG you does not need necessarily peer reviewed paper. As for books, maybe Can Cars Come Clean?: Strategies for Low-Emission Vehicles by the OECD, which just not mentions, but describes phase I and II of this project. Probably there are more as 85 books mentions this project. Beagel (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 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) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or slight merge to an article on hydrogen fueled cars. The sources are rather slim for a stand alone article. Edison (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets the GNG, per the sources already provided. Notability is not different for modern events that recently ended. Steven Walling • talk 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Steven Walling, and close early, because XfD is not for improving pages. Lots of issues in energy law have limited duration but ongoing interest; once notable, something is always notable. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The assertion as put forward in the nom is, however, that this has never been notable. At least one other editor agrees with this, so I don't understand the call for a close. European projects like this go thirteen in a dozen. So they created a commission to propose some regulation. Happens all the time. Perhaps the regulation is notable, or can be mentioned in some appropriate article on a related subject. (Although there is an assertion in the article that the regulations have not even been adopted, what's the use of proposed regulations that don't get adopted?) However, I maintain that this project is not notable. --Crusio (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I'm seeing a lot of WP:PRIMARY source documents prepared as part of this project (which apparently never went beyond the stage of draft regulations), but little indication that it either had a real-world impact, or that it achieved much in the way of WP:SECONDARY coverage. Such bureaucratic projects routinely generate paperwork and then disappear -- so unless its failure to eventuate resulted in a scandal -- or it achieved substantive notability some other way, I would suggest it be left to rest in peace. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book published by the OECD is WP:SECONDARY coverage. Beagel (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically yes, but only about 1 page on this topic, from another, fairly Eurocentric, bureaucracy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a number of other reliable sources. And calling one of the most-valued economic think-tank just Eurocentric bureaucracy ... , well this is actually quite biased statement. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling the OECD a "think tank" is wildly inaccurate. To call an organisation structured around committees and a secretariat a "bureaucracy" would appear accurate, as would calling an organisation "Eurocentric", which (i) started life as the "Organisation for European Economic Co-operation", and (ii) a majority of whose members continue to be European. WP:SPADE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whatever one might think about the OECD, fact remains that there is only a brief mention of this project in this book, far from what would be needed to establish notability. --Crusio (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief mentioning is just a mentioning the project versus one page overview as in the case of this OECD book. And there are also other sources. It would be helpful if you give more detailed explanation how exactly this article contradicts WP:GNG. At the beginning you said that there is no sources about the project at all, now you say that describing the project by the OECD at the published and reliable book is not enough. Therefore, I can't understand your motivation to delete this article (as a number of other projects about science and research projects you recently tagged for WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD). Beagel (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More than just abrief mentioning of a project in a rather obscure book is needed to make something notable (WP:GNG). As for my motivation, that's simple. A while ago I stumbled by accident on this bunch of articles. Most of them are horribly written (most of them by one-time drive-by article creators) and (not too surprisingly) almost none have anything like the sources needed for notability. As I have said repeatedly elsewhere, research projects are thirteen a dozen and they are almost never notable (although participants or their results may well be - or at least can be used to improve articles on the subjects that the research was about). The EU funds/has funded hundreds if not thousands of these short-lived projects. NSF and NIH in the US fund many more projects (with comparable or even much larger budgets and running times) each year, but somehow those grantees don't feel the need to create Wikipedia articles about their projects. So my motivation is simple: removing unencyclopedic non-notable stuff. --Crusio (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief mentioning is just a mentioning the project versus one page overview as in the case of this OECD book. And there are also other sources. It would be helpful if you give more detailed explanation how exactly this article contradicts WP:GNG. At the beginning you said that there is no sources about the project at all, now you say that describing the project by the OECD at the published and reliable book is not enough. Therefore, I can't understand your motivation to delete this article (as a number of other projects about science and research projects you recently tagged for WP:SPEEDY, WP:PROD, and WP:AfD). Beagel (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling the OECD a "think tank" is wildly inaccurate. To call an organisation structured around committees and a secretariat a "bureaucracy" would appear accurate, as would calling an organisation "Eurocentric", which (i) started life as the "Organisation for European Economic Co-operation", and (ii) a majority of whose members continue to be European. WP:SPADE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a number of other reliable sources. And calling one of the most-valued economic think-tank just Eurocentric bureaucracy ... , well this is actually quite biased statement. Beagel (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically yes, but only about 1 page on this topic, from another, fairly Eurocentric, bureaucracy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The book published by the OECD is WP:SECONDARY coverage. Beagel (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google news archive search shows many things covered are given credibility to have been validated by this group, thus its a notable organization, thought well of in the scientific community. 25 news results, 90 book results, 4,280 Google results, 141 in Google scholar. Their official website list their partners. Vandenborre Technologies, BMW, DaimlerChrysler, Ford, FZK, LBST, Linde, Messer, Opel, INTA, Air Liquide SA, Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, Air Products, BP, Shell, NCSR, Demokritos, EC-Joint Research Centre, Det Norske Veritas, Norsk Hydro ASA, Raufoss ASA, and Volvo think well enough of them to sign onto this. Dream Focus 21:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per page rescue. As nominated, a reasonable case could be made, but after sources have been added, it's clear this perfectly valid search term now has pagespace which meets RS and NOTE. The Avadikyan & Cohendet source meets directly detailing, the press release from GM is completely independent and refers to the subject as setting existing standards, as do several of the other sources recently applied. BusterD (talk) 14:14, 5 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. v/r - TP 19:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Opa (programming language)[edit]
- Opa (programming language) (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. No significant coverage in any reliable independent sources. (None cited in the article, and none found on searching.) This appears to be a new project to create a programming language, coordinated via a wiki. The Wikipedia article appears to have been written by one of the developers, probably as an attempt to get a bigger public profile for the language. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Keep). I'm one of the editors of the article and one of the authors of the Opa itself, so I think I can say something about the project. It's not a new project in the sense that it was in the works for many years. It is a new project in the sense that it was released as open-source just this June (2011). So that's why there are no (yet) many reliable independent sources talking about it. But the project is an OWASP project and MLstate, the creators of Opa, are part of the W3C consortium and now that the project is publicly available it's only a matter of time for it to gain more coverage. The topic was also subject to peer reviewed publications in international conferences/journals. I added one such publications in the external sources of the article. Koper (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand waht you are saying, but "there are no (yet) many reliable independent sources talking about it" is a reason for deletion. Wikipedia requires a subject to have reliable independent sources in order to establish that it is notable enough to warrant an article. If you are right in thinking that "it's only a matter of time for it to gain more coverage" then we can have an article when that proves to be the case, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we do not have articles on the basis that people involved in the subject believe that their project will establish itself as notable someday. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks coverage to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. No prejudice to recreation if this catches on and garners the necessary coverage in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 25 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) 00:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is an OWASP project, but even the OWASP article itself lacks independent references. Better to bring the article back when (and if) independent sources are available. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:25, 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. No consensus leaning delete. Because it's a WP:BLP and there are stronger arguments in favor of delete based in policy, I'm going to delete. No consensus An editor has come to my talk page and make a strong case that this AfD should result in no consensus and they have sources for this BLP. v/r - TP 19:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Andrzej Zimniak[edit]
- Andrzej Zimniak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This man clearly fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. In addition, the article remains completely unsourced since its creation in February, and all of the sources I found on the internet were primary. Interchangable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 18:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Commercially published and has been nominated for the Janusz A. Zajdel Award, which appears to be fairly prestigious in Polish sci-fi circles. I'm thinking that an author nominated for a comparable award in the UK or US would almost certainly be considered notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination for an award is not a criterion listed in WP:AUTHOR. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your statement on "a comparable award." WP:AUTHOR states that "significant critical attention" is necessary - I cannot find any critical attention. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And WP:AUTHOR is a guideline, not an enforceable rule. WP:UCS, WP:IAR and WP:BURO all apply. As to your second point, I'm not saying that this should be kept because "other stuff exists", I'm saying that deleting this could be seen as systemic bias against non-English-speaking cultures, which we generally seek to avoid. It is natural that English-speaking authors get more attention on the internet, since the vast majority of internet traffic is in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no hierarchy of policies, guidelines, and essays; however I will concede your point about bias. If someone can source the article with a few other references, (besides his homepage) to prove his notability, I am perfectly willing to withdraw the nomination. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 16:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And WP:AUTHOR is a guideline, not an enforceable rule. WP:UCS, WP:IAR and WP:BURO all apply. As to your second point, I'm not saying that this should be kept because "other stuff exists", I'm saying that deleting this could be seen as systemic bias against non-English-speaking cultures, which we generally seek to avoid. It is natural that English-speaking authors get more attention on the internet, since the vast majority of internet traffic is in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination for an award is not a criterion listed in WP:AUTHOR. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for your statement on "a comparable award." WP:AUTHOR states that "significant critical attention" is necessary - I cannot find any critical attention. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 22:11, 23 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) 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Soft Delete - Finally has a few minutes to investigate. I'm going to take the English-speaking "bias" off the table because I speak both languages. If we look at Amazon only his 1986 book Homo determinatus gets a hit (but it is not order-able). Google just gives echoes of EN:WP and of the author's own website & facebook entry. If you switch to Google.PL and filter out his own blog entries and his own web page, you get some lower-level commentary on a few of his books. Is he of comparable Pol-SyFi stature to Stanisław Lem? No. Polish science fiction only has his name listed with no commentary (the same editor that created this article also added the reference in the main article). The author is not notable enough for a separate article - it is questionable if the author is notable enough to be mentioned in the Polish science fiction article. Ajh1492 (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An author of two book, many short stories, seems notable to me. His name is mentioned in at least two books discussing Polish sci-fi ([23] and [24]). I'll try to post more within a few days, but I'd suggest starting an AfD on pl wiki first and see how it goes, to see articles used to support or defend this deletion there. PS. I'd also consider all authors who had their work recognized by nomination to the Zajdel award automatically notable in the Polish sci-fi world. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject may or not be notable, but he is a living person, and there are no sources meeting WP:RS anywhere close to the page. Mere listings linked above provide nothing detailed or direct. Until sources are found and placed on the page, there's nothing to keep. BusterD (talk) 13:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP actually says that for BLPs material "challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Nothing in this stub falls into that category. None of it is in any way contentious. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because absolutely nothing in the article is sourced! I have stated earlier that I will withdraw the nomination if a few reliable sources can be added to prove his notability. I posted that on July 24 and there is still no response. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault by not including: BLP fails to pass WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage by multiple independent sources. A BLP must have sources for specific reasons but all articles must pass GNG. A BLP with no RS must be deleted, unless a suitable merge or redirect target can be identified, and I'm not seeing that here. As to contentious, the article is up for deletion and several editors agree with that assertion. This meets a mild standard for contentious, I'd assert. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Contentious" refers to the facts in the article, not the question of notability! Since the article makes no claims about him that could be seen to be contentious there is only the notability point to discuss, which is what we are doing! There is no rule that says unsourced BLPs should be deleted, only that unsourced contentious material in BLPs should be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is such a rule for articles, like this one, created after March 18, 2010. Were it not for the self-published link in the article, this could easily be BLPPROD'd, and it's fairly likely that would stick. --joe deckertalk to me 18:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault by not including: BLP fails to pass WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage by multiple independent sources. A BLP must have sources for specific reasons but all articles must pass GNG. A BLP with no RS must be deleted, unless a suitable merge or redirect target can be identified, and I'm not seeing that here. As to contentious, the article is up for deletion and several editors agree with that assertion. This meets a mild standard for contentious, I'd assert. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because absolutely nothing in the article is sourced! I have stated earlier that I will withdraw the nomination if a few reliable sources can be added to prove his notability. I posted that on July 24 and there is still no response. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of the author, as such, the article does not meet the general notability guideline. No prejudice about recreating the article should additional sources meeting GNG become available. --joe deckertalk to me 18:03, 5 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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kohana (web framework)[edit]
- Kohana (web framework) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nootability/references concern did not improve since the first nomination and notability/ref tags are ignored. The text is solely based on author's documentation i.e "single-source". NOtability is not proven. Effectively, wikipedia is a promotional vehicle for this tool. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. First deleted in 2008 via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohana (Web Framework), and again in 2010 after a no-consensus AFD in 2009. The other AFDs all show a complete lack of sourcing beyond self-published, unreliable sites, and no valid assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Save Again? Kohana is much more than just a pet project, and since the last deletion Kohana has gained a published book. This page should be retained. Sam de Freyssinet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsoir (talk • contribs) 10:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only lazy does not release a e-book about their project. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a print book, not just an e-book, so that criticism seems mute. IanBarber (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the content to meet the points raised, better references and citations. This page now feels more balanced than a number of the other PHP framework pages, which I may add are not up for deletion! Also note that Rasmus Lerdorf (the creator of PHP) is an avid user of Kohana, writing about it on his blog and the PHP internals list (referenced in the page). If that is not notoriety I really don't know what you're looking for? (Sam de Freyssinet) 09:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur in the notability, especially with the addition of sources produced by Rasmus Lerdorf. The popularity, notoriety and knowledge of Kohana has only increased since the first (and second) AfD and there are now a number of significant references CaveyCoUk (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree also that the cited favourable discussions of Kohana by PHP creator Rasmus Lerdorf establishes notability very clearly along with other references. The Kohana 3.0 book is also a significant source. This page compares very well to the other listed pages on PHP Web Frameworks, a number of which are of much lesser quality. Zeebinz (talk) 11:45, 26 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) 00:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only reliable source could be the "Kohana 3.0 Beginner’s Guide" but it is unreleased. Moreover, also if it was available (but it is unreleased), it's only 1 reliable source, while it's established that we need multiple reliable sources. So we currently lack the notability requirement, when the book will be released and there will also be another reliable source (another book, an article on a proper magazine etc.) I'm going to change my opinion. At the moment, it's a "delete". ekerazha (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Save To expand on my earlier point, PHP creator Rasmus Lerdorf is a well-known critic of PHP web frameworks, but has singled out Kohana as an example of best practice given its unique architecture, design and the other features described on this page. As the references make clear, Lerdorf uses Kohana himself, which clearly establishes notability within the context of PHP. Zeebinz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 3 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. v/r - TP 19:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alcatraz (board game)[edit]
- Alcatraz (board 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►stannator─╢ 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Finnish adult game of the year in 1999. Warden (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I obviously don't wish to belittle the magnitude of the Finnish Adult Game of the Year award[sarcasm] the game has to have significant coverage, not simply have won a prize. This isn't WP:ANYBIO we're talking about. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Above award is not notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:24, 22 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]
- 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, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely WP:OR. No actual sources, just a listing at boardgamegeek.com, a place to sell your old game. A websearch reveals lots of folks selling their old game. Someone see a source for the Finnish game of the year claim? Would serve us better in pagespace. Until better sourcing is found, delete as unsourced OR. BusterD (talk) 13:41, 5 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 keep. Courcelles 00:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Logo Board Game[edit]
- Logo Board 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►belonger─╢ 18:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has won awards as a game of the year in multiple countries such as France. Warden (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And those awards are notable how? Are they awarded by notable groups? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please state which notability guideline provides that games that have won minor awards are considered notable. It must have SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE. ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 21:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 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, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This is a moderately successful board game from the U.K., which also had a French edition. Not too big in the USA, as far as I can tell. But this encyclopedia is not USA-centric, so the UK notability is sufficient. --Noleander (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - The Board game has gotten some coverage:
- this article and giveaway from The Western Telegraph
- This similar, but different article and giveaway from Liverpool Echo
- this review from Bizzie Babies, but just the top part as the bottom includes reviews from users of the website.
- A few brief sentences about the game in yet another giveaway
- Not sure if these sources are moot because many of them are giveaways, but they do provide some coverage. The coverage is, however, not ideal. Coupled with the award though, however minor, I'm willing to keep this one. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Top-selling game in the UK in 2009, awarded the Grand Prix du Jouet - this easily makes it notable. StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per StAnselm. Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 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 merge to Roland SC-55. Courcelles 00:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roland SCC-1[edit]
- Roland SCC-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is nothing but a ISA card version of the Roland SC-55. Nothing to see here. If anything those articles should be merged. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 23 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, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - This is a 20-year old piece of "sound canvas" computer hardware. It was, apparently, moderately well-known within the computer-music business, and to this day the web still has lots of references to it. Even Google Books has 30 references to it. On the other hand, it is a variant of the more well-known Roland SC-55 hardware, and if this article is deleted, it should be merged into Roland SC-55, as the nominator suggests. --Noleander (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Noleander. I must admit that I'm old enough to suggest merging the SC-55 article with this one instead of the other way around. Roland, and these sound canvas products, were/are very well known and notable. I would say leading. --DeVerm (talk) 22:41, 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.