Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 31
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as hoax. ... discospinster talk 00:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lennert van Dessel[edit]
- Lennert van Dessel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hoax article about a "scientist" who writes history books, invents ludicrous objects, is notable for being a recluse and has recently directed a film that is notable for not being well known. One of the references predates his "birth" by 105 years. andy (talk) 22:28, 31 May 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. There have been 2 AFDs for this subject in the past month and a half and between the 2 there are plausable reasons to keep this article and no arguments for deletion aside from the nominators. (and the first nominator turned out to be a sock of a banned editor) I think that settles the issue for now. If anybody disagrees with any of the 2 AFD closed then DRV is that way ===> Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Todd Mason (2nd nomination)[edit]
- Todd Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why the page should be deleted
I have reviewed this article and am happy to provide a number of former colleagues who will refute not only Mr. Mason's representations about himself in this article but also any idea of him being a person of significance. The articles he was featured in were the result of marketing personnel pressing to get the company he was working for coverage. I have similarly been featured in numerous articles and was part of production teams that won numerous sports emmy's does that mean I should have someone submit an article about me as well?
If this man is eligible than clearly we all are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penndaly (talk • contribs) 20:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This article went through AfD a month ago with consensus to keep. Although Penndaly alleges he could produce "former colleagues" to discredit the sources, he has not—and there would still be the issue of whether those related sources are reliable. I'm tempted to speedy keep this as failing to advance a reason for deletion, but I'm waiting for another set of eyes to look at it. (Note that the nomination was not properly completed: I had to list the nomination at the daily page myself.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. This article leaves much to be desired but as C.Fred said above, a consensus to keep was established a month ago, and the article has changed little since then (diff). For my part, I see one reliable source on the article that covers the subject himself, plus several weaker sources, the sum of which is barely enough to push him over the WP:BIO bar in my book. To address the nominator's concerns, I see no evidence that this article was written by the subject himself (though the limited scope of edits by its creator and only contributor of substantive content does suggest a conflict of interest). Bringing in "former colleagues" to discredit the claims made in the article would only be OR on their part in the absence of reliable sources of their own. Furthermore, reliable source coverage is coverage; we don't care why or how that coverage came to be. If the nominator wishes to claim that the sources are not reliable, that's another issue that should probably be taken up at WP:RSN first, rather than at a deletion discussion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 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 by Hadal (talk · contribs); rationale was: G6: "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance". Despite appearing valid, there is nothing being disambiguated as all entries are non-inclusions per WP:MOSDAB. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Solarus[edit]
- Solarus (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 Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —France3470 (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This disambiguation article was PROD'd with the reasoning that "This is a disambiguation page that contains a red link and two WP:TRIVIA items. If the red link topic deserves an article, then it can be created separately. (Note that Solarus (disambiguation) points here.)" It was then de-PROD'd with the statement that "Declined prod -disambig pages are unsuited to Prods; take to WP:MISC". However, per WP:PROD, "Proposed deletion is only applicable to mainspace articles, lists, and disambiguation pages;...". Hence, the PROD was proper.
Since I can not PROD it again, I am bringing it to WP:AfD for assessment. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A clear Delete upon further inspection. The artist doesn't exist and is not mentioned in the linked article and the supposed Sonic the Hedgehog deity links to a list which does not include the term. No other pages mention these usage either, which non-includes both items as they do not conform to MOS:DABMENTION. The TV episode is only a partial match, and also should not be included per WP:PTM. There is absolutely nothing to disambiguate and no reason for this page to exist. I am quite surprised the prod was declined, as it was entirely warranted. With a tiny bit of checking this case is pretty clear-cut. I would try a speedy under G6 with an expanded explanation of why all items are non-inclusions. France3470 (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have gone ahead and tagged it for G6, as it clearly fits within the parameters of 'db-disambig', as it "disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title. Asserted to be non-controversial maintenance". France3470 (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seven (Staind album)[edit]
- Seven (Staind album) (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 future release per WP:CRYSTAL Mo ainm~Talk 19:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER, which while not a policy, is so respected as to be the closest rule we're got. It states, in part: "If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia.... There are occasional exceptions to this law ... [b]ut if all you can do is look into a crystal ball or base your information off rumors posted to message boards, blogs or MySpace, then it's best not to create a page on the album until you've got something more to say." The exact order and all the songs are not yet known, much of what is sourced is from the band's website and blogs. We're not going anywhere, and the exact date of release is not yet known publicly. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bearian. WP:NALBUMS states: "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Since that's not the case here, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Gongshow Talk 20:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:NALBUMS, WP:FUTURE, and WP:CRYSTAL. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:12, 7 June 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 redirected to Budgam district. A real place, not a hoax, and we already had an article about it. No reason to remove the history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Choon budgam[edit]
- Choon budgam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no references or sources,there are none available either and this also might be a hoax. A520 | Talk me away!/sign it! 19:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G3. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMY[edit]
- OMY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unlikely to be notable (cannot find anything proving notability as claimed, and no references provided). This was not CSD'd as A7 because it "claims" notability, thus doesn't quite fit the A7 criteria. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded rationale on article's talk page. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7 This seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut CSD candidate, and I have tagged the article as such. To avoid falling into that category it should make "any credible claim of significance or importance", and none is present there. It is also an unreferenced BLP of a minor. RichardOSmith (talk) 20:09, 31 May 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern Michigan University student life[edit]
- Eastern Michigan University student life (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 material belongs (and already is) in the main article for Eastern Michigan University. The topic isn't notable and extensive enough to warrant a separate article. ElKevbo (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, at least for now. The material is in the main article because it was merged in, despite no consensus for a merge; one editor (Pwojdacz) was in favor and one editor (me) was opposed, but Pwojdacz went ahead and merged. As for whether the topic is extensive enough to warrant its own article, I think 11k of content (including 4,500+ characters of readable prose) suggests that it is. The main article at Eastern Michigan University is fairly large. Wikipedia:Article size suggests that "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." Recent versions of that article range from 35 to 42 kB, comfortably within that range. Wikipedia:Summary style states that "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place" and that is basically what was done here. There is ongoing debate, both at the article talk page and at Talk:Eastern Michigan University about the future structure of subarticles dealing with the different aspects of EMU. Until that debate is settled, it seems premature to delete this article. cmadler (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —cmadler (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, article has been merged with main page due to lack of information. pwojdacz is attempting to created the EMU article in comparison to "good pages" of other universities listed on WikiProject Universities to create uniformity to other large universites. cmadler's point to expand articles to reduce length is a fair and absolutely correct and EXTREMELY understandable. Project to expand pages on specific areas (example: history, athletics, student organizations, housing and dining) will be done to reduce page length in next few days. Talk:Eastern Michigan University includes possible areas to expand. "student life" attempts to encompass to much information which also can vary by school. Another option is the student life page renamed to a campus page to talk about the buildings of emu or talk about the culture of EMU like Student life at Brigham Young University, which is listed as a good article by WikiProject Universities. Any information currently on the EMU student life will be used on the new pages or used in the expansions on specific areas to prevent the loss of hard work by previous users from being lost. Pwojdacz (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- updatethe main article shortening has already been started. The article List of Eastern Michigan University buildings has reduced the overall length of the article. In addition, the Athletics section will continued to be shortened. History and facts will be added to the Eastern Michigan Eagles along with that article will be expanded.Pwojdacz (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The idea of "student life" seems notable, and "Eastern Michigan University" certainly is, but is "Eastern Michigan University student life" really that notable? Quick example, read the article Student life at Tufts University. While it's not perfect, you'll quickly identify multiple traditions that are unique to that institution. The EMU article by contrast just seems to state what one could easily find in the school handbook/campus map and really does just seem limited to info that should at least additionally be found on the main EMU page. Perhaps if the article were expanded to cover more aspects of what makes student life unique and notable to EMU students the individual article would warrant inclusion.Buddy23Lee (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well said. If the article could be significantly expanded with good references supporting interesting, notable material then I'd happily reexamine my stance. If the article is deleted then maybe someone who wants it kept can get it userfied and improve it there so we can revisit this. ElKevbo (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second, well said. I think the EMU article can really use this. I want to add some campus traditions into this now.Pwojdacz (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is primarily a list of student clubs. secondly, these kind of articles are of little relevance to students outside the university, WP is for a broad general audience, not a WP:NOTGUIDE for students. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is redundant and can be quickly merged with the university page.Theseus1776 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi-5 (New Zeland Kids' Band)[edit]
- Hi-5 (New Zeland Kids' 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)
Hoax page. Can find no record of a New Zealand Hi-5, DVD's and CD's are, to the extent that they exist at all, are those of the original Australian group. Some of the members names are listed at [http://bellfarmjuniorschool.wikia.com/wiki/This_Wiki_is_Fake!] TransporterMan (TALK) 18:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. Note that the pages on Hi-5 (Australian band) and Hi-5 (American kids' band) make no mention of a New Zealand version. --LK (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 2 June 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. While the controversy surrounding Bowes-Lyon's circumstance may justify coverage elsewhere, there is nothing in the article that establishes her own notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Bowes-Lyon[edit]
- Katherine Bowes-Lyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Only here because of family connections, but notability is not inherited. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The previous nomination was just over 6 years ago and does not include, as far as I can see, anything relating to present policies on notability. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete If current BLP policy is not considered sufficient to justify that then I suggest RfC, but I am sure it is. Notability hardly comes into this one. Ms Bowes-Lyon can never be presumed to have given implied consent to the disclose of the information contained in this article, and there would need to be very strong arguments for including her at all. The one redeeming point is that her current address is not given, but that is presumably only because it could not be confirmed. (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing in the BLP policy suggests that the individual has to give implied consent to the article or its content - indeed if they did, we wouldn't have articles on a number of individuals notable for their notoriety. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that this person is indeed notable? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Not for who they are or what they did. The notability arises from the public controversy over the way this lady and her sister were treated, which became a bit of a focus for a group of forgotten elderly. I would not be adverse for all the Bowes-Lyons with learning difficulties to be merged into one article (although a sensible title escapes me at the moment).Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like WP:BLP1E to me. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Not for who they are or what they did. The notability arises from the public controversy over the way this lady and her sister were treated, which became a bit of a focus for a group of forgotten elderly. I would not be adverse for all the Bowes-Lyons with learning difficulties to be merged into one article (although a sensible title escapes me at the moment).Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So are you saying that this person is indeed notable? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing in the article satisfies WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although the article could possible be merged with her sister's. There was actually some controversy about the way the British royal family figuratively buried them for many years. Sometimes there can be matters of legitimate public controversy about the treatment of people with serious learning difficulties, which if already widely publicised becomes encyclopedic. PatGallacher (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there reliable sources for that controversy? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well here's one example. [1]
- That seems to be a rather partisan source for the possible existence of a feud between the Queen Mother and Wallis Simpson, which is hardly the same thing. It devotes three sentences to the writer's personal criticism the Queen Mother's attitude to he nieces. Documentation of the controversy would be a source saying things like "there was a controversy over the treatment of X and Y by Z; publications P, Q and R criticised it, opinions poll were A% against it; politicians F,G and H made speeches in the house for or against it ...". Is there anything like that? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly a secret that there was a feud between the Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor! Also, "notability is not inherited" is open to interpretation, what has Peter Phillips done that is at all notable apart from being the grandson of the Queen, he doesn't even have a title? PatGallacher (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which addresses the point: is there significant mention in reliable sources for the existence of a "controversy" over the treatment of this person? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly a secret that there was a feud between the Queen Mother and the Duchess of Windsor! Also, "notability is not inherited" is open to interpretation, what has Peter Phillips done that is at all notable apart from being the grandson of the Queen, he doesn't even have a title? PatGallacher (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a rather partisan source for the possible existence of a feud between the Queen Mother and Wallis Simpson, which is hardly the same thing. It devotes three sentences to the writer's personal criticism the Queen Mother's attitude to he nieces. Documentation of the controversy would be a source saying things like "there was a controversy over the treatment of X and Y by Z; publications P, Q and R criticised it, opinions poll were A% against it; politicians F,G and H made speeches in the house for or against it ...". Is there anything like that? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well here's one example. [1]
- Are there reliable sources for that controversy? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is covered in extensive detail in numerous books and other media and so is, by our usual definition, notable. Warden (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which, unfortunately, are cited in the article. Reference [4] is a primary source document about a different person. Reference [3] is a newspaper article about a different person, which devotes all of two sentence to a brief mention of this subject. Reference [2] is about a care home which devotes seven sentences to the subject. Reference [1] is dead but appears to have been an opinion piece. This is not significant coverage. Perhaps CW could add references to some of the numerous books he mentions? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 16:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was waiting for further views, but in their absence I will try to carry the discussion along. It is, I think, common ground that Ms Bowes-Lyon is known only by virtue of her medical condition. Her relationship to the royal family is distant, the nature of her condition prevents her from having done anything notable, and WP:NOTINHERITED clearly applies. So the question for Wikipedians is whether a medical condition, on which somebody has a reasonable expectation of privacy, should confer notability. Should she be capable of exercising such a claim she would, I think, be entitled to the protection of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights under both domestic and European law. The point about implied consent, which I made above, is that Ms Bowes-Lyon has done nothing to make her condition known nor apparently did her family, and the doctrine of implied consent will, I think, become increasingly important to Wikipedia because it will rely on the fact that a person made supposed facts known by their own deeds or action, or did not take any steps to correct or object to the information, to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. Where information is only obtained by breach of trust, which I suspect to be the case here, there is an added difficulty. Added to that, there might be a breach of others' right to privacy in such an instance (it could have been the case here for reasons I will not go into, though the passage of time makes that less of an issue). And can I scotch the idea that there is anything exceptional about this story other than there were at least three related individuals with a similar history? On the contrary, it would have been unusual for them not to go into institutional care. --AJHingston (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - coatracked notability - subject is a private person with a medical condition. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 5 June 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. While the controversy surrounding Fane's circumstance may justify coverage elsewhere, there is nothing in the article that establishes her own notability. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Idonea Fane[edit]
- Idonea Fane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Of interested only because of her relations by marriage, so fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly not notable. I would add that sourced from the Daily Telegraph or not, there ain't no such thing as a 'pauper's funeral'. Presumably it is meant that she received it at public expense, as she received care in her lifetime. In which case she will have had an entirely proper and fitting funeral, but then the DT tends not to approve of things done at the expense of the taxpayer. It suggests a lack of objectivity in the writer. --AJHingston (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - private person with only a coatracked inherited notability assertion. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Knić. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gornja Mala[edit]
- Gornja Mala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neighborhood of a Serbian village with no clear sources (warning, the first link is a zip file) and no obvious claim to notability. Text on "famous people" appears to simply be a joke. Khazar (talk) 17:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Knić as do all the other Wikipdia language spaces do. I can't find any evidence of such a place anywhere near the town of Knić. --Oakshade (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Knić. It is not a census-recognized place (see List of places in Serbia), and, after I cleared the apparent BLP violation, there is nothing of substance in the article (the neighborhood does exist though [2]). The existing sources are just copy & paste of census sources from other Serbian articles, and they don't refer to Gornja Mala. No such user (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Helixo CMS[edit]
- Helixo CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to lack independent coverage and is written like an advertisement in part. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches (using the links above) fail to turn up anything useful. Msnicki (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As above, no independent secondary sources to establish notability. Article was created by an SPA, so possibly promotional/spam. Dialectric (talk) 12:22, 4 June 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. Perhaps it could be a "no consensus" otherwise, but the serious copyvio concerns is more than sufficient to tip this over. T. Canens (talk) 17:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Narnian timeline[edit]
- Narnian timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violates WP:NOT#PLOT because the article is mainly a plot summary. There is some information here that talks about the author of the work providing a timeline in a manuscript that was later published. But if that's the case, then reprinting the timeline here is a WP:COPYVIO and may even warrant speedy deletion. Regardless, Wikipedia is still not a place for articles that are basically plot summaries, with little coverage of reception or significance, and this has been the policy for almost 5 years. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination refactored to Speedy Delete: I stopped by a public library and looked at "C.S. Lewis: a companion & guide". So it turns out, Hopper the executor of Lewis's estate and the legal copyright holder, thus making making him far from a neutral or independent source on this topic. But more importantly, C.S. Lewis's entire "Outline of Narnia History so far as it is known" is reprinted here in this article, almost verbatim. The list of dates I read at the library begins with the birth of the characters, their entry into Narnia, every subsequent re-entry into Narnia, right until the end of Narnia, with exact years quantified in both Earth and Narnian times. I continue to believe that even if this timeline were synthesized purely by editors, a regular AFD would still be suitable since it takes more than a few lines about the authorship and publication of a plot to make the article something other than WP:JUSTPLOT. But the fact that it basically reprints several pages from a copyrighted source with a few editorial annotations, it makes it more than just fundamentally unfixable. It makes this article an obvious "delete on sight". It's frustrating to think that the fans thought it was okay to do this, and no one else bothered to look into it until now. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if it's not a copyvio, merge to Narnia (world). 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:NOT#PLOT does not forbid plot or tell us that we should delete it. It just counsels that we should aim to do more than recount the plot of a work. This article does just that by explaining the provenance of the timeline and its use by scholars and critics of Lewis' work. Lewis is a major author whose work is routinely taught in school. Per WP:NB, all his work is notable and that includes this timeline. Warden (talk) 07:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Narnian timeline" is neither a book nor a proper independent "work". As such, it is not covered by WP:NB.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being too literal but guidelines expect us to use common sense. It is clearly a significant piece of work when considering Lewis' work on Narnia in its entirety, as scholars do. Warden (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was such a significant piece of work, then I'm sure there would be enough analyses about it in reliable secondary sources. Why can't we find any in this article ? Why are there only trivial details relegated in intro ? That's because this "piece of work" is not significant at all. And the idea of using WP:BN for a single sheet of preliminary document no scholar cared about in an attempt to circumvent WP:GNG is a clear abuse of policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being too literal but guidelines expect us to use common sense. It is clearly a significant piece of work when considering Lewis' work on Narnia in its entirety, as scholars do. Warden (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Narnian timeline" is neither a book nor a proper independent "work". As such, it is not covered by WP:NB.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOT#PLOT is a valid concern but as Colonel Warden points out it is not a reason to automatically delete. I'm not qualified to comment on the possible copyvio, but for the article itself I think that WP:SUMMARY justifies it - frankie (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Shooterwalker (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GNG. As Shooterwalker explains it, the secondary content included is really too unsubstantial to claim that the article would not be only a plot summary. WP:NOT#PLOT defines that only "concise plot summaries" are appropriate, and WP:WAF#Plot_summaries informs us that "the length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections". In other words, the plot summary should only be a small part of the article, the core of it being secondary information about the fictional work. Here, we have a complete reversal, in violation of the two mentioned rules: the plot summary is the core of the article, and what little secondary content is available is relegated to the introduction. Clearly the article doesn't not meet the WP:GNG because the subject hasn't received "significant coverage" beyond the trivial mentions reported in the introduction.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The balance of content in an article is not adequate as a reason to delete everything because it would throw out the baby with the bathwater contrary to our editing policy. Warden (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I don't see any baby in this water. Everything that can be said on the topic is already thoroughly covered in Narnia_(world)#History.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense - that contention is clearly false. Your supposed alternative says nothing about the views of Ford, Lindskoog and Sammons on the authenticity of this timeline and, lacking this real-world aspect, is in greater breach of WP:PLOT. Warden (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I advise you to change your vote to "merge". But in any case, the Narnian timeline cannot stand on its own.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Chronicles of Narnia - Articles of this type are iffy, and need significant material to prove that it is notable. Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just want to say that while WP:NOT#PLOT is certainly the policy bit that is concerned with this discussion, the article itself is not plot driven. It is a timeline, which is a particular construct with an specific purpose and scope, that relies on plot elements by necessity - frankie (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying that this article is constructing a specific summary based on plot elements...wait, aren't we back to WP:NOT#PLOT, then ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I still prefer SUMMARY. Both Narnia (world) and Chronicles of Narnia cover diverse aspects of the general subject of Narnia, so it makes for sections to be of more use if they can stand by themselves. The focus of this article is not the plot but the manner in which the storyline develops with respects to the order of events. The mention of plot elements is mandatory since the line needs to be tagged, which doesn't mean that such tags should be spurious, since it is good to provide context that enables the user to see how events affect each other - frankie (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You go to such great length to avoid using the words "plot summary"...but are you really going to claim that "the manner in which the storyline develops with respects to the order of events" is an altogether different thing from "summing up the plot" ? Objectively, it's the same thing, and as I see it, you're just nitpicking on terms. Plot = storyline/"how events affect each other", summary= "Presenting the substance in a condensed form". That it follows the in-universe chronological order doesn't make it less a plot summary. Don't you think that, for example, showing a number of secondary sources significantly covering the topic would have been a more convincing angle to defend the article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While a timeline will by its nature include significant plot elements, that is not the purpose of this article. If the purpose of the article was to provide a timeline of events from Lewis' Chronicles, this article would be woefully inadequate. It includes insignificant and excludes significant events. The article is about the timeline that Lewis wrote, and is notable enough to be included in books about Lewis' works. LloydSommerer (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not something you can improvise. WP:GNG defines it as a topic that has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is not the case of this timeline as it seems to have only been mentioned in passing. If this article was supposed to be a critical analysis of one of Lewis's works, as you claim, then we would have sections devoted to the actual analysis. I don't see any. I only see a chronological plot summary with a few trivia in introduction. So either your definition of "notable" is wrong, or you are talking about another article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On the one hand there is not enough of a plot here for it to really fall under [[WP:#PLOT]]. Whole groups of events are mentioned as one (the entire story-line of The Horse and his Boy is covered in two sentences), as well as "bridge" or "transition" events that occur in between Narnia books are mentioned such as "1502: Queen Swanwhite of Narnia lived around the time." This just is not a simple plot summary, but instead a highly selective listing of some plot elements as required to construct a timeline.
On the other hand, the timeline of Narnia is not quite as notable as the timeline of Tolkien's Middle-Earth. The latter has been widely discussed in a great deal of critical literature on Tolkien. And I suspect the same thing is true of the timeline of Asimov's Foundation series. Little attention is given in literature about Narnia to the Narnian timeline.--WickerGuy (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Foundation I'm pretty sure it's been discussed, specially because it goes all the way to I Robot, which starts in the 90s - frankie (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The crux of WP:NOT#PLOT is not the level of details and trivia a summary can include, but how a summary (whatever its length) cannot be the main content of an article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For Foundation I'm pretty sure it's been discussed, specially because it goes all the way to I Robot, which starts in the 90s - frankie (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Other than possible copyvio, the content itself is no candidate for deletion. I'll gladly participate if there is a merge proposal - frankie (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The timeline as a subject does not meet the general notability guideline and there is no indication that it can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Upon further examination, the references used in the article, while reliable, do not show notability for the timeline. Past Watchful Dragons: The Fairy Tales of C. S. Lewis is a primary source since the timeline is taken allegedly from a manuscript by the author of Narnia. It is not a review or essay about the timeline and certainly not a secondary source, so it doesn't work for notability purposes. The C. S. Lewis Hoax seems to be used only to prove the authenticity of Outline of Narnian history since the document is not mentioned as part of Hooper's alleged hoaxes, which are mentioned in that book, but I couldn't find any mention about that document itself or anything related to the timeline, so it is not even a trivial mention. The Outline of Narnian history is only alluded in one sentence within Reading with the Heart: The Way into Narnia, a trivial mention. The other two sources cited within the article are tertiary sources that do not show notability for the timeline in anyway as they do not make analytic or evaluative claims about the timeline. A search engine test shows no indication of third-party sources that cover the timeline as a subject addressed in detail. Since it is only plot and that is already covered in several other Narnia-related articles, I do not see the need to keep around this non-notable and redundant content fork. The text of the article itself is redundant since it merely rewrites the Outline of Narnian History, which is already present in image form at Wikimedia Commons. It is sufficient to add a link to that image in Narnia (world)#History. Jfgslo (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the image is a copyright violation as well and would need to be deleted. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, this is not a plot summary. It presents events, not plot -- there are many important plot threads entirely missing. It gives information and context not present in the books, and includes events not mentioned in the books. Some of the information is not even consistent with the books. Second, the criteria for notability are largely met. The only one there is any question about is whether independent sources cover the item "significantly" -- but the stated reason for requiring this is so that "no original research is needed to extract the content". Arguing that Hooper is not an independent source sounds like special pleading to me; certainly Lindeskoog thought him "independent", and his Companion is regarded as one of the definitive treatments. The argument above would apply to any "official" biographer, rendering all such biographies somehow unreliable. Hooper thought enough of the Timeline not just to mention it but to reproduce it in its entirety, so its content is certainly known without OR. Several other sources use the material, and Ford devotes an appendix to reproducing material from it. Third, while I can't speak to the copyright issue, I will mention that the "image" is not a graphical reproduction from the original; it's merely an SVG text file that uses the graphical capabilities of SVG simply to position the text so that the spacing is chronologically significant. And using this as the primary presentation (as suggested above) makes it difficult to provide the links that the article currently provides. Finally, I prefer to keep this as a separate article precisely because it is a separate source of Narnian material, is reasonably self-contained, is referred to by scholars, and would be a space burden in the Narnian world article. It's the sort of thing that routinely gets off-loaded into a separate article. -- Elphion (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is plot summary. Fictional events are the plot. How could it be otherwise ? Everything that is fictional is part of the plot. "Plot" means "the fiction". And no, this article doesn't meet the notability requirements. You said it yourself, it means "significant coverage in reliable sources", and I don't see that in the article. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention", and I only see trivial mentions in the article. Merely reproducing one of Lewis's working document is not "covering it significantly". I don't see any thorough analysis of it from any Lewis scholar, so it is not notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not assert notability and only lists in-universe plot events. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete trying to split hairs between "plot" versus "fictional events" is wikilawyering of the worst kind. Not enough independent coverage to asset notability. Needs far more than a sentence about scholars challenging authenticity. 74.198.9.247 (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator re: copyright I've talked with an admin about how to handle the copyright violation issue, considering that this page reproduces the entire copyrighted timeline almost verbatim. On a quick scan, she agrees that there's a potential copyright problem here. At her advice, I've tagged the article using the appropriate tag. The tag automatically blanks the page. Someone with copyright expertise is going to look into the issue to make a full determination, and I expect them to find what I've found. But regardless, it will be a full week until the review is completed. I should note that I previously tagged this for speedy deletion due to a copyright violation, but because it wasn't blatantly obvious (you can't just look it up on the web) it was declined in favor of a slower copyright deletion process. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:00, 6 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian Carlsén[edit]
- Sebastian Carlsén (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Although he's part of Inter, he hasn't actually been on the field yet. He's part of the national U-21 team for Sweden, but it's not a senior team. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 17:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, the U-21 is NOT pro, but Olympics squad is, eventhough the Olympics squad is basically the same team plus three senior player?
VsanoJ (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC) 06:57, 1 June 2011[reply]
I second what he said. Plus alot of players who play for German reserve teams, Oscar Lewicki (another Sweden U-21 player) has a Wikepedia pages. What is the difference between playing for Internazionale Primavera and Bayern Munich II. I would say that Carlsén is in the ggray area between being a pro and a non-pro. The fact that he is a 19 year old who gets paid better than most of us, makes it hard for me to see him as an amature athlete.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.121.183 (talk)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Lewicki has played in the 3rd Liga which is a fully professional league. Campionato Nazionale Primavera is a youth league and not notable. Undelete when he appears at a fully professional level. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 14:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At present he fails WP:GNG, and has not appeared in a fully pro league meaning he fails WP:NSPORT. No prejudice to recreation if and when he does make his début. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 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. Discussion of possible merger should take place at the relevant talk pages. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Crimes against humanity under communist regimes[edit]
- Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is based on a single source, and there is no evidence that there is a field of studies for this. Certainly there is literature about human rights abuses in specific Communist countries but little about Communist countries in general. Notably the main article Crime against humanity makes no mention of the topic. Normally the correct approach would be to have an article specifically about the source, but it appears to have attracted little attention, and therefore lacks notability. TFD (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article title is now Communist crimes against humanity Collect (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there is but a single source then why are there currently three? And there are a great many more to come, I have after all only just begun the article. The Last Angry Man (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's already an article on Mass killings under Communist regimes. Perhaps the two would be best merged with one another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddy23Lee (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 May 2011
- This article is an overview article being broader in scope than Mass killings under Communist regimes as it includes deportation, terrorism, repression and other crimes. Mass killings under Communist regimes is more narrow, being concerned only with mass killing, and in any case is already over 100k in size so a merge would not be practical. --Martin (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrorism is not considered a crime against humanity, which refers to crimes carried out by governments, not non-state actors. Also, terrorist attacks against Communist governments were normally carried out by anti-Communists, not by Communists. Communists did not try to overthrow their own governments. But more importantly, there is no literature that supports your view. TFD (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? [3] TERRORISM AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY Acts of terrorism may amount to crimes against humanity when they meet the special requirements of these crimes, that is, when: (i) they are part or a widespread or systematic attack on civilians; ..., [4] Terrorism as a crime against humanity Terrorist acts are not listed as crimes against humanity in the Statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals or the ICC. It is, however, clear that if the acts fall within the list of constituent crimes and if ... [5] TerroriSm aS a Crime Against Humanity When proposing that certain treaty crimes might be included in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the International Law Commission pointed out that a systematic campaign of terror ... [6] Is Terrorism a Crime Against Humanity? William A. Schabas' In the weeks that followed 11 September 2001, many recognised authorities in the field of international law described the attacks as a "crime against humanity". ... Seems to show a number of sources do, indeed, call "terrorism" a "crime against humanity." Cavil demolished. Collect (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your sources clearly point out that terrorism is not generally considered to be a crime against humanity. TFD (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh? [3] TERRORISM AS A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY Acts of terrorism may amount to crimes against humanity when they meet the special requirements of these crimes, that is, when: (i) they are part or a widespread or systematic attack on civilians; ..., [4] Terrorism as a crime against humanity Terrorist acts are not listed as crimes against humanity in the Statutes of the ad hoc Tribunals or the ICC. It is, however, clear that if the acts fall within the list of constituent crimes and if ... [5] TerroriSm aS a Crime Against Humanity When proposing that certain treaty crimes might be included in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the International Law Commission pointed out that a systematic campaign of terror ... [6] Is Terrorism a Crime Against Humanity? William A. Schabas' In the weeks that followed 11 September 2001, many recognised authorities in the field of international law described the attacks as a "crime against humanity". ... Seems to show a number of sources do, indeed, call "terrorism" a "crime against humanity." Cavil demolished. Collect (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You made an absolute statement which was wrong. Argumentation after being shown sources which clearly disagree with your absolute statement is not going to affect this AfD one whit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect, do you understand the difference between saying "terrorism is a crime against humanity" and saying that som e people believe it should be considered as such? Because if we recongnize the distinction, it could lead to elimination of many disputes about neutrality. TFD (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know when sources are presented which directly contradict an absolute claim made by an advocate of deletion that further discussion on the topic is totally useless. And note also that you now have an RfC on the same article running at the same time. Cheers. I decline to make this a thousand word debate when the outcome of this AfD is now clear. Collect (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The terrorism article does not say anything about crimes against humanity and the crimes against humanity article says nothing about terrorism. Funny how both these articles miss something that you believe is truth. TFD (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know when sources are presented which directly contradict an absolute claim made by an advocate of deletion that further discussion on the topic is totally useless. And note also that you now have an RfC on the same article running at the same time. Cheers. I decline to make this a thousand word debate when the outcome of this AfD is now clear. Collect (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Collect, do you understand the difference between saying "terrorism is a crime against humanity" and saying that som e people believe it should be considered as such? Because if we recongnize the distinction, it could lead to elimination of many disputes about neutrality. TFD (talk) 22:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You made an absolute statement which was wrong. Argumentation after being shown sources which clearly disagree with your absolute statement is not going to affect this AfD one whit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there appears to be plenty of reliable sources on the topic, but suggest a move to Communist crimes against humanity as the current title appears to be a bit of a mouthful. --Martin (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the renaming. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree, the scope of this topic is very broad and complex, however, it shouldn't prevent us from trying to create an informative article. The investigation of communist crimes is a subject of public debate in many post-communist countries, see Category:Commemoration of communist crimes. Even the determination of the term "communist crime against humanity" is complicated and offers important material for examination, see [7]. In any case, the European Parliament resolution on European conscience and totalitarianism (April, 2009) condemned "strongly and unequivocally all crimes against humanity and the massive human rights violations committed by all totalitarian and authoritarian regimes". In February, 2010, several European politicians signed the Declaration on Crimes of Communism, calling for establishing an international institution (or an international court within the EU) that would investigate communist crimes against humanity in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe [8][9]. It was an attempt to unite the efforts of former communist countries. I think the topic has potential for expansion, although compiling a balanced article is a really complicated task. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Other than not liking it, no actual WP grounds for deletion has been given. AfD is not the place for content disputes, to be sure. Collect (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the nominator appears to be WP:CANVASSing for a particular outcome here. --Martin (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't canvassing, it is a neutral notice on a neutral field. I invite any opinion on this, it is always better to get another pair of eyes in an AfD discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —TFD (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Other than the Prague Declaration, I see no indication that "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" is treated by reliable sources as a discrete topic, as opposed to crimes against humanity under specific countries, or crimes against humanity under authoritarian regimes in general. The topic is not notable and the article can only be expanded beyond a stub by improper synthesis. Quigley (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Smacks of creating articles for a political purpose. There needs to be evidence that this is a distinct field of study --Snowded TALK 09:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is an unproductive attempt by a member of a known communist cabal to push the pro-Marxist agenda by removing an article that highlights the negative side of communism. And yes the nominator has shown extreme irresponsibility by making this comment, I'm wondering what is his motive? If it is a candidate for merger, then AfD is the wrong venue, so that comment constitutes CANVASSing. As argued above, more references can be easily found. It is unfortunate Wikipedia is being taken over by certain individuals with disruptive political agenda. --Reference Desker (talk) 09:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And yes, rename it Communist crime against humanity. --Reference Desker (talk) 10:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The article's topic largely duplicates the existing Mass killings under Communist regimes article. There is presently discussion on a rename of that article to Mass crimes of communist regimes, which would make the overlap clearer. However, since editing of Mass killings under Communist regimes is currently under severe restriction, a merger may not be possible at this time, in which case this article should be userfied. AmateurEditor (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that this topic largely duplicates Mass killings under Communist regimes, because the latter article does not cover deportations, forced labour and other political repressions considered crimes against humanity that fall short of killing. "Crimes against humanity" is defined as "particularly odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice". As you can see Mass killings under Communist regimes is a just one sub-topic of a wider phenonemon which also includes torture, rape, political/racial/religious persecution and other inhumane acts. In any case that article is already over 100k in size, so merging is impractical. --Martin (talk) 22:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass killings under Communist regimes does have a section on deportations. It is currently in a controversies section because, while many of the sources for the article discuss deportations, including them as "mass killing" is awkward. That's one of the reasons I support the name change to "Mass crimes of communist regimes" currently being considered for the article: it is more accurate to how the topic is described in the variety of sources. "Mass killing" was one of several terms used by reliable sources and it was the one chosen for the title of the article, but the others are included in a terminology section and "crime against humanity" is among them. I think it is a better solution to have a single wikipedia article on a topic than to artificially divide a single topic between the various terms different sources use to describe it (particularly when some of those sources directly acknowledge that the variety of terms are descriptions of the very same subject). The topic should determine the title, not the other way around. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because someone erroneously added a small section on deportation to an article about mass killings, it does not follow that that article should then be expanded in scope to include all non-lethal crimes within it, that is just WP:Article creep. Yes, mass killing is a crime against humanity, but a crime against humaninity does not need to be a mass killing. Mass killings under Communist regimes is already 100k in size, so rolling all the other crimes into it will only make that article even bigger, resulting in the need to spin off sub-articles. Where is the sense in that? To my mind the obvious solution it to expand the article Communist crimes against humanity with a summary section on mass killings, while retaining Mass killings under Communist regimes as a more detailed sub article. --Martin (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you then also support separate articles for each of the other terms used, such as "politicide under communist regimes"? I don't see the sense in that. Wikipedia determines articles by topic, not by term. Even though the article is now named "Mass killings under Communist regimes", it has retained the topic it began with, originally titled "Communist genocide". The sources don't make such fine distinctions between the various terms, so neither should we. I think the best demonstration in a source of why all the terms should be included in one article is the following quote showing that they reflect the same single topic:
- "Classicide, in counterpoint to 'genocide', has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of fratricide is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of politicide, which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as genocide because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
- - Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press.
- "Classicide, in counterpoint to 'genocide', has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of fratricide is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of politicide, which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as genocide because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
- Other sources also mention that other terms are preferred by other scholars on the same topic. The Black Book of Communism, for example, discusses the merits of "crimes against humanity" by communist regimes, and mentions that "politicide" and "communist crimes" are used by others. The main source for this article, "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" by Karlsson and Schoenhals also discuss the merits of "genocide", "terror" and use other terms in specific contexts. There is no clear division of the topic by term. The best approach is to have one article for the one topic. I agree with you that "Mass killing" is too narrow. The proposed "Mass crimes of communist regimes" is much better, but it is better for the article which has already been extensively written, not this one. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Politicide, classicide, fracticide, democide, genocide are all instances of mass killing, the only thing that differs is the targeted group. That is why "mass killing" is a wholly appropriate encyclopedic term that encompases all the -cides and why Mass killings under Communist regimes is a wholly appropriate topic that emcompasses all the permutations of the terms related to killing. I do however make the distinction between mass killing and deportation, mass killing and rape, and mass killing and political/racial/religious persecution, and thus mass killing, deportation, rape and political/racial/religious persecution are all valid topics worthy of separate articles while the topic "crimes against humanity" is itself a separate but related topic just like Crime is a separate topic but related to Murder, Rape and Kidnapping. In regard to your extensive quote of Jacques Semelin, he is discussing the definition under criminal law, where "Crime against humanity" is a lesser charge than "genocide" as applied to the instance of a particular mass killing as a crime. --Martin (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you then also support separate articles for each of the other terms used, such as "politicide under communist regimes"? I don't see the sense in that. Wikipedia determines articles by topic, not by term. Even though the article is now named "Mass killings under Communist regimes", it has retained the topic it began with, originally titled "Communist genocide". The sources don't make such fine distinctions between the various terms, so neither should we. I think the best demonstration in a source of why all the terms should be included in one article is the following quote showing that they reflect the same single topic:
- Just because someone erroneously added a small section on deportation to an article about mass killings, it does not follow that that article should then be expanded in scope to include all non-lethal crimes within it, that is just WP:Article creep. Yes, mass killing is a crime against humanity, but a crime against humaninity does not need to be a mass killing. Mass killings under Communist regimes is already 100k in size, so rolling all the other crimes into it will only make that article even bigger, resulting in the need to spin off sub-articles. Where is the sense in that? To my mind the obvious solution it to expand the article Communist crimes against humanity with a summary section on mass killings, while retaining Mass killings under Communist regimes as a more detailed sub article. --Martin (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass killings under Communist regimes does have a section on deportations. It is currently in a controversies section because, while many of the sources for the article discuss deportations, including them as "mass killing" is awkward. That's one of the reasons I support the name change to "Mass crimes of communist regimes" currently being considered for the article: it is more accurate to how the topic is described in the variety of sources. "Mass killing" was one of several terms used by reliable sources and it was the one chosen for the title of the article, but the others are included in a terminology section and "crime against humanity" is among them. I think it is a better solution to have a single wikipedia article on a topic than to artificially divide a single topic between the various terms different sources use to describe it (particularly when some of those sources directly acknowledge that the variety of terms are descriptions of the very same subject). The topic should determine the title, not the other way around. AmateurEditor (talk) 00:58, 7 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
St Helens Rovers FC[edit]
- St Helens Rovers 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)
Amateur club that hasn't participated at a national level. Fails to satisfy WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG, e.g. reliable sources, significant coverage, etc. Mephtalk 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't competed at a high enough sporting level, and no other evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 20:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 03:46, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Kind of a shame not to include grass-roots sport, but until there's real evidence of interest I guess there's not an awful lot of point. Soupy sautoy (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. Skomorokh 13:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ninedee[edit]
- Ninedee (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 could not establish the notability of this band through online research, but am happy to withdraw this nomination if another editor can. Skomorokh 15:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found three online news articles from Swedish newspapers, including one interview with the band. Interview (in Swedish). Article 2. Article 3 Skogsspringaren (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your research! The first two articles look like providing enough depth of coverage to satisfy notability requirements, if it is reliable. I'm not familiar with these publications, but Pitea-Tidningen looks like a local paper and Norrbottens-Kuriren is a regional paper – do you think that they meet our requirements for reliable sources, as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Skomorokh 09:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thing they meet the requirements. Piteå-tidningen, founded in 1915, is the largest paper in the municipality of Piteå, Sweden. Norrbottens-Kuriren is even larger in the region of Norrbotten. They are both legit newspapers, delivering news in both printed and web-format.Skogsspringaren (talk) 10:06, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your research! The first two articles look like providing enough depth of coverage to satisfy notability requirements, if it is reliable. I'm not familiar with these publications, but Pitea-Tidningen looks like a local paper and Norrbottens-Kuriren is a regional paper – do you think that they meet our requirements for reliable sources, as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Skomorokh 09:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)Thanks to some research by Skogsspringaren good support material was found. Article now meets WP:BAND, no other apparent reason to delete. Keep. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 13:21, 2 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 14:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Terry Burns (medical inventor and picture framer)[edit]
- Terry Burns (medical inventor and picture framer) (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 don't think this person meets the general notability criteria. The article itself is just a summary / rewording of what is contained in the single source - the newspaper obituary. Biker Biker (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the author I'd like to defend this entry. google the Matburn Suction Pump and you'll see it's still widely used in medical procedures. And as the framer at the Royal College of Arts was responsible for restoring many notable works of art. {{User:Dansager]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dansager (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable: If the pump was notable, it we would have an article on it. Your claim that he he notable because of this is insufficient.Curb Chain (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He had some interesting life experiences, and it would not be surprising if he had some coverage in reliable sources, but all that is presented in an obituary, and it is just not enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Edison. WP is not a memorial for interesting but non-notable dead people. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 1 June 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. No consensus to delete. There is a consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Subspace (Star Trek)[edit]
- Subspace (Star Trek) (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 remains a stub of plot summary. Re-read PoST this winter and there's not much more than fleeting references to this domain. Topic fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hyperspace (science fiction). Similar concept. We need RS's to improve the blurb, but I think the concept itself is notable enough to have its own section in Hyperspace (science fiction). Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The OED has an entry for this with usage going back to 1956 (which is well before Star Trek). The article already indicates that subspace is used widely in other SF works and so there is good scope for generalising this concept, much as is done with hyperspace, the fourth dimension, &c. This is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. And there are, of course, entire books about this stuff such as The Physics of Star Trek, The World of Star Trek, The Star Trek Encyclopedia, The Guide to Writing Fantasy and Science Fiction, &c. Warden (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The non-Trek-related subject is already sufficiently covered and unrelated to the topic up for deletion (see subspace (disambiguation) and shouldn't be a consideration re. this article's notability. The subject is already sufficiently covered at Hyperspace (science fiction), and content at this article is a) redundant to content there and b) not appropriate cited, i.e. no content merge is warranted. I reread one of the suggested works this winter and its coverage is fleeting. STE offers a mostly in-universe treatment (in the same vein at the STTNG Technical Manual). World of ST and Guide to Writing F&SF mention the subject in passing twice and once, respectively, according to a Google Books search. As with the previous AfD ~three years ago, "there are no specific citations of, say, links to or pagenumbers in works where this subject is discussed in any detail" -- either in this discussion (so far) or from work on the article itself. --EEMIV (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hyperspace (science fiction) or Physics and Star Trek. 65.94.44.141 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Warp drive (Star Trek) rather than either of the two proposed above. --Martin Wisse (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge: The Star Trek subspace as an individual subject does not meet the general notability guideline since there are no reliable secondary sources that cover the topic. Lacking these sources, the subject can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work, material not appropiate for Wikipedia. The text of the article itself has only one reference to a primary source, which doesn't even talk about subspace directly, and, outside of that, the rest of the content appears to be to be original research by synthesis. Since the topic is already covered there, a merge to Hyperspace (science fiction)#Star Trek is an acceptable outcome only if the content can be sourced and can provide something relevant and different from what's already there. Jfgslo (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or merge: I don't see why we create two articles about a real world concept just because it also appears in fiction. This is no different from "Human being (The Simpsons)" or "America (The Cosby Show)". There may be features in the fictional universe that distinguish them from the real one. But you can see how it becomes untenable and indiscriminate. Regardless, there is limited coverage in independent sources to justify this article, according to the general notability guideline. 74.198.9.247 (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)— 74.198.9.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Per Colonel Warden, this topic is widely used in science fiction, but it is primarily associated with Star Trek. There are entire books written about subspace. Hyperspace (science fiction) is a completely different entity and it would be inappropriate to merge the two together. Alpha Quadrant talk 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colonel Warden's excellent reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:15, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
968 (number)[edit]
- 968 (number) (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:NUMBER. Singularity42 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It gets an entry in Those fascinating numbers while its neighbours don't. Warden (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative delete. Does not pass criterion one or two of WP:NUMBER. Criterion 3 is passed, but we should preferably have more sources, per the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Fails WP:NUMBER Baseball Watcher 16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonnotable number. Edison (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it has been cited in the literature and has certain interesting qualities, but I couldn't find much on any of the usual databases. I added one cite about the number of digits once used for pi, but it isn't directly about this number. Faint praise indeed. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as has been said, fails WP:NUMBER. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Certainly not the worst number out there. Despite their infinite variety the threshold for inclusion of numbers is set very low. 968 meets the criteria. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If this number is deleted, might as well delete all the other number entries in the encyclopedia per WP:DICTDEF. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't nominating based on WP:DICTDEF. I was nominating based on WP:NUMBER. Many number articles do meet WP:NUMBER. I am suggesting that this number does not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kentaro Nagao[edit]
- Kentaro Nagao (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 2009 PhD, just hired as an Assistant Professor. Only 2 papers in MathSciNet - not yet academically notable to pass WP:PROF. Was a successful international math olympiad participant as a high school student - but too little coverage there to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (as creator): I agree, per current guidelines this article is not notable. I created it in good faith, just like Iurie Boreico, because IMHO exceptional achievements at the IMO merit notability. As of now, it is unclear whether they do or do not. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people), but received little response. --bender235 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PROF. A promising young academic, but for an article there should be more documented academic achievement. Edison (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 12:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - bring it back when he's notable, not because he may become notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too early in his academic career to pass WP:PROF, and the IMO wins aren't enough by themselves unless they led to significant media coverage, which I don't see. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Carmichael[edit]
- Stephen Carmichael (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 makes several laudable efforts at establishing the notability of the subject, but none of them reach the standards of our thresholds for inclusion of musician biographies as far as I can tell. Researching for significant coverage in reliable sources was unsuccessful, but I will gladly withdraw this nomination if someone else can succeed in this. Skomorokh 11:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 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, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's not a good sign that no editor could even be bothered to render the opinion. A quick read proves that the entry simply isn't worthy of consideration. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A simple google search returns only the article. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 17:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per failing WP:BIO and WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:19, 7 June 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 Pitch (card game). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell Ten-Point Pitch[edit]
- Campbell Ten-Point Pitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Card game. No evidence that it exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find no discussion in reliable sources for this card game variant. Appears to be made up. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Pitch (card game). No, this is clearly not made up one day. The US has a huge variety of card games derived from All Fours / Pitch, and this falls neatly into the range of documented variants. Even more, it is a documented variant. The only reliable source that systematically collects local card games throughout the world already describes the rules. That does not mean that we need a separate article, though. The Pitch article already describes a lot of local variants, most of them still unsourced, and this one fits there very well and is actually sourceable. Hans Adler 16:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Merge. Adler makes a very good point; it is shown to exist, but since existence doesn't equal notability, it can still be merged into the main game article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Pitch (card game) as there is not enough sustainability for its own article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 21:22, 7 June 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 all three. (Good god, an article on a screenplay for a TV show?!) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dominique Adams[edit]
- Dominique Adams (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 film maker, fails WP:BIO. Has so far created one low-budget movie, screened once on a festival but not distributed (nearly a year later), and written a script for a pilot for a tv series, which has been selected as a finalist for a large comedy festival. The film received some minimal local attention, the screenplay only got a press release by his own company. Fram (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated: Twisted Seduction (his movie) and Outcall (TV PILOT SCREENPLAY)
- Delete all three. While filmmaker and films "may" one day get coverage enough for a future return, curent searches do not find the coverage require by either WP:BIO or WP:NF to suport the articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - non-notable writer and his non-notable projects. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:31, 3 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Latinam-Zine[edit]
- Latinam-Zine (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 new journal. Only 1 issue published yet, no independent source. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Crusio (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per nomination. Rcsprinter (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Also per nom Baseball Watcher 15:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 2 June 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zac Thompson[edit]
- Zac Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Youth footballer fails WP:NFOOTY as he has not made an appearance at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo[online] 09:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 09:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Carioca (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KinoSearch[edit]
- KinoSearch (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 Not notable or even relevant to Wikipedia. If there is an article on KinoSearch, there should be an article on every perl script ever written. Ashershow1 (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*This AfD was not properly nominated. No notice was placed in the article, the AfD was not added to the day's list of AfDs, and the author was not informed. I am listing it as a new AfD today to give a chance for a proper discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Comment - Here is an O'Reilly piece about KinoSearch.[11] Also fixed Reference #1 in the article. Even though O'Reilly has an impressive reputation in computer science publishing, at this point I just don't know if this is enough, but it does create the assertion of notability. It's not correct to say there's nothing out there. And the existence, or not, of articles on "... every perl script ever written" doesn't really have any legs as a deletion rationale in an AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The full and detailed signed O'Reilly review is proof of notability DGG ( talk ) 13:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it isn't. It's a blog post giving someone's impressions from (in the writer's own words) "playing with it one afternoon". It's just one source, giving what is scarcely major coverage. If by "signed" you mean that the author of the post gives a pseudonym ("chromatic") then I don't see the relevance of the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG. Chromatic is actually a well-known computer book author; this is his pen name: [12]. He qualifies under the expert exception from WP:SPS. Additionally KinoSearch got some academic citations, while not being an academic product itself: [13] FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, the nature of "Chromatic" wasn't clear. Thanks for the clarification. However, I still don't see that one post as constituting substantial enough coverage to establish notability. As for the so-called "academic citations", none of them that I have been able to see contain more than a simple mention that KinoSearch was used. That is not significant coverage of KinoSearch. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Charm (language) is considered notable for having as single review in Acorn User and no indication it was ever used for anything serious. KinoSearch is more more notable than that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Charm (language) is considered notable for having as single review in Acorn User and no indication it was ever used for anything serious. KinoSearch is more more notable than that. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As JamesBWatson points out, comparisons to other articles that either exist or don't exist are generally not persuasive in an AfD per WP:OTHERSTUFF. And because of some important differences, a comparison probably shouldn't be persuasive in this case either: (1) Charm is an historical software article; it's not about anything anyone is still seriously promoting. (2) The article offered in support of Charm is over 1600 words and it's clearly a detailed, independent and critical review. (3) While I removed the notability hat that I had placed on the Charm article after a PDF of the review was made available, that was just my opinion only; who knows if the article would survive an AfD with other editors weighing in because it's never been nominated. Msnicki (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chromatic column is only about 800 words. The mention in the Lucene book appears to be about the same (but without an account at safaribooksonline.com, I couldn't see the whole thing.) But in the context of a whole 475-page book dedicated to Lucene and attempting to cover everything related to Lucene, it's just not as "about" KinoSearch as a stand-alone article of the same length would be. And, again, Charm is an historical topic with very little incentive for anyone to spam and KinoSearch is not. Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively it could be merged with Apache Software Foundation because it's now been adopted as Apache Lucy [14]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- A better place to merge is merge it is Lucene itself. The 2010 book on Lucene has a couple of pages on KinoSearch, and one page on its successor, Lucy. The book also covers some other language ports, so it should be verifiable to include this information at Lucene. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ferret search library should probably be merged there as well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I missed some of the search results first time around. The keep arguments by DGG and FuFoFuEd, the Lucene book, the references in the article, the Chromatic article, and many indications of use of KinoSearch, have convinced me that it's notable. As this is not a controversial subject nor an exceptional claim, the references seem sufficient to establish notability here. — Becksguy (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the coverage that has been pointed out thus far is enough to satisfy the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources offered are not especially strong (see above) but are sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Without any further search, I agree that notability is met by the sources offered alone - frankie (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Antoki no Inochi[edit]
- Antoki no Inochi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unreleased minor Japanese film nominate per WP:NFF wintonian talk edits 08:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Ok this is obviously more notable than I thought and it seems pointless to carry this on so I request WP:Speedy Keep and if anyone feels like it WP:Non-admin closure.--wintonian talk 09:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is a film by a notable director scheduled for nationwide cinema release in Japan, starring two notable actors as well as a popular TV personality. It has already received news coverage in the mainstream press and media in Japan. --DAJF (talk) 09:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Foreign-language sources are allowed, and it appears that the film is receiving quite some coverage. It may be a little stubby now, but it will be easy to develop nearer release. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DAJF, well-sourced, carry on.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This film is scheduled for Japan national release (thus not "minor").--Lionratz (talk) 10:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as reasonable exception to NFF. We have here a (currently) short article about a completed film, receiving coverage, and facing imminent release. It will best serve the project and its readers to have this one remain and grow through regular editing.[15][16] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 2 June 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) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relentless (drink)[edit]
- Relentless (drink) (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 beverage. The only links close to sources are basically hosted press releases. Not to mention that this article is a spam-fest, but if you took out all the spam there would be nothing to write about. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a product made by The Coca-Cola Company which has been sold for five years now. Although the article should probably have some of the content cut as being unsourced and/or too promotional, there appears to be enough news coverage relating to the product to justify having an article. Problems with the article can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs a major rewrite, but not the spam-fest you make it out to be. There is a lot of original research that needs to be cut, but that's easy: we could also try to reference it. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We who? It has no sources except for press releases and photos on a blog. There is no notability for this product, not even as a Coca-Cola product. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The page is for a product, it just needs a major rewrite. Sounds too like advertising at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.142.144 (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the article does need a lot of cleanup and the additon of more references, it does have significant coverage in the news to be kept, partly in light to the fact the beverage is currently the subject of a trademark case, which I think is quite a lot to write about. I have done some work on the article to clean it up a bit, but this article needs improvement, not deletion. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 16:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notability has been established. As others have stated, it needs cleanup to bring it up to standards. ArcAngel (talk) ) 22:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explosade[edit]
- Explosade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not explain why this product is notable. Store-brand generic energy drink only sold at Aldi, product is unlikely to gain any media attention or notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PRODUCT, almost falls under WP:COOKIE because most stores can be expected to carry their own brand. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing any non-trivial reliable source coverage here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Loop (drink)[edit]
- Loop (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not explain why this product is notable. Store-brand generic energy drink only sold at K-Mart, product is unlikely to gain any media attention or notability. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not seem to pass WP:PRODUCT, almost falls under WP:COOKIE because most stores can be expected to carry their own brand. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:PRODUCT, non-notable drink in one shop. Doesn't need article. Rcsprinter (talk) 14:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing any non-trivial reliable source coverage here. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chanan Krivisky[edit]
- Chanan Krivisky (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. BLP of unestablished notability. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability of Chanan Krivisky has been established already, as can be seen in the edits. This article has already been removed from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chanan Krivisky|View AfD] once before, no recent edits warrant it to be marked for deletion again. (Brewcrewer) is calling said article into question due to one of the editors comments on another article which he re-edited. (Brewcrewer) harsh techniques should be noted as backlash, not objective editorial responsibility. User talk:Chonye is taking responsibility to clean up article. brew is submitting for deletion based on my edits on other articles. Please leave this one alone, it is a valid piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelgreen18 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — User:Samuelgreen18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Please keep this AfD on track with relevant comments only. Discuss the article and how it meets or does not meet Wikipedia policy, and not the editors. Avoid use of small text unless determined by the site software. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the small font size formatting to make Samuelgreen18's comments more legible. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please keep this AfD on track with relevant comments only. Discuss the article and how it meets or does not meet Wikipedia policy, and not the editors. Avoid use of small text unless determined by the site software. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails every Wikipedia notability criterion, especially WP:ACADEMIC. Article is a vanity page, promotional, point of view pushing, and original research. No reliable sources, or verifiable sources or extensive coverage found. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article makes no real assertion of notability—it lists the schools he's gone to and things he's done, but none of them are particularly noteworthy achievements. Additionally, I don't know what "circumnavigating" the peak of Mount Hood is supposed to mean. Does that mean he walked a circle around the sign marking the highest point? Either way, no one made a note of it. I'm struggling through the promotional material, but it's looks like he's a local rabbi and community center leader. Not someone who meets the WP:GNG, in any case. — Chromancer talk/cont 04:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant vanity page for a non-notable person. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. I may take a few minutes and edit down the fluff to see if there is anything I'm missing but it looks like a non-starter. Joe407 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Krivisky fails to qualify as notable according to Wikipedia's standards. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --- I don't think every rabbi needs a Wikipedia page, especially without strong sources which there are none. Is there really a reason Chanan should've be created on Wikipedia? SwisterTwister (talk) 06:22, 7 June 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. I'm sorry Lazysmurf420 but there's a consensus that Jeff Attridge isn't notable yet. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Attridge[edit]
- Jeff Attridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of poorly referenced article is not notable. Djc wi (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Subject is absolutely notable. He was the touring keyboardist for Mr Bungle! That alone is worth having him on here. Also, he founded Game Audio Magic, of which I am a huge fan, and which has at least 30 titles to shelves. As a huge estradasphere fan myself, I am surprised at just how many links reference him in your own encyclopedia. I suggest you guys actually look at the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazysmurf420 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Lazysmurf420 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment, And in reference to WP:MUSIC ... Mr Bungle qualifies, and he was a member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazysmurf420 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Click here for the official criteria. Which one out of those 12 does the article meet? --Djc wi (talk) 06:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Mr Bungle never had an album that didnt go Gold. I think that was #3 They also released 3 albums on Warner Brothers, which qualifies them under #5, and they have Mike Patton and Trey Spruance #6. They toured on the sno-core tour #4, had a 1 hour television special in Australia #12 and were in rotation on KROQ for years #11. I am pretty sure that is one of the many reasons they have a wiki page, on which almost all of these are listed. This would be the one... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Bungle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazysmurf420 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Mr. Bungle qualifies as a Wikipedia article. Jeff Attridge does not. First of all, the article for Mr. Bungle does not list Attridge as a band member. His name is mentioned, yes, but the mention is trivial, as if he's a live fill-in. Secondly, even if he was a member, it doesn't matter. For Jeff Attridge to have a separate article, he must be notable by himself, without Mr. Bungle. Now again, which criteria does
Mr. BungleJeff Attridge meet. --Djc wi (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Mr. Bungle qualifies as a Wikipedia article. Jeff Attridge does not. First of all, the article for Mr. Bungle does not list Attridge as a band member. His name is mentioned, yes, but the mention is trivial, as if he's a live fill-in. Secondly, even if he was a member, it doesn't matter. For Jeff Attridge to have a separate article, he must be notable by himself, without Mr. Bungle. Now again, which criteria does
- Comment, First, if you look at precedent on wikipedia you will find thousands upon thousands of band members noted solely for their work in a single band. I don't know why you are so anti Jeff Attridge... seems strange to me. But if that isn't enough for you, he also fits the criteria via Game Audio Magic, as they won numerous awards for their work on Gish, including best soundtrack, which is also listed in the references. But most importantly, you have tons of pages here on wikipedia that reference him and the links dont work. Why not make the website work better? Lazysmurf420 (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and especially The answer to life, the universe, and everything. tedder (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, lack of reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for the subject; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow Talk 01:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tedder and Gongshow. Band members are only notable if they have demonstrated a notable solo career or have played with several notable bands. 'I like it' and 'I'm a fan' are not arguments for inclusion. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BIO. Unconvincing arguments put up by sole keep voter. LibStar (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. T. Canens (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Death Generals[edit]
- Death Generals (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 out-of-universe notability, no sources whatsoever. Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (films). Crusio (talk) 06:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unreferenced article about a fictional villain group which doesn't meet the general notability guideline and which is a plot-only description of a fictional work. This is an unjustified split and a content fork of both Digimon Xros Wars and List of Digimon Xros Wars characters, where they are already covered. Jfgslo (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable enough to split from List of Digimon Xros Wars characters. Any additional information that the Death Generals article has, such as attack names, is trivial. Katanin (talk) 22:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to List of Digimon Xros Wars characters for lack of coverage by reliable third-party sources and WP:BEFORE. Possible search term and redirects are cheep. If this list was split from List of Digimon Xros Wars characters to begin with (as the two previous deletion comments state), than the best course of action is to merge it back to the list. —Farix (t | c) 14:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect per WP:BEFORE. This is a plausible search term. --Malkinann (talk) 22:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and/or redirect. Plausible search term. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Cashel[edit]
- Tom Cashel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Claims to notability are unreferenced. Djc wi (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources for this owner of two pizza restaurants who is now running his family's dairy farm. Not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This successful local businessman doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. I note that this article is the only thing its creator has worked on... Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 5 June 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 moot. Article has already been redirected and userfied. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cultures of silence[edit]
- Cultures of silence (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 page reads like an essay, and barely ties in with the subject of the article. A better article for this topic is at Conspiracy of silence (expression), which this article wavers on covering. This article would be more aptly named, "Silence in Culture," but again, it would be a lot of OR for it to work as an article. Angryapathy (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an essay founded on an equivocation between two different meanings of silence: "utter quiet" and "secrecy". Anything salvageable is already discussed at Secrecy and Silence. Hairhorn (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge per Gene93k to Silence and/or Secrecy. This is an odd mix of redundancy and original research. None of the sources appear reliable to me. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose delete haste. Please Wait/Revise. I agree there is a fine edge of OR (Original Synthesis). But IMO SYNTH should not be as rigorously prohibited as OR. Nevertheless, I agree that needs to be rectified or the text needs to be clarified and rooted in citations of work that others have done on the topics. Which is the perfect segue to the other valid issue, which is whether it needs SPLIT or SPLIT/MERGE. I think the term "equivocation" is not helpful, nor is the word "odd" quite on the money, but IMO it is creativity, and creativity is not really what wikipedia is for. Even wikiversity would make more sense for an exhaustive exegesis of the different categories of silence in groups or in cultures.
- However, it is likely that there are more writers out there who have explored the work of Paulo Friere and others. It might be better for the project to wait a few days and receive a report back or edits sustaining that there is sufficient research out there to sustain the article. Pending the result of that literature search, I may very well concede to the afd, and gladly userfy. But it would be too hasty given that there is a seminal work on the topic, Culture of Silence, and that numerous writers have complained about cultures of silence in terms of trade secrets and corporate malfeasance, police agencies. There is, contrary to what apparently is argued above, a basis for unequivocal or unification of the putative "equivocation", which is the degeneration of cultures of spiritual silence practice into situations where abuses have occured. Where those abuses have occurred, it has been alleged that the culture of silence, which was supposed to be for promotion of spiritual purposes, allowed the abuse or sexual misconduct, to continue. This would be a very serious matter indeed, and therefore this discussion should not be closed in a hasty manner. TO FOLLOW: citations and possible modifications to mainspace text. Thank you in advance for your patience.
- Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Talk:Cultures_of_silence#Clean_up_to-do
- Update: I am finding that this will probably not be a SYNTH dunkshot, at all. There appears to be a body of scholarly literature theorizing upon an abstract concept of silence. Also separate writing about eradicating bad cultures of it...I am trimming the fat and maybe the problem is that this is two or three articles mixed up into one. Cf for example
- Silence: interdisciplinary perspectives. There are many others. In other words, there are plenty of people who were thinking what I was thinking. So my job is to aggregate and order those scholarly writers to the ::extent that they have created an encyclopediable common body of knowledge.
- By Adam Jaworski
Bard गीता 21:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to me that the only original idea for this article is Paulo Freire's book titled "Cultures of Silence", and then Conspiracy of silence (expression) and Secrecy are lumped in. As it seems that Freire is the main person to use the term, the information might be better off as a section on his article instead of having a seperate article. "Cultures of silence" in this context would be a neologism that doesn't need it's own article just yet. Angryapathy (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your insight, the article when you first templated it was really not up to my usual standards not was it policy compliant. I thing the operative term or area of agreements are as follows
- *Yes there is a deficiency in Wikipedia coverage of Paulo Freire's book titled "Cultures of Silence"
- Yes the next step (in that thread/in the process of rectifying that specific issue) is a section in Paulo Freire
- Not to imply that an independent article Culture of Silence (bboK is in any way discouraged, provided that (a) there is at least a sentence or a few in Paulo Freire, linking to Culture of silence
- and (b) there is a sufficient amount of policy-compliant (cited, reasonably
wellwritten, English language) content in Cultures of silence which is not simply a verbatim repetition of the section - Bard गीता 18:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Status update Implementing the well taken criticisms. Narrowing focus to Friere, and those academics who declare specific conintuance of this exact topic.Next will add summary of references and citations from probably dissertations and peer reviewed articles by MSW or other social workers.Bard गीता 04:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unfortunately, I can find no evidence that Friere has ever written a book by the title Culture of Silence or Cultures of Silence. [17] , [18] The topic is indeed real, and the phrase appears in many other book titles: [19], [20], but , as far as I am confused, that shows the irretrievable confusion of the present article. I think the many books show that it is a notable topic, but would suggest rewriting from scratch, after a proper review of the literature--at least sufficient of a review to know what books there actually are, and who wrote them. The next step will be to figure out what it actually means, and an AfD is not the place to work it out. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relist note: the article is being continuously edited, do the arguments above still apply? Sandstein 05:34, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have suggested that we just userfy the article in the meantime, but I doubt Bard would be OK with that. He has split most of the redundant concepts, but the article still has numerous issues. But let's let the AfD run its course, and if the article has improved, then hopefully the closing admin will be able to decide if the article should stay. If not, it can be userfied and then resubmitted once the necessary research has been completed. Angryapathy (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey hold on[edit]
Yes it is being updated. Yes the concept is legit. Freire originated the concept. The article will be fixed. Please no surprises. Userfy as last resort.I will be back online tommorow thanks. Bard गीता 07:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems Conspiracy of Silence and Culture of Silence are combined into one article. I've heard "Culture of Silence" in use, but never "Conspiracy of Silence". While I do not think there should be two separate articles, I question why the main article is called "Conspiracy of Silence" - should it be renamed? Denaar (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Culture of silence is a term from Pablo Freire.Bard गीता 19:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Enough already/ voluntarily MOVED to userspace[edit]
The problem with the article is that it looks like OR. It is not necessary to be OR because some researchers such as Armstrong and others have extended the concept. That article "Cultures of silence" is doable but takes advanced search work to find those obscure articles which have actually extended Friere's origination of the concept. HOWEVER, an article Culture of silence is implied by the lead paragraphs. For the sake of directness, i had earlier moved the article from Cultures of silence to Culture of silence however that was a bad idea because it was guaranteed to confuse people to no end.
Per Aa's suggestion i have no objection to userfying the article until it is ready for mainspace. In fact, i am going to develope all of my articles in userspace or off-wikipedia because in more than one other instance perfectly viable articles were deleted onsite within minutes of creation as either too-little-content or as believed redundant by trigger happy admins.
In the instant case, Cultures..., the article was actually not OR but rather SYNTH. It was written as synth. However, it is NOT actually original SYNTH because there are academics who have worked the concept. Buuut i was actually doing an Original Synthesis on my own. Note that there are probably thousands of articles which do that on WP, go figure. But in any case there is no need for me to re-invent the wheel there are people out there who have written extending the Friere concept.
Obviously, the article on the original Friere concept should be written before the more ambitious project of surveying academic synthesis of the concept.
Bard गीता 20:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump[edit]
- Chaplin's Patent Distilling Apparatus with Steam Pump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a pretty well-written article; however, I tried Googling for information on this topic in several ways and couldn't really find anything (Googling for "chaplin distiller" comes back only to this article). Speaking of that, the article was created by User:Chaplindistiller. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am a Master Student at University. I am working on this wiki page as an assignment with a partner. I have no connection with the company, just created the username to do the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaplindistiller (talk • contribs) 04:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't what Wikipedia is for, I'm afraid. Please read WP:NOT PAPERS. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The project is not designed to be a paper and is not a paper. It will contribute to the pool of Maritime Archaeology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaplindistiller (talk • contribs) 04:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are good sources used in the article and I'm aware that distillers were common on mid-19th century ships. The google test is not a valid reason for deletion. Brad (talk) 06:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Take a close look at those sources, and you may be surprised to find that they do not say much to establish the notability of this device. See my
Weak DeleteSmerge !vote below, changed from a Keep !vote after I checked the references. The appearance of an article being "well referenced" can be deceiving. Edison (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Take a close look at those sources, and you may be surprised to find that they do not say much to establish the notability of this device. See my
- Keep Just because it doesn't have many google hits doesn't mean it isn't notable. It appears to cite a solid number of reliable sources, and unless there is something wrong that I'm not seeing it probably passes the WP:GNG. Although Wikipedia is not an ideal setup to write papers with, there are tons of classes that use Wikipedia for some form of assignment and there is nothing wrong with that - the WP:USPP encourages such and is explicitly endorsed by the Wikimedia Foundation. (Also, the link you provided to WP:NOT PAPERS doesn't actually deal with this.. it just says WP is not a place to post OR or technical papers - and this doesn't appear to be one.)
Chaplin - you'll want to keep WP:NOR and specifically WP:SYNTH in mind while writing this. Wikipedia has very different rules about original synthesis than you will have encountered elsewhere in your academic career. If you have any questions or need any help, feel free to contact me via my talkpage or any of these folks -- WP:WikiProject_United_States_Public_Policy/Online_Ambassadors Kevin (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help and guidance... Chaplin —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep This sort of article is what an encyclopedia is for, and the once notable, always notable principle specifically protects topics that have long been forgotten and are not otherwise covered on the internet. There is ample material in the article to establish notability of this particular device, and the subject of distillation of water for drinking is of obvious importance. Just because we use other methods today does not mean that nobody is intersted in earlier technology. AJHingston (talk)
- Keep -- This is exactly the kind of AfD that puts off new editors from contributing. Rather than trying to improve the article, someone slapped FOUR tags on it (wikify, deadend, orphan, uncat) within 5 hours of creation, and in just under a day it was already under threat of deletion. For the notability of 18th/19th century technology, Google is unlikely to be a good barometer -- most of the information will be in off-line paper resources. There seem to be plenty of them here. I see no harm in a WP article being produced on the back of student research if it can be referenced appropriately, which certainly seems the case here. Give the guy a chance! -- EdJogg (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I stand by what I have written here; however, my keep vote is based on the assumption that this has been written as a scholarly article, and the reason for the AfD is 'lack of google hits'. If, as seems quite possible, Edison's research is correct and the article is actually a smokescreen based on a pile of false premises, then the article should be deleted as unverifiable. (It's not that I don't believe Edison, just that I have no means of confirming his findings.)* -- EdJogg (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC) *nor the time to spare... -- EdJogg (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Click on the 2000 book by the scholar of the wreck, McCarthy, which does not mention the company. Click on the 1890 NY Times article. which does not mention the company. I listed the refs I was able to access, and noted discrepancies between what was claimed and what is verifiable. There might in fact be someone at some museum who found a brass Chaplin nameplate, but I could not find such a ref in the article, and even if there were, being a gadget on a shipwreck does not confer automatic notability. (The "Grupsen Patent Rotary Pencil Sharpener" was found on the wreck of the SS Hesperus, so it deserves a Wikipedia article). Edison (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I stand by what I have written here; however, my keep vote is based on the assumption that this has been written as a scholarly article, and the reason for the AfD is 'lack of google hits'. If, as seems quite possible, Edison's research is correct and the article is actually a smokescreen based on a pile of false premises, then the article should be deleted as unverifiable. (It's not that I don't believe Edison, just that I have no means of confirming his findings.)* -- EdJogg (talk) 18:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC) *nor the time to spare... -- EdJogg (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
- Keep, because "I like it" and "It's interesting" are sometimes enough. This is a back office product if there ever was one, an apparatus from the age of steam that apparently allowed the use of sea water in steam engines. The article is neutrally written, the references confirm its existence, and unlike most other articles about back office tech there is nary a whiff of commercial conflict of interest nor the possibility that this article is being used for search engine manipulation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, "I like it" and "It's interesting" are the very sorts of arguments the closing admin should ignore. I liked the famous hoax article on the Upper Peninsula War, and it was very interesting, and also had lots of references, but it was properly deleted. Fans of many things like articles about trivia in video games, and articles based on catalog listings of celphones, but many of those get deleted if they lack multiple independent and reliable sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're claiming this is a WP:HOAX? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to believe it is a pure hoax. The one page catalog from some unidentified magazine implies that the Chaplin company sold distillers. If the "Jones Company" sold patented door closers, and one was used on the Titanic, would that justify a similarly slimly referenced article about the "Jones Patent Pneumatic Door Closer?" I don't think so. I have found enthusiastic misrepresentation of what references said, about the prominence of the company, as well as numerous unreferenced claims. I question verifiability and notability, in claims that this one gadget was the be-all and end-all of getting fresh water on board ships in the 19th century. Some ships probably had them, other ships probably had the gadgets of competitors. This is not so different from an article about a particular random celphone model, referenced to the company's catalog. Edison (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're claiming this is a WP:HOAX? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or(SeedeleteSmerge !vote below) move to a general article about steam distillation of salt water to provide fresh water on ships. Wikipedia does not have an article such as the latter. The limited supply of fresh water on navy ships was a big issue in the 20th century, long after the era when this company flourished, and likely there were other suppliers of steam distillers. It was highly fuel intensive to distill seawater and produce fresh water (one gallon of fuel for one gallon of water in the old days), and the process was an important one, to reduce the amount of water carried for drinking and washing.The article could use some cleanup, but that is not a ground for deletion.Edison (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and a very big trout to the nominator. Bitey, clueless and thoroughly discouraging to new editors. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
((See Smerge !vote below).Problems with notability and verifiability of statements. I have checked some of the references and find that they were misrepresented to exaggerate notability. The lede cites present ref 1, the London Gazette of 1865 as supporting the company being "an important and highly regarded engineering and manufacturing syndicate." All that brief directory listing actually says is that the company patented some unspecified "improvement to steam boilers." The New York Times of 1890 was cited (before I edited it) in present ref 8, as saying that in 1890 the US Navy was considering placing "a similar distilling apparatus" on two US ships. The brief editorial does not give any description whatever of the type of distilling apparatus being considered, so it was improper to say it was "similar" any more that it would be to state that the latest US aircraft carrier has "similar" apparatus on board. The lede has present ref 2 stating that a Chaplin distiller was found on the wreck of the Xantho, but ref 2, the Western Australia Museum site makes no mention of a Chaplin or any other distiller. An unpublished PhD thesis and other writings by M. McCarthy (refs 21-26) may substantiate the claim that this one ship had one such apparatus on board, but that is really not evidence of notability. It is one researcher (McCarthy) who wrote a lot about one shipwreck. In his 2000 book [21] he does not call the gadget in question a "Chaplin distiller" but rather a condenser which condensed steam back into feedwater for the boiler, rather than distilling seawater. The Wikipedia article has no ref at present to support the assertion that a nameplate was found on the device proving it to be a Chaplin distiller, as the article claims. Some here are impressed by the sheer number of references, but we must consider their quality. Six refs are to the company's own catalog, apparently a one page ad which certainly cannot establish notability. Four refs are to the the 1878 Britannica, but what significant coverage does it actually give to this particular device? It is not readily accessed in libraries and does not seem to be online, but if it is public domain it could be copied to the discussion page of this AFD. It would count toward notability as one ref if it does have significant coverage of the device. Wikipedia is not a catalog of every device ever carried on a ship. The Xantho doubtless had dozens of gadgets on board, and the Titanic had thousands of devices on board. They do not all need standalone encyclopedia articles. We should not confuse enthusiasm with notability. Edison (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]WeakDelete
- Condensers, air pumps, evaporators and distillers are not the same thing at all. Although an encrusted evaporator and distiller would be hard to distinguish, a condenser or its air pump would be, even as they came off the wreck. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteChanging my vote to keep and rename, per post below - per Edison. I've done enough reading on the topic of 19th century ships to know that distilling apparatus were quite common, but singling out one particular manufacturer, and for one particular product, without evidence that this product was significantly notable in its own right is obviously problematic. Adding to Edison's concerns, take a look at the paragraph which states that Chaplin distillers were also used in land settings. During the Sudanese wars (1881–1885), (1896–1899), British forces used the distillers to supply their soldiers with fresh drinking water in Suakin and Sudan. This supply of fresh drinking water was of utmost importance in the 1882 Anglo-Egyptian War. These distillers were on a much larger scale, distilling some 12,000 gallons of water per hour. It is sourced to the Scientific American ref, here, but that article doesn't even mention a Chaplin distillation apparatus. So it looks as if serious misrepresentation of sources is going on here. Gatoclass (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Smerge Selectively merge to Distilled water, while also mentioning the competing distillers from Dr. Normandy, and the 2 French companies mentioned in the old Britannica. Post-1878 references could also be used to provide info on marine distillation. I finally found the 1878 Britannica, volume v11, pages 263-264 online. The download is quirky and slow. That article has significant coverage of the Chaplin Company's distiller, so there is one good ref. But several other manufacturers are also covered, and it is just a small part of the article on "Distillation" subsection "Distillation of water" in the 1878 Britannica. Notability seems insufficient. Much of the referenced content of this article deals with the distillation of water in general, even if the refs were cited in a way which made it appear they were all specifically about this one company, and the Britannica article does not say this company was the only one in the business in the 1870's. The "Distilled water" article could use more on the history of the process used to make it, and why it became important in the 19th century in shipping. Another target article would be Desalination which presently only talks about state of the art methods of getting fresh water from saltwater, with no history section.Edison (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find. That does at least establish that the company produced a notable product. I'm reconsidering my !vote, but whatever happens to this article, the problem remains that it contains many false and exaggerated claims as well as irrelevancies that need to be dealt with. In the meantime I'll do another google search to see if I can find out any more about the company. Gatoclass (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename - to either Alex Chaplin & Co. or Cranstonhill Engine Works. It seems clear from a google search that this was a significant engineering company, that in fact survived into the 20th century. The company produced not only distillation equipment, but cranes, housing, steamboats, and a host of other equipment. There appears to be plenty of scope for expansion of this article under either of the names proposed above, per this search page on google books. Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly this isn't a good article. If it's really MSc standard, when it's clearly failing WP's quality standards, then it seems that for once we're being pickier than our usual pokemon articles. It's vague, makes greatly over-extended claims given the sources shown, and (most importantly) doesn't have as strong an editorial narrative as it ought. Chaplin's evaporators had no monopoly on the technology, but that seems to be the implication here. If they had any particular innovation or precedence, I'm as yet unaware of it. I wrote a quick draft of Evaporator (marine) yesterday to give a technical overview of them - although I can't find two essential later refs on my bookshelves, so it runs out of steam a bit after WW1.
- I'd like to see an article on Alex Chaplin & Co., but I think that's a separate article. We already have G & J Weir, and that needs historical expansion work too. That isn't this article though and I don't think the criticisms of this are anywhere near strong enough to delete or merge it away. I would actually like this article to become more specific. Rather than focussing on Chaplins, certainly rather than portraying Chaplins as the source of all evaporators, I'd like to see the scope of this article be honest about its sources and be more obviously tied to the particular archaeological artefact of the evaporator recovered from the Xantho. This is a narrow scope (and quite wrongly, that causes some editors to seek deletion on that basis alone), but it's also a scope that's interesting enough to support articles. I would really like to see Xantho articles on the engine, and on the de-concretion of the engine. There's one very well known web page on that topic already and we could benefit from a description of that process as an experiment in conservation techniques. The engine is an important single artefact, the techniques developed on it were both useful and effective, but also highlight the difficulties of developing experimental conservation techniques through their application on such rare items. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I might be able to support an article on the Xantho distiller in particular as described by you above, but that's not a reason for retaining an article on the product in general, so I'm not sure where this leaves us. Nice work on the evaporator article however. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep assuming on good faith that the offline references check out as asserting notability. And trout the editor who thought that the creator's username indicated a promotional account, when the company has been out of business for decades. (The focus of the article could be tweaked - whether more specific, to the Xantho distiller, or less specific, to the company.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fairly written and well sourced. Binksternet (talk) 13:43, 7 June 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. Neutralitytalk 03:18, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by cultural group[edit]
- List of countries by cultural group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hopelessly muddled, bordering on juvenile. Further, this does not actually deliver what the title promises: it doesn't list countries by any recognized cultural group (eg, "Anglo America" isn't a cultural group in any genuine sense, nor is "Europe and North Asia"). Hairhorn (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't even figure out what that opening paragraph is trying to say. I, also, am unaware of the existence of an "Anglo American" cultural group. At best, this violates WP:NPOV, because the author has cherry-picked which cultural groups are relevant, and assigned countries to those groups arbitrarily. For instance, under what rationale was Africa divided into "North Africa" and "South of the Sahara", instead of some other division? And how can "dependencies" spread across the world form a single, coherent group? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This seems to be more-or-less original research. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and per Qwyrxian. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 04:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This seems to be the author's opinions about what countries belong to what ill-defined cultural groups. As such, it is considered original research and should be deleted. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 04:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, completely pointless list. The author defines "cultural groups" by his own subjective criteria and never fully defines what they are. No sources. JIP | Talk 05:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per all the above comments Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A arbitrary unscientific article.Curb Chain (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For the reasons above. I note the reference at the bottom of the article, but without a hyperlink I have been unable to check it (a reminder to the editor - references are there so that people can look them up and understand why you have written what you have). It refers to the US Census Bureau, which is a reputable body but the context in which the grouping may have been produced or used is everything. There are many different ways of dividing the world culturally. We might do it on language, gender issues, liking for certain types of entertainment, and so forth. --AJHingston (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 19:24, 31 May 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 16:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings for Major League Baseball on TBS broadcasts[edit]
- Ratings for Major League Baseball on TBS broadcasts (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 seeing the purpose of this article. What makes ratings for baseball games notable? Playoff ratings could go in the articles about the games themselves, and regular season ratings are pointless. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 17:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although I don't have any issue with sourced information being added to the relevant playoff series/game. As of now there is no non-playoff information (counting the tie breaker game as effectively a playoff) but if there was sourced information that would be relevant within the context of the main article (e.g., highest rated regular season game) I have no objection to adding that information to the ajor League Baseball on TBS article. Rlendog (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should add Ratings for Major League Baseball on ABC broadcasts, Ratings for Major League Baseball on CBS broadcasts, Ratings for Major League Baseball on Fox broadcasts and Ratings for Major League Baseball on NBC broadcasts. They should all be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:28, 1 June 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Milly Cangiano[edit]
- Milly Cangiano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP since Sept. 2009. Research has turned up only once source: Milli Cangianio, a 2011 book compiled by several editors, mainly from articles available in Wikipedia or other free sources online. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 19:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hard to see how she satisfies WP:N through any WP:RS for WP:CREATIVE or any other category of notability. Qworty (talk) 19:24, 4 June 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 with leave to recreate if somebody can find significant coverage and reliable sources. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Molly Gaudry[edit]
- Molly Gaudry (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. I've been able to find no non self-published sources for this poet. She fits none of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE, and she has not won any awards, only been nominated for one (and that award is arguably not even notable either). Inks.LWC (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A decent amount of Google hits, but they're all for blogs, or promotional-type interviews from sources that are insignificant. Not much worth saving, and not much to be added to it. If she's going to meet notability, she'll get more coverage; until then, not yet. — Chromancer talk/cont 04:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goldador[edit]
- Goldador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Effectively unsourced article on a possibly common, but nonetheless non-notable dog crossbreed. Article states outright that "the Goldador has not yet gained the popularity of some other so-called 'designer' dogs" and "there are no breed clubs or any efforts to create a breed standard for the Goldador". Zetawoof (ζ) 02:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Effectively unsourced, no indication of notability (or recognition, despite the assertion in the lede) in reliable sources for yet another in an infinite series of cross-breed dogs. My wife and I used to have a golden-lab cross; it never occurred to us to call him a "Goldador." Acroterion (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Goldador is a widely recognized hybrid dog. This mix is highly sought after in the Midwest as a bird dog for upland and wetlands hunting. Additionally, this common mix is highly used for service dogs in both the private sector and public services nation wide. If this article is to be deleted, then all other articles on hybrid dogs need deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.150.74 (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC) — 174.20.150.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Seems to be a recognised cross with adequate sources. Warden (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This particular hybrid is as valid as Labradoodles, Puggles or any other designer dog. The article has several credible sources to confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MNdude11 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Once again, extensively sourced != reliably sourced. This is not about the validity of the hybrid; I get that it's a common cross in the service-dog world. The only reliable source mentioning it in more than cursory detail is the "Dogs All-in-One" book. I've pruned those that are self-published or untrustworthy. – anna 12:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepIt appears that those who wish to delete this page voice opinion in regards to the validity of this article. They say that general websites to dog breeds are "untrustworthy." Additionally, so called editors find articles by recognized news groups and non-profit organization groups as "untrustworthy." In all honesty, I don't think that our expert editors truthfully have sought out and studied whether or not said articles are "untrustworthy." In contrast, those who wish to keep the page have found facts through worthy articles and sources. The fact is, Goldadors are a recognized hybrid though they are not registered by the AKC for that matter. Therefore, the article is valid even though it hasn't had a special on Animal Planet or an 8 page spread in National Geographic or in Britannica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.117.26 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC) — 174.20.117.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Are you related to the very similar IP above? Dynamic IP, perhaps? As for "untrustworthy", please tell me which of the sources I removed were reputable. Most were for-profit sites; anyone can put a website up, remember, and have it look real professional to boot. The non-profits I did remove did not back up the info the article attributed them to.
- Some general dog breed websites are unreliable. Some are borderline. Most do fail the policy on sourcing -- you can see more info about "self-published sources" here. One of the ones I removed relied on user-submitted ratings -- in what way is that appropriate for an article in an encyclopedia? I could easily purchase "goldadorclubofamerica.com" or something -- domains and hosting are very cheap -- and set up a great site in a matter of minutes that looked very official, let alone a blog with no professionalism to it.
- "Recognized hybrid" is a fluff term. It has no real meaning. Anyone can submit a crossbreed to a designer breed registry for acceptance -- it says that right on their hybrid lists. If you can give proof instead of saying that those in favor of deleting are missing obvious signs of notability, please do. Nothing to back it up that I'm seeing. I recommend reading through the notability guideline; it may shed some light on the rationales of voters here. I'd be happy to go through each source I removed if you'd like. – anna 02:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. – anna 02:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It fails notability by means of "Significant coverage" and "reliable sources". One mention in a single guide dog organisation in the United states is not really cause for significant, nor really is a mention in a "for dummies" book. Even a listing in a designer breed registry is not notability enough, as per the post above. Keetanii (talk) 09:12, 5 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul S Farmer[edit]
- Paul S Farmer (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 the lead says a "a music teacher and city councillor" heavily edited by the subject. But is not notable, fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:Politician and WP:GNG Mtking (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable as an author: 5 books by major publisher's, including 3 by Oxford University Press! (Probably the other aspects of the career should be shortenerd somewhat, I too have doubt that they would make him notable otherwise. But the books are clearly sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 13:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC) ,[reply]
- Delete as per nomination:
- There appears to be nothing in GNews, books (oddly), or scholar for the subject. Of the three Ox. U. books (can't find the other two) I can find no serious, or any, reviews or mentions re WP:AUTHOR. Of the refs, no mention of him in 1; no proof that the Telegraph mentions him (3); no mention of him in hansard (4) or inline cite YouTube (5). 6 & 7 are not proper links and 8 is 404 dead. He resigned from a local town council (9); turned-up for an archery publicity shot (10); comments on his job (11) and the theft of a council laptop (12), and on local tax levels (13). He is listed as a councillor (14); comments on polling cards in his ward (15); and links to a promotional pdf (16). His town council votes are mentioned (17) and he resigns as councillor (18). He comments on the pedestrianisation of a town street (19) and is shown in a list of council mugshots (20). As a member of the Cattle Market Working Committee he comments on demonstrators (21), pub closing times (22) and smoking bans (23)(24), and presents his council ward election results (25). So fails WP:Politician and WP:GNG.
- Remove the waffle and the article boils down to this unverified claim: Paul S Farmer is an author who wrote A Handbook of Composers and Their Music, Music in the Comprehensive School, and Pop Workbook. There are not even any cites that these books were written by this Paul Farmer; and links possible are only to sell sites as far as I can see.
- Unfortunately if the inconsequential non-peer-reviewed publications save the article, the entire less than consequential non-notable and other uncited stuff will gallop back in on its saddle. Acabashi (talk) 04:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hansard does report the reference to him, identifiably, although as the head teacher of Dick Sheppard rather than specifically naming him[22]. Student/teacher unrest in London schools (including Dick Sheppard) and the incident in question, following the (xdxexaxtxhx - sorry, got it wrong, as people did at the time) wounding and paralysis of Cherry Groce that led to the Brixton riots (tangential update - Mrs Groce died just over a week ago[23]), are a significant aspect of the socio-political history of the Thatcher era in the UK. The article doesn't adequately communicate the significance of the incident or the subject's involvement but that can be remedied.Opbeith (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has removed the headlined information about being (possibly or among) the first to create a UK school public examination in pop music, with the source which independently verified this. This was the primary claim for the article's inclusion. This summary removal has not been explained above or even described. Much work has gone into trying to satisfy former criticism, but sometimes true claims cannot be independently verified becaus of the lapse of time, e.g. I have the cutting from the Telegraph but it is not possible for me to cite the source after nearly 30 years. 2 June 2011 (PSF) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that someone who summarily removed this "primary claim for the article's inclusion" was the article's creator (above comment) on May 15th, with no mention in the edit summary - I happen to agree with User:Paul Stephen Farmer's implied assertion of the non-notability of the claim that the subject "may" have been the first to create a certain school examination. Acabashi (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weakkeep I didn't have any trouble finding him in google books (maybe you were searching with the "S", Acabashi?). I've verified all Oxford publications as well as the series of instructional booklets spanning almost a decade. All ISBNs are provided now. Although I do not have access to the sources, it seems that his books have been surveyed--at least three of them are discussed in the snippet-only Popular Music Since 1955: a critical guide to the literature (pp. 77, 99 and 133). There may be more that don't show up in snippet. I'm inclined to agree with DGG, although I'd agree more strongly if more significant critical coverage were turned up. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- New sources tip me over the edge. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with DGG and Moonriddengirl: his publications provide sufficient notability, edp. with the mentions in the literature guide MRG found. LadyofShalott 12:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As DGG points out, obviously notable as an author - published by OUP, Prentice Hall, Hodder and Longman, plus Music in the Comprehensive School was republished in a second edition by OUP. http://www.bookfinder.com/author/paul-farmer/ is a commercial site but the idea that a commercial bookseller can't be trusted not to deceive site visitors with unreliable ISBNs and publishers' names seems a little far-fetched. Also the idea that the inaccessibility of pre-internet book reviews should be considered as suggestive of the non-notability of any author not reviewed in the internet era is a bit extreme. OK, the article's overdetailed and the author has perhaps got the emphasis wrong in places, but Wikipedia doesn't demand that every sentence confirms notability. Time might be better spent polishing the article than being gratuitously sarcastic about the subject. Opbeith (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick look finds Music in theComprehensive School is on Leeds University School of Education reading list for the Music Secondary PGCE (Postgrad Certificate of Education) course[24] (though they've got the publisher as CUP instead of OUP), also on the City of Nottingham Music Development Service reading list[25] - not quality reviews, but lasting user endorsement. Opbeith (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that he published under OUP does not necessarily make him a notable author. There are professors at universities who have published under OUP, notwithstanding publication dozens of peer-reviewed articles, and not even they meet WP:Notability guidelines to have their own article. I can hardly believe that this article is still wasting server space. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that says something pretty damning about WP:Notability guidelines Opbeith (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One does not even have to seek recourse to the notability guidelines to establish this article's notability! Biographies of persons should only be admissible to the extent that it would be in the interest of a general reader or if the person in question has gained acclaim (e.g. an international award, extensive coverage in media, a biography written by somebody else). Notability guidelines are only that: guidelines. Yet after observing the way you have all used your discretion, I think that the guidelines would better serve Wikipedia if they were codified and amended appropriately so that we do not see the creation of obscure articles such as these. I welcome further debate. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for your comments. I have retrieved my 'memorabilia' boxes of papers from the loft, and will over the next few days be adding further infomation and sources where appropriate.Paul Stephen Farmer (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be worth noting that Music in the Comprehensive School was reprinted by OUP in a second slightly enlarged edition in 1984 and is also featured in: Stephanie Pitts (2000). Reasons to teach music: establishing a place in the contemporary curriculum. British Journal of Music Education, 17, pp 32-42 and Perceptions of Crystallising and Paralysing Factors in the Development of Student Teachers of Music in Scotland @ http://www.abdn.ac.uk/~wae006/petestollery.com/text/crystpar.html#farm79 as well as McPhee, A. and Stollery, P. and McMillan, R. (2005) The Wow Factor? A Comparative Study of the Development of Student Music Teachers' Talents in Scotland and Australia. Educational Philosophy and Theory 37(1):105-118. @ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/942/1/Aus_revised.pdf also in a PhD thesis Peer Assisted Learning in the Acquisition of Musical Composition Skills by Hilda Mugglestone @ http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/2471/1/hmthesis.pdf, and I could go on. But it is not just as an author that this article is justified, but because Paul Farmer was one of the first to develop the use of pop in the secondary curriculum and definitely created the first public examination in pop music (when I said 'maybe' beefore I only did so to try to sound neutral, but facts are facts. Farmer was also one of the youngest comprehensive school heads in the country, and of a school which had exceptional turbulance which gained it national notoriety. I have have many more newspaper cuttings but do not want to clog the article further. Your advice on this and anything else is is very welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 15:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Paul, to me notability seems clear on the basis of authorship of the books and, now that you've provided the references, the exam pioneering but the article still reads like a CV. It's important to consider what achievements are substantial and of wider interest and what are not, otherwise the usefulness of the Wikipedia article is reduced and the significance of real achievements is undermined.Opbeith (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Opbeith. Would it be worth expanding what you think deserves notability and contracting what doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 07:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, the starting point is really to familiarise yourself with general principles. In spite of my own reservations about a number of points it covers, Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a starting point. If you're editing an article, it's not a bad idea to identify a couple of articles about similar subjects and see how they've emerged from the editing process. And the most important thing is to take an objective view. For obvious reasons you have access to relevant information and references. But you don't seem to have used enough discrimination in filtering out information that is unlikely to be useful to a general reader. For example, being elected to three terms as a local councillor is not a unique distinction nor in itself particularly significant. (Uxnxrxexfxexrxexnxcxexdx xmxexnxtxixoxnx xoxfx xwxoxrxkx xixnx xaxnx xuxnxixdxexnxtxixfxixexdx xsxcxhxoxoxlx xixsx xuxnxlxixkxexlxyx xtxox xbxex xuxsxexfxuxlx xtxox xaxnxyxoxnxex xwxhxox'xsx xuxnxaxbxlxex xtxox xoxbxtxaxixnx xfxuxrxtxhxexrx xixnxfxoxrxmxaxtxixoxnx xexlxsxexwxhxexrxex. - deleted, my mistake) As a purely personal view, I think that occasional items of incidental information bring colour and interest to an article, making it useful to the browser as well as the researcher. But the content of this article is swamped with incidental detail distracting from the material that's of wider interest. The modernisation of the music curriculum is a subject of considerable importance as far as contemporary social developments are concerned (I'm referring to the UK), and important individual contributions to that process are worth knowing about - but their significance is made harder to appreciate by all the irrelevant detail. Opbeith (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 13:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have substantially revised this article and await comments. PSF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Stephen Farmer (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul, I think the article Discussion Page is probably the best place to continue talking about the details of the article while leaving discussion of the substantive concerns relating to the proposed deletion here, so I'll carry on there. Opbeith (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naseem Vicky[edit]
- Naseem Vicky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N, unsourced BLP. No expansion or sources added since the keep in the previous AfD. The NME/Gnews sources have disappeared since, which is a pity. The Urdu source from the previous AfD--I'm far from convinced it's about the same person, the name Lycos is common after Vky in the machine translations. Notability requires verifiable evidence from reliable sources, I'd welcome some, I'm even willing to guess that there are some, but I've been unable to find any. --joe deckertalk to me 02:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V and WP:GNG unless someone can find a source. I'm pretty sure there's nothing in English. Hut 8.5 09:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources in English found, I can't say about other languages but the onus is on supplying a reference to support the material. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explosive Pro Wrestling[edit]
- Explosive Pro Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:CORP. Nikki♥311 00:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 00:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 00:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I have to ask why is Israeli Pro Wrestling Association still around here on wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notaussie (talk • contribs)
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Nikki♥311 14:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the above comment. If the person talking about the other association does not think that should have an article either the answer is to AFD that one as well not to keep this one.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 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) 00:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Delete per nom. Doesn't pass WP:CORP and doesn't have significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't pass WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks third party sources. Fails WP:GNG LibStar (talk) 12:32, 1 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Miller (politician)[edit]
- Ron Miller (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self promotion page, heavy on the WP:COI, of a non-elected Politician - fails WP:Politician Mtking (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and no other convincing claim of notability is made. Cullen328 (talk) 03:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I actually sourced and wrote most of this article. It may require some cleanup, but certainly not deletion. Work can be done on this to remove any COI, because the article does show notability. American Eagle (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse the blunt question, but for what is he notable for ? What has he done that is worthy of encyclopaedic note. Mtking (talk) 04:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question American Eagle, please take a look at your own article title, which includes the word "politician", and then please read WP:POLITICIAN. Now, please explain how the subject of this article meets that notability guideline? Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep normally, defeated candidates for state office are not necessarily notable , but he meets the WP:GNG by having significant coverage in two extensive articles in the Washington Post, an unquestioned RS for politics. (I don't think the GNG is all that useful a guideline in all cases, but I think the consensus is to use it when it does apply. This situation, with multiple possibly minor careers, is as clear a case for using it as any , and since it does remain a guideline, we should use it when it does apply.) DGG ( talk ) 13:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The Washington Post coverage is entirely typical of the coverage that newspapers give to political candidates running within their media market. If this sort of routine news coverage makes unelected politicians notable, then we can just throw out our established notability guideline WP:POLITICIAN, and prepare ourselves for a torrent of articles about unelected political candidates. I think that is a bad idea. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I agree that the subject falls short of WP:POLITICIAN, but he gets to meet WP:GNG (even taking into account that most of the coverage owes its existence to the 2006 election, which he lost). I found a couple more sources [26] [27] [28] [29], I'm not sure about the reliability for www.onenewsnow.com but it seems independent (though biased). There were other articles behind paywalls that might or might not have something of worth, maybe they're just duplicates of the ones already here, but the snippets from Google did brought up his name. And there is also this... oh wait, no, disregard that one - frankie (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. All media coverage is in regards to his running for office (which failed), and I only see one Post article ([30]) with significant coverage of Miller, which is short of the "multiple" sources generally required by GNG. SheepNotGoats (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to EarthBound. T. Canens (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fourside[edit]
- Fourside (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Video game location that is entirely sourced to Wikia and other fan-published Wikis. No sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a notable fictional location. WP:WAF is clear about this kind of article. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to EarthBound. Although IGN discusses the location a little, it is not nearly enough to warrant an article. Merging might be okay too. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It also seems that the person who made this article also made articles for every single town in EarthBound as well as several other minor characters such as Geldegarde Monotoli,Mr. Carpainter, Evil Mani Mani, and the Runaway Five. I have no doubt that few if any of these are notable and there may be more.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ps please add Dusty Dunes Desert--76.66.185.169 (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It also seems that the person who made this article also made articles for every single town in EarthBound as well as several other minor characters such as Geldegarde Monotoli,Mr. Carpainter, Evil Mani Mani, and the Runaway Five. I have no doubt that few if any of these are notable and there may be more.--76.66.185.169 (talk) 23:18, 31 May 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. I've put the pre-merge history on the talk page of this AfD so that it can be copied to the appropriate talk pages. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isola (fictional island)[edit]
- Isola (fictional island) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Video game location with no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. There are sources that can verify that it exists as a part of a game, but no sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Requires significant coverage of reception and significance to justify an independent article under WP:GNG and WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As a fictional island, has no place in a serious encyclopaedia, unless it is incredibly notable with lots of significant coverage, this does not get close to that. Mtking (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- During the first AfD, content was copied to Fish Tycoon (diff) and Virtual Villagers (diff). (The edit to Plant Tycoon was the addition of a bare ref.) Some of the copied text originates prior to the expansion by User:A Nobody. This is not a recommendation to invoke WP:Speedy keep, but participants should be aware that straight deletion may be off the table per WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The pre-merge history is 36 edits by 13 different users (diff). It's short enough to isolate each editor's contributions if desired. Flatscan (talk) 04:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and copy the rather short pre-merge portion of the article's history into the talk pages of Fish Tycoon and Virtual Villagers as outlined in WP:MAD#Record authorship and delete history. No reason to reward one user's disruptive AfD behavior. Deor (talk) 12:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or Redirect The statement " As a fictional island, has no place in a serious encyclopaedia, unless it is incredibly notable with lots of significant coverage, ", is simply incorrect and in conflict with the basic concept that Wikipedia is a comprehensive modern encyclopedia. The standard is notability, with significant coverage, the same as for everything else in Wikipedia. The thought that fiction of all types is not a serious and encyclopedic subject is about a century of two behind the state of the world. Those who think fiction not woerthy are welcome to work here on other subjects--but should not interfere with what they do not like. Now, this may not have sufficient notability for a sufficient article, but it is not easy to think of a simple redirect, so we may need a disam page of some sort under this title. DGG ( talk ) 13:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Deor. User:A Nobody made the previous AFD a nightmare and an exercise in WP:POINT. To respond to DGG, I believe there is a higher threshold for notability for fictional things because it is so much easier to "spin off" aspects of fiction than in real life. For example, whereas there are a finite number of real human beings, streets, cities, species, etc., there are a number of orders of magnitude more fictional characters, planets, species, etc. that could potentially be spun off into its own article and there needs to be a higher standard for such fiction. Tl;dr version: fails WP:WAF. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG etc. No notability. --Anthem 10:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stoic Club[edit]
- Stoic 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)
Video game location that is entirely sourced to Wikia. No sources that can WP:verify notability of this video game location, independent of the video game series itself. Article also violates WP:JUSTPLOT since there is no significant out-of-universe information to make this more than just a plot recap. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Could not locate any significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to EarthBound. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant talk 03:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Between the Devil and the Sea[edit]
- Between the Devil and the Sea (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:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. could no evidence of charting nor significant coverage. those wanting to keep need to show evidence of significant non trivial coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article already links to significant coverage at Allmusic.--Michig (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Between the Allmusic write-up and these reviews [31][32], there appears to be enough significant coverage for this EP to pass WP:MUSIC. Gongshow Talk 01:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Michig and Gongshow - frankie (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:39, 4 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Akagami: Otokotachi ha kôshite senjô he okurareta[edit]
- Akagami: Otokotachi ha kôshite senjô he okurareta (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 finding a lot of booksellers when searching for this book (in Japanese and transliteration), but not a lot in the way of reviews and the like that would meet WP:NBOOK. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 01:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sourcing or third-party coverage to verify notability other than the fact that this book was put on sale. --DAJF (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. --Kusunose 12:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No attempt made to demonstrate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:40, 5 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Toystep[edit]
- Toystep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
'Genre' without significant coverage in reliable sources, performed by a small number of non-notable bands. doomgaze (talk) 00:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There are no notable bands. The list of online sources do not establish notability, in fact they actually do the reverse. Most deal with the same story from 2007/8 about MySpace predictions and mention only one band. MySpace couldn't even predict its own future and one (evidently non-notable) band doesn't make a genre. Its been four years and it looks as if this "genre" isn't going to get any more developed. Looks like a fleeting neologism at most.--SabreBD (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - failed "up-and-coming next big thing!" which never up and came. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard Hodes Group[edit]
- Bernard Hodes Group (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 has been tagged for notability and references for almost three years. There's no evidence that the company is notable beyond being part of Omnicom Group. I would suggest merging some of the information to the latter article and redirecting. ... discospinster talk 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep - AFD is not the venue for proposing a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment there is no sourced content to merge. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No need for a merge or redirect. The company does not appear to have been notable on its own, and it was taken over by Omnicom Group more than 20 years ago so it's an unlikely search term. --MelanieN (talk) 02:21, 30 May 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) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Rowe[edit]
- Nancy Rowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An audiologist who presents at conferences. No particular claim of notability. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 22:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I do not see significant coverage of this person in third party sources. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 25 May 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) 00:07, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Per author's request —DoRD (talk) 03:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phoenix Phantoms[edit]
- Phoenix Phantoms (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 not sure if this team ever took off or dribbled a single ball. Article is three years out of date, no solid Ghits. (And a proposal to play in Phoenix, Prescott Valley and way out at Round Valley...really?) Raymie (t • c) 00:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since I'm the author, I think it can be speedily deleted per G7. Tom Danson (talk) 00:13, 31 May 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. Epeefleche, you can speedy renom this too if you wish but I suggest giving it some time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Ekhwa[edit]
- Al Ekhwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of notability. I cannot find sufficient evidence of RS news articles/books on the band -- or of the member who has a wp article -- after having performed a wp:before search. Epeefleche (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as "one of the most popular musicians and singers of Bahrain".[33] Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if that one comment, apparently subjective (how did they measure popularity?), from the only ref supporting the entire article, is sufficient. But I'm happy to agree to whatever the consensus view turns out to be on that.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 26 May 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) 00:18, 24 May 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, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Centro Medico Humberto Parra[edit]
- Centro Medico Humberto Parra (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. nothing in gnews. google search reveals mainly directory listings. only one of the references seems to be indepth third party. but lacks significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete borderline promotional Sumsum2010·T·C 23:56, 24 May 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, 31 May 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nasimi eldarov[edit]
- Nasimi eldarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Author who does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE. Fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources discussing subject or his works. Appears to be autobiography. Kinu t/c 20:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find any information about his novel. It may be due to language, but the article only offers the English title. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 26 May 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, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - non notable. Monterey Bay (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emma Summerton[edit]
- Emma Summerton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
last AfD is hardly convincing and the article has hardly been improved. 2 of the sources contain short mentions of Emma. a mere 6 gnews hits of small mentions [34]. fails WP:CREATIVE. there is no indepth coverage of her, nor has she won major awards, received significant peer recognition. LibStar (talk) 04:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree that Summerton fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:CREATIVE. She also fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. To meet WP:CREATIVE, she must either have done something ground-breaking, be cited by peers or her work must be the subject of multiple independent reviews, etc. None of these seem to be the case. She is a professional photographer whose work is printed in magazines, but that is just her job. Most online sources are either self promotion or photo credits. The news articles are not at all exclusively about her, but rather just make mention of her in passing. The references in the article are very weak and it is questionable whether they are independent at all. They do not mention an author and are not published in a mainstream journal or magazine and the absence of such reliable, secondary source refernces points to a failure to the meet general notability requirements. She's a good photographer, but not a notable one (by Wikipedia standards in any case). Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:26, 24 May 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, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 3 June 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Byron Wilson Jr[edit]
- Byron Wilson 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)
References and links consists only of very trivial mentions. No indication that he played a fully professional game per the notability guideline for American football players. VQuakr (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I second this nomination for deletion. 50.46.251.171 (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He played in the Arena Football League which satisfies WP:NSPORTS. However, per WP:NSPORTS, this only means it is likely that sufficient sources exist and "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." I'm not convinced that this player is not WP:Run-of-the-mill unless coverage that goes beyond WP:ROUTINE can be identified. —Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification! Are there enough reliable sources out there to keep this as a verifiable article? VQuakr (talk) 22:00, 24 May 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, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Run-of-the-mill person where coverage was not found to go beyond WP:ROUTINE. Although he played in the Arena Football League which satisfies WP:NSPORTS, WP:NSPORTS allows that "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept" if consensus decides the player is not notable. —Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 31 May 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 all. T. Canens (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of fastest selling albums worldwide[edit]
- List of fastest selling albums worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- List of fastest-selling albums in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of fastest-selling albums in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sources do not verify that the albums were "fastest selling", just that they were certified to a degree. Possible copypaste or hoax job; the "worldwide" article was created in April with {{dead link}} templates dating from October 2010. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - In addition to Mr. Hammer's concerns about the sources, also consider guidelines #1 and #7 at WP:DIRECTORY. The people behind the articles, especially the "Worldwide" article, put in a lot of work but provided no evidence that an album's first-week sales figure is a matter of encylopedic notability. An album's all-time sales figure is a matter of interest, but these articles make no case for seeing first-week sales the same way. That figure is industry trivia, at best. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep US and UK and merge. Worldwide... not as much. I have issues with the way the worldwide list is tabulated and am skeptical of the accuracy of worldwide figures. As for domestic lists, they are as relevant as, say, List of biggest opening weekends which I don't see anyone asking to be deleted.--Musicbuff3643 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep why? You didn't give a reason. Did you miss the part about "the sources don't even verify the content"? That's kind of a red flag. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 12:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I take it you're referring to the worldwide list? I did not vote to keep that one. As for the domestic lists they are sourced to the teeth. "The sources don't even verify the content": I'm not entirely sure if you're disagreeing with the semantics of the article names, in that case renaming to something akin to List of largest single week album sales would be more encyclopedic. I really fail to see how this violates the Wikipedia directory guidelines of "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" or "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" when their is neither anything loosely associated nor cross categorized. I feel calling the pages trivia is subjective as major publications like Billboard exist whose sole function is to track and report information like this. --Musicbuff3643 (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 May 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, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:DIRECTORY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N5iln (talk • contribs)
- Keep this looks like a standard Wikipedia article and the references look ok to me,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
- Tell me how the references are "ok" when all they verify is that the album was certified and nothing else. None of the sources provide any information whatsoever about album x selling faster than album y. But you don't care; you're the most rabid inclusionist this side of Kurt Weber. I could type an article consisting entirely of the word "parakeet" 400 times with a source to my own blog, and you'd say "keep, it looks fine, it's useful". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point all of the sources are for sales. Sales and certifications are two completely different things, and there is no other benchmark for calling something "fastest selling" than sales in a fixed period of time. It seems like your entire argument is for a renaming, not a deletion. Also I have no idea if anyone is mentioning the worldwide article or the domestic ones, which IMHO shouldn't be clumped into one AFD. --Musicbuff3643 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me how the references are "ok" when all they verify is that the album was certified and nothing else. None of the sources provide any information whatsoever about album x selling faster than album y. But you don't care; you're the most rabid inclusionist this side of Kurt Weber. I could type an article consisting entirely of the word "parakeet" 400 times with a source to my own blog, and you'd say "keep, it looks fine, it's useful". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:N5iln and User:Doomsdayer520. Half of of the sources are dead; this article is largely unnecessary. — Gabe 19 (talk contribs) 01:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and discuss retitling the US & UK articles per Musicbuff3643's points. I don't see anything inherently wrong with the subject; here is an article in today's New York Times discussing the significance of fast sales of Lady Gaga's new opus. As Musicbuff3643 says, the US and UK articles appear to be well-sourced and cover a notable subject. I'm neutral on the worldwide article given the concerns about comparing different markets. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. reasonably encyclopedic. correct dead sources. Jewishprincess (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This account has 50 edits. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fastest selling over what time period? No consistent sources for this - not sufficiently encyclopedic. Neutralitytalk 23:40, 5 June 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.