Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 25
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. m.o.p 01:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sylvia Sun[edit]
- Sylvia Sun (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:PORNBIO, WP:ENT and the GNG. No awards or nominations reported; no relevant GNews/GBooks hits; no reliable sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot agree with this one. 4 mid-references + very strong external links + acting for Marc Dorcel, and there fore keep. Alex discussion ★ 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: look at the categories: Female pornographic film actors; and Pornographic actor stubs, a lot of actors inluded in these categories haven't recieved any valuable porn awards, but many of them are notable for their general notabillity. Alex discussion ★ 13:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Alex. Askadaleia (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No policy- or guideline-based reasons expressed against deletions. The "vers strong external links" comment is particularly off-base, since one of the two links is nonfunctional -- the subject doesn't even seem to have an IMDB listing! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true, I've just repaired that link. Alex discussion ★ 09:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not meet notability for Pornographic actors and models, never won an award, has not unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, etc. --Saladacaesar (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: But, she acted in more than 35 films! 91.148.87.249 (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: acting carrier with 37 films, she has a profile at IAfD. Alex discussion ★ 09:40, 23 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO without awards or acknowledged special contributions to porn. Fails WP:GNG without coverage by reliable sources. The 4 references in the article don't qualify as reliable and provide trivial coverage at best. As for the keep arguments, acting in X number of porn films doesn't establish notability. (37 films is not a remarkable number in porn.) WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument either. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom: fails every guideline, being part of the Offertes A Tout Vol. 12 cast does not qualify anyone as notable. And, as said above by Gene93k, 37 films is a small number of titles for a porn actress. --Cavarrone (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per Gene93k. Failure to meet GNG. 37 videos is not a high number in the pornographic industry and setting the notability standard so low would open the floodgates to 100s of stub articles about people who have appeared in a similarly small number of videos. JoshyDinda (talk) 13:30, 27 November 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 1984_European_Cup_Final#Route_to_the_final. after deletion and then salt To explain the policy basis for the close, notability isn't inherited and derives in full or part from the presence of detailed secondary reliable sources. The failure to provide these is the reason for deletion. I have noted that the only sourced provided have been analyed and debunked so the outcome is clear. Since the match is covered elsewhere a redirect seems sensibl, Spartaz Humbug! 06:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final[edit]
- Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final (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 meet notability requirments. Standard practice is only finals, record breaking matches or matches of significant notability should be created. This does not meet any. The majority of sources provided are from Liverpool related sources, (i.e. Players' books, local news, club news) which don't establish notability. The sources which are from national newspapers are not about the match itself but mostly the players (mainly Graeme Souness) or Liverpool winning the cup that season. In fact there doesn't appear to be one source about the match itself, neither contemporary nor current, which would definitely be needed to provide detail on the match and more importantly to establish it's lasting notability, which the article does not prove. Adam4267 (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a spurious nomination and the nominator contradicts himself completely by stating "Standard practice is only finals, record breaking matches or matches of significant notability should be created" – this match easily qualifies for the last. Jprw (talk) 06:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It's the second nomination of the same article. The first discussion resulted in a delete. CSD G4? Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nomination is spurious, but not for reason Jprw suggests, but rather because the speedy ought to succeed. Recreation of a previously deleted article is reprehensible refusal to accept consensus; doing so without recourse to deletions for review suggests refusal to accept the principles and processes of Wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has gone through substantial revisions since the first deletion process. Therefore, submitting the article again in no way violates G4 here. In view of this, reprehensible refusal to accept consensus is a tad strong, please retract. Thank you. Jprw (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I retract nothing: no amount of revision of the article changes the notability of the match. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You specifically had not taken into account the numerous references that were added since the first nomination for deletion, which precluded any G4 violation. At least have the decency to admit that, and that your reprehensible refusal to accept consensus comment was thus high handed and completely inappropriate. Jprw (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I retract nothing: no amount of revision of the article changes the notability of the match. Kevin McE (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have removed the highly inappropriate speedy template and commented at the article's talk page. The article was moved to user space and was then resubmitted through Articles for creation. This procedure is wholly within policy. I shall comment on the merits of the article at a later stage. Thincat (talk) 16:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think the nominator sums up why the article should be deleted, as there is not one source dedicated solely to the match, this would be the main indicator of notability, as it confirms that the tie had historical resonance. For anyone unconnected to Liverpool, the match is wholly insignificant, the only interesting event that occurred in either match was Souness breaking a player's jaw, hardly grounds to create an article. The article itself is not up to encyclopaedic standards, it is mainly based on quotes and does not detail the events of the two matches. There is no reason for this article to exist and it should be deleted, especially as this was the consensus before. NapHit (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is a shallow and lazy assessment that is laced with inaccuracies and dubious, ill-thought-out interpretations of what constitutes notability. It is also bizarre that you write about "historical resonance". This match is referred to more than any other I can think of (finals aside) in the media in modern coverage of Liverpool in Europe (maybe the 2005 S/F is an exception). And it is totally inaccurate to state that the tie is "wholly insignificant" for anyone unconnected to Liverpool – on what do you base this statement? The fact that Hansen, Dalglish and Rush (arguably the three most high-profile Liverpool players of the club's golden age) go out of their way to state at length that this was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers is an immediate indication of clear notability. Notability is also bolstered by the added interest / coverage generated by the Souness / Moliva incident and, of course, the fact that this was the semi-final of the European Cup. Anyway, all we can do is be governed by what officially constitutes notability under WP guidelines. According to this the article has enough secondary sources containing more than a trivial mention of the event. Thus the criteria for having a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia are satisfied. As a general comment, I really wish that editors would not engage in a knee-jerk reaction to delete articles without properly acquainting themselves with the facts / history of a case. It borders on the irresponsible. Jprw (talk) 06:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to your belief that 'it is totally inaccurate to state that the tie is "wholly insignificant" for anyone unconnected to Liverpool.' Are you really suggesting that those who are not connected to Liverpool football club would recall this match as one of the greatest in the club's history because if that is what you are suggesting then I think you're mistaken. I don't appreciate you saying that editors would not engage in a knee-jerk reaction, without acquainting themselves with the facts, it's not irresponsible as you suggest. What is irresponsible is to go against consensus and recreate an article that had been deleted. As you mention facts I'm going to critique the refs, as the article doesn't have enough secondary sources containing more than a trivial mention of the event to prove this I'm going to list what each secondary source mentions about the match.
Ref 1 - two sentences at the end of the article, and its from the Sun hardly the most reliable source Ref 2 - one sentence about the match Ref 3 - just redirects to the Times homepage Ref 10 - nothing about the match Ref 11 - not a reliable source and hardly any info anyway Ref 12 - finally details on the match but its from the club's official website so not a secondary source Ref 14 - see ref 11 Ref 15 - one paragraph about the match Ref 17 two sentence about Souness breaking Movila's jaw the only notable occurence of the two matches Ref 22 - not a secondary source Ref 23 - again just mentions Souness not the actual match Ref 24 - Souness again Ref 25 - Souness again one sentence Ref 26 - can't see anything referring to the matches Ref 28 - five paragraphs again concerning Souness Ref 29 - this is where the matches are mentioned the most yet its only two and a bit paragraphs not enough for a match you state 'is referred to more than any other I can think of (finals aside) in the media in modern coverage of Liverpool in Europe' if by referred you mean one or two sentences you are right. I'm not going to bother with the three remaining refs as they either concern Souness or are not secondary sources. It doesn't matter how many more refs there are since the last discussion, the fact is no reference refers to the match in the same vein that you are purporting. If the match was that historically significant then there would be refs referring to it in detail, yet there is not, which confirms my view that it is not more notable than any other semi-final that has been played in the European Cup or any other competition for that matter. NapHit (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really suggesting that those who are not connected to Liverpool football club would recall this match as one of the greatest in the club's history because if that is what you are suggesting then I think you're mistaken.
- That is pure conjecture on your part. Enough sports writers reference the match 25 years after the game to suggest that you yourself are mistaken. In addition, before the European Cup became the Champions League, the whole nation followed British teams' participation. Many football supporters, not just Liverpool ones, will remember these games.
- Maybe so, but that does not mean it qualifies for its own article, the fact that there is not one secondary source that you can provide that has the match as the sole focus of the source proves in my opinion that the match is not notable, however many people remember it. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't appreciate you saying that editors would not engage in a knee-jerk reaction, without acquainting themselves with the facts, it's not irresponsible as you suggest.
- I'm afraid that that is exactly what happened in the first, deeply flawed deletion process, and is happening again now. Editors were / are clearly not acquainting themselves with the facts and were / are taking it upon themselves to pass judgment too quickly. This is the first time that I have had to deal with the AFD process, and I have been alarmed at how easy it is for any editor to turn up on a page nominated for deletion, have an obviously cursory look at an article, and then vote to delete without examining the facts / features of the case in any kind of detail (Brad78 and Giant Snowman's verdicts below would be classic examples in this respect).
- What are these facts you keep mentioning? I would like to know because I'm not sure you're reading the same article as me or you're seeing something differently to me. I think its a bit rich to say that editors have a brief look at the article and then vote delete. At the end of the day the article fails Wikipedia's own notability guidelines and that of the Wikipedia Football project so those editors that are involved in the football project and have seen similar non-notable matches like this before have articles about them created and have voted delete before. Its not because they haven't read the article its because from previous experience they know the event itself is non-notable. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic facts of the case – the article, its contents, structure, refs etc. The distinct impression I'm getting is that editors are turning up, having a quick look, and then casting their votes – a sort of bull-in-a-china-shop approach. As I said, I'm rather new to the AFD process and find this tendency disturbing. Also, you say those editors that are involved in the football project and have seen similar non-notable matches like this before have articles about them created and have voted delete before. Its not because they haven't read the article its because from previous experience they know the event itself is non-notable. If this is indded the case, it would, for example, be helpful if they shared this knowledge in some way and provided e.g. links to articles that failed AFD – that is, justify why they are voting to delete. Re: your claims on notability, you seem to be making a basic misinterpretation of WP guidelines. The article has enough secondary sources containing more than a trivial mention of the event, and the criteria for having a standalone article in the encyclopedia are thus satisfied. Moreover, the fact that Hansen, Dalglish, and Rush state (during lengthy descriptions of the event) that the tie was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers must surely serve as an additional indication of notability. I have no doubt that the article can enrich and be a welcome and appropriate addition to both the coverage of LFC on WP and articles related to the European Cup. Jprw (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these facts you keep mentioning? I would like to know because I'm not sure you're reading the same article as me or you're seeing something differently to me. I think its a bit rich to say that editors have a brief look at the article and then vote delete. At the end of the day the article fails Wikipedia's own notability guidelines and that of the Wikipedia Football project so those editors that are involved in the football project and have seen similar non-notable matches like this before have articles about them created and have voted delete before. Its not because they haven't read the article its because from previous experience they know the event itself is non-notable. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is irresponsible is to go against consensus and recreate an article that had been deleted.
- Why are you bringing this up again? I have already pointed out twice that no WP procedures have been violated and that the G4 criteria re: renomination were fully satisfied. Please let's not go round in circles.
- You do point out some inadequacies in the refs (I was particularly disappointed to find out that Times link has become a redirect, this is because the newspaper is subscription based. It is an outstanding quote from obviously an excellent secondary source), but these can either be easily fixed / improved (e.g. official UEFA records can be used for Ref 11). At the same time, you fail to acknowledge the more-than-a-passing mention to the match in a number of secondary sources, which establish notability under WP criteria.
- Which references are the references that I have failed to acknowledge that have more-than-passing-mention of the match, because from reading them yesterday there were only two or three. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is only two or three, then that satisfies the basic criteria for notability. Since you acknowledge that at least these refs exist, I suggest that you do the honourable thing and reverse your vote to Keep. Jprw (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By two or three I meant that they have one paragraph of material in them in article of about 10 paragraphs that's still a trivial mention and I'm not changing my vote, the article still fails notability guidelines. The fact still remains that there is not one source you can produce that is secondary that has the matches as the focus of the source. Until you produce said source, I can't be bothered arguing because my opinion is not going to change and neither is yours. As Brad78 states claiming the matches have notability because of the physical nature of the matches is ludicrous, so I can't be bothered indulging you when the article should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but you're not making any kind of sense. Jprw (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By two or three I meant that they have one paragraph of material in them in article of about 10 paragraphs that's still a trivial mention and I'm not changing my vote, the article still fails notability guidelines. The fact still remains that there is not one source you can produce that is secondary that has the matches as the focus of the source. Until you produce said source, I can't be bothered arguing because my opinion is not going to change and neither is yours. As Brad78 states claiming the matches have notability because of the physical nature of the matches is ludicrous, so I can't be bothered indulging you when the article should be deleted. NapHit (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is only two or three, then that satisfies the basic criteria for notability. Since you acknowledge that at least these refs exist, I suggest that you do the honourable thing and reverse your vote to Keep. Jprw (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references are the references that I have failed to acknowledge that have more-than-passing-mention of the match, because from reading them yesterday there were only two or three. NapHit (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I really do hope that enough editors take the trouble to take all these facts / features into account before passing judgement on the article, and that another miscarriage of justice can be averted. In my view the article still has the potential to be improved further (see my comment to MT below) and I think it can be a significant addition that will enrich WP's sporting articles. Regards, Jprw (talk) 06:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For those recommending "delete" on notability grounds, it would be helpful to indicate why WP:SMERGE, for example to 1984_European_Cup_Final#Route_to_the_final, would not be appropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Half of the material in this article would not be necessary in an article about the final, as the article is primarily about the actual final. All that is needed is what is currently there, certainly don't need a whole paragraph of quotes from autobiographies. NapHit (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't clear, what exactly do you mean? Jprw (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thincat is suggesting a merger into the 1984 European Cup Final, what I' stating is that there is no point as all that needs to be mentioned in the article on the final is the basics of how Liverpool beat Romania, as that article is primarily about the final. Merging paragraphs of quotes from autobiographies about a semi-final into an article about the final would be wrong. NapHit (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't clear, what exactly do you mean? Jprw (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Half of the material in this article would not be necessary in an article about the final, as the article is primarily about the actual final. All that is needed is what is currently there, certainly don't need a whole paragraph of quotes from autobiographies. NapHit (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't see any reason why this game is significant. Plenty of games are physical and highly-contested, particularly semi-finals. To suggest a game is notable for its competitiveness would open the floodgates. Brad78 (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not gonna vote on delete or keep, but I think the article has some serious problems with its structure and contents. The article should be about the matches, but there is not enough coverage about what happens in the match. There are no match details (lineups, referee, stadium, etc) which is a standard for a match article. Match summaries also need to be expanded, there are no mention on how the goals are made, except for Lee's "rare header". If the matches are highly physical, are there yellow and red cards in the game? Furthermore, the quotes from the players and media coverage immediately after the game should be in another section called "Aftermath". The aftermath section should also contains information about Liverpool winning the title that year. The quotes from the players and media coverage years after the game should be in another section called "Legacy". See Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989) for example, or 1956 FA Cup Final which is a featured article. In my opinion, this article put too much emphasize on players' quotes, while there are not enough details on the matches. — MT (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article needs expanding in terms of what actually happened in the matches (and will be able to do this) and that the players' quotes can probably be trimmed. I was also thinking of restructuring the article into different sections: matches, Souness / Movila incident, aftermath, legacy etc. In fact I think that this article has real further potential and would want to get it up to GA standard within a short space of time. Jprw (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good to hear about your plan. Perhaps if you've done those before re-creating this article, those who are voting for delete would reconsider their votes, because although there is an improvement in sources/references between the deleted version and the current version, there is no significant improvement in the content, specifically about the match details. I'm sorry but I'm still gonna be neutral and not voting on either side. I think you've done a great work on this article, but I'm on the fence on its notability. — MT (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article needs expanding in terms of what actually happened in the matches (and will be able to do this) and that the players' quotes can probably be trimmed. I was also thinking of restructuring the article into different sections: matches, Souness / Movila incident, aftermath, legacy etc. In fact I think that this article has real further potential and would want to get it up to GA standard within a short space of time. Jprw (talk) 05:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the match remains as non-notable as before. GiantSnowman 10:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a matter of interest, before casting your vote, did you bother reading this discussion, the article itself, or assess any of the refs it contains? Jprw (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jprw, you clearly do not/are unwilling to understand the notability guidelines. Your attempts to discredit and sway other editors are clearly failing so why don't you just let people vote and stop badgering them. Adam4267 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I am well within my rights as the creator of the article (and as someone who stands to lose many hours of work) to ask editors to justify their decisions. Even editors voting to delete are acknowledging that there are secondary sources referenced which contain more-than-a-passing mention to the event (although I note that Jmorrison230582 below seems to have failed to take this into account) which under WP notability criteria implies they should be voting to keep. Jprw (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "someone who stands to lose many hours of work" = WP:MERCY. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think I am well within my rights as the creator of the article (and as someone who stands to lose many hours of work) to ask editors to justify their decisions. Even editors voting to delete are acknowledging that there are secondary sources referenced which contain more-than-a-passing mention to the event (although I note that Jmorrison230582 below seems to have failed to take this into account) which under WP notability criteria implies they should be voting to keep. Jprw (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more helpful if you addressed the main point. Jprw (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jmorrison has a point, the above is WP:MERCY, just because you put hours of work into something doesn't mean it should remain if it fails notablility guidelines, which it does because the sources do not have more than a trivial mention of the game as I detailed above, you can't base an article on sources that have a few paragraphs relating to the matches. That is trivial in the context of the source, I know you're referring to me when you say above, and I'm clarifying that all the secondary sources have trivial mentions of the match, not one source has the matches as their main focus, just by that alone the article should be deleted, never mind the fact the matches are no more notable than the carling cup matches played last night. NapHit (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the matches are no more notable than the carling cup matches played last night if you honestly believe that, then you obviously understand absolutely nothing about football, and you undermine your authority to make useful comments / contributions here. You also contradict yourself about sources, having already admitted that at least "two to three" of the references contain more than a passing mention to the match, which is the fundamental WP criterion for establishing notability. That is the crux of the matter. The match is notable, a standalone article on it deserves to exist, and unless editors can prove otherwise then this AFD process should be halted. I will then be able to improve the article further – I am confident I can get it up to GA and perhaps FA. Jprw (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a bit rich requesting other users to be civil when you belittle me for comparing the matches to carling cup games, smacks of double standards. By WP standards the matches are no more notable than carling cup matches, as other users have said nothing notable occurred in these matches. I fail to see after all these comments about the references the nature of the matches etc how you can see otherwise, its ridiculous. NapHit (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- the matches are no more notable than the carling cup matches played last night if you honestly believe that, then you obviously understand absolutely nothing about football, and you undermine your authority to make useful comments / contributions here. You also contradict yourself about sources, having already admitted that at least "two to three" of the references contain more than a passing mention to the match, which is the fundamental WP criterion for establishing notability. That is the crux of the matter. The match is notable, a standalone article on it deserves to exist, and unless editors can prove otherwise then this AFD process should be halted. I will then be able to improve the article further – I am confident I can get it up to GA and perhaps FA. Jprw (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry, but only someone with the barest knowledge of the game could possibly compare the semi-final of the Carling Cup with the semi-final of the European Cup in terms of importance. I think I was calling a spade a spade on that one. Your accusation "hypocrite" (from your edit summary) seems way off the mark if you are comparing this to my asking another editor to not adopt a patronising, dismissive tone (which he clearly was). Jprw (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you could "get it up to GA and perhaps FA" is completely irrelevant. There is enough media coverage of practically every Liverpool game (or, indeed, any other professional sports team) to give a well-sourced article. The only problem is that there are 380 games in one Premier League season alone. Multiply that up by the number of professional leagues in all sports in all countries and the number of seasons have been played. That's why WP:SPORTSEVENT exists, because wikipedia is not the back page of your local newspaper. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be one gigantic non-sequitur. Have you not noticed that this is the semi-final of the European Cup? Jprw (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You appear to be arguing that every European Cup semi-final is intrinsically notable. Why? Would you say that Hibernian v Stade Reims in 1956 was notable? It isn't a cup final, no medals or trophies are awarded. Liverpool progressed to another round of the same competition, that's all, the same as any other cup tie in any other competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That appears to be one gigantic non-sequitur. Have you not noticed that this is the semi-final of the European Cup? Jprw (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the independent sources given cover this tie in any depth, which means that it is not notable of itself. You are losing that argument again and are now pleading for mercy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The comment about amount of work put in was an aside made in brackets, I am certainly not "pleading for mercy". The main point here is the sources and what constitutes notability -- on this you claim I am "losing the argument". Well, even NapHit, who voted to delete, has acknowledged that at least two or three contain a more-than-passing-mention to the match. Please focus on rebutting that point, and also addressing the issue re: autobiographies below. Then we might start to get somewhere instead of going round in circles. Jprw (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Not a final and not widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable (my emphasis). If anything, the other semi-final in that competition (where Roma bribed the referee) is closer to meeting that test. [1][2] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am not much interested in sport and I came to this article by chance at AFD1 when I saw a substantial, well-cited article describing a small piece of social history. Personally, I don’t care what the match scores were but MT and others are right to want improved match details and I agree with MT’s other criticisms. Also, the Romanian view is seriously under-represented: there is only a single reference. None of these deficiencies come close to requiring deletion.
- For notability I had thought, for example, Steve Hanrahan “Liverpool's 5-Star Heros” Trinity Mirror Sport Media. pp. 77-97 ISBN 1905266057 ; "Season 1983-84" EUROPEAN CUP HISTORY.COM. and David Randles "Mersey Hard Men: Liverpool FC legend Graeme Souness was the complete midfielder", Liverpool Echo (ref 6, 9 and 26 in NapHit’s detailed list) all were indicators of notability but, at least for the first, PeeJay warns at the article’s talk page that such references may not be what they seem.[3] So, I think everyone needs to make their own careful assessment. Only one of these references was there at AFD1 and I still think the WP:CSD#G4 was quite inappropriate. Many participating players’ autobiographies described the semi-final years later, sometimes extensively (see Dalglish). They personally found the tie memorable so readers may have come to think it is notable and expect to find more details on WP. However, I do accept that primary sources cannot be relied on to demonstrate wiki-notability. Next, it seems that national sports journalists are still recalling the event, even 25 years on. The mentions are brief but the significance may be substantial because the semi-final is being remembered both for itself and for a comparison with present day events.
- The semi-final was played in a disgraceful manner but for me the event seems notable and the article demonstrates this. WP is not an indiscriminate collection of information[4] and from this arises the concept of WP:Notability which is assessed by inviting editors to consider and normally keep to the guidelines given. If you regard WP:GNG as a firm set of hard-line rules some of my considerations above do not meet that standard. However, GNG is a guideline and in light of the references as a whole I think the article should be kept. It has not been included indiscriminately. It’s fine for people to argue “delete” on grounds of lack of inherent notability, but I’ll just comment that that is also against any hard-line rules interpretation of GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT.
- Some of the criticism here has not been balanced. To take two examples, Ref 3 does indeed redirect to the Times front page, but the redirecting page tells you the reference is to be found behind a paywall (existence indicated here). OK, ref 10 scarcely mentions the match – it is there to verify a claim to a nine-match sequence, which it does.
- If the experts decide this event is not notable, I still suggest selective merge. Targets could be any or all of [5], [6] and [7] which could receive parts of the material. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously saying that a one sentence mention in an article that is totally unrelated to these two matches, warrants notability? That link you provided to ref 3 doesn't work by the way and it doesn't matter if it did because the article is not about these matches. The point I was making with the references is that Jprw was claiming that because there are more references then when the article was last here it should stay, but when those references hardly mention the match that is not the case. They do not establish notability, the fundamental question is what makes these two matches more notable than any other European cup semi-final that it warrants its own article? NapHit (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Recreation of a previously deleted article and nothing has changed since then. Not a final, no records were set, no lasting notability. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another clear example of an editor taking a decision without first becoming acquainted with the facts. Jprw (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you refrain from accusing other editors for not reading the whole facts, you have to assume good faith. You can't possibly know whether they have or have not read the whole article and discussion, and I don't think you could force them to. Everyone is entitled to a vote and have to justify their vote by a reasonable reason. If you think there is a flaw in their reasoning, you have any right to question it, but not to accuse them for not reading the facts. Remember, AfD is not determined by majority vote (read WP:AFDEQ), but by consensus. The closing admin would value votes with strong arguments and could disregard any votes with no strong arguments. — MT (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another clear example of an editor taking a decision without first becoming acquainted with the facts. Jprw (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable match. Autobiographies of players involved in the match are not considered independent reliable sources, as required by WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG, and those sources which are indeed independent and reliable only feature routine coverage of the match. The article creator's uncivility in this deletion discussion towards other Wikipedians is disturbing at best. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 09:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Autobiographies as RS[edit]
This FA, on the Scottish footballer John Wark, contains numerous references to his autobiography. It seems therefore that autobiographies can be used as RS. If we then take into account that the references related to players' autobiographies in the article allot a disproportionate amount of space to the matches, then they must surely serve to only further bolster the event’s notability. Jprw (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 10/10 for missing the point. The factual accuracy of what happened in this game is not being disputed, which an autobiography can provide a reliable source for. It is the notability of the game that is being disputed. WP:SPORTSEVENT says that "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game". An autobiography of a player in that match is not an independent source. It also fails to demonstrate that the match is widely considered to be notable - some players from that team might think it was important, but that doesn't mean that anyone else does. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not deliberately doing anything. Please retract and try to adopt a more civil, less patronising tone. Thanks. Please also read what I wrote: it is the disproportionate amount of space that these players allot in their autobiographies, coupled with the nature of their descriptions, that creates additional notability. The three most high-profile Liverpool players of the club's golden age go out of their way to state at length that this was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers – not notable? Jprw (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just see that you have removed the word "deliberately", but your tone remains patronising and unhelpful. Jprw (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. How much does Souness talk about his tackles on Siggi Jonsson or George McCluskey in his book(s)? [8][9] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just see that you have removed the word "deliberately", but your tone remains patronising and unhelpful. Jprw (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not deliberately doing anything. Please retract and try to adopt a more civil, less patronising tone. Thanks. Please also read what I wrote: it is the disproportionate amount of space that these players allot in their autobiographies, coupled with the nature of their descriptions, that creates additional notability. The three most high-profile Liverpool players of the club's golden age go out of their way to state at length that this was the most brutal and hostile event in their careers – not notable? Jprw (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jprw, you just don't seem to be getting what people are saying. To establish notability there needs to be independent sources which are specifically about the item in question, in this case obviously the match. While you have included independent sources (i.e Herald, Times) they only mention the match in passing. There are sources which focus specifcally on the match, but they are not independant (Liverweb, LFC TV). There are no sources which are both independent and about the match, which is why it should be deleted. You might not agree with it, but do you understand? Adam4267 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you been studying at all what I have been saying? Or is this some kind of deliberate obfuscation exercise? Anyway, here we go again, one more time: the first guideline given here for establishing general notability reads as follows: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" [bold mine]. The article has enough secondary sources containing more-than-a-trivial mention of the event (even NapHit acknowledges this -- see above). Thus the criteria for having a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia are satisfied, and it seems that you are the one who does not understand. Jprw (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenny Dalglish's book My Liverpool Home (one of the sources you are citing) mentions this match in two pages in a book that is nearly 300 pages long. The vast majority of the detail is about the Souness tackle on the Romanian player. Then he says oh, by the way, we won and got to the final. You suggested above that the players give a "disporportionate amount of space" - that simply isn't true in Dalglish's case. He gives three times as much space to talk about the final itself. If it wasn't for the Souness tackle, he probably wouldn't mention the semi-final at all! So what it becomes it back to is basically this match is allegedly notable because Graeme Souness (a notoriously bad tackler) made a bad tackle. No sale. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you been studying at all what I have been saying? Or is this some kind of deliberate obfuscation exercise? Anyway, here we go again, one more time: the first guideline given here for establishing general notability reads as follows: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" [bold mine]. The article has enough secondary sources containing more-than-a-trivial mention of the event (even NapHit acknowledges this -- see above). Thus the criteria for having a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia are satisfied, and it seems that you are the one who does not understand. Jprw (talk) 05:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jprw, you just don't seem to be getting what people are saying. To establish notability there needs to be independent sources which are specifically about the item in question, in this case obviously the match. While you have included independent sources (i.e Herald, Times) they only mention the match in passing. There are sources which focus specifcally on the match, but they are not independant (Liverweb, LFC TV). There are no sources which are both independent and about the match, which is why it should be deleted. You might not agree with it, but do you understand? Adam4267 (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you really should retract the suggestion that this is a "deliberate obfuscation exercise". That's just ridiculous. The majority don't think this game is notable under the conditions of WP:SPORTSEVENT, the relevant part of WP:N. You seem to have some sort of problem accepting that you might be wrong and are spraying around unfounded accusations of malfeasance or conspiracy. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm utterly staggered at how editors can go on missing the central point, which can only support my suspicion that this is a "deliberate obfuscation exercise" (note that I, unlike you, am justified in using the word "deliberate"). Your latest entry above borders on the wild and hysterical – I wonder if your evident antipathy for Grahame Souness is clouding your judgement? By the way, I am going to remove your nasty and unfounded accusation from my talk page, and please don't visit there again unless you can be civil or have anything constructive to say. What a shame we have not been able to have a reasonable discussion that focuses on the central points and the crux of the matter. Jprw (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin please note: Editors with likely antipathy to Graeme Souness voting on this page[edit]
For the record, I would like the closing admin to note that the editors Jmorrison230582 and Adam4267 both appear to have a record of editing Scottish-football related articles, and specifically the articles of teams whose supporters traditionally have had an antipathy towards Graeme Souness, mainly because of his stint as manager of Rangers between 1986 and 1991. Since Souness features significantly in the article Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final (and is mostly painted in a positive light), it seems highly probable that such antipathy would compromise the above editors' ability to adopt a neutral position in passing judgment and voting on the article. The suspicion must also be raised that they have been operating as a cabal. Jprw (talk) 08:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That really is desperate and pathetic. Do I have any edit history of portraying Souness in a bad way? I have recently improved the article of Ibrox Stadium, the home ground of the team you are referring to (Rangers), and nominated it for GA status. By your "logic", I shouldn't be doing that. Also by your "logic", Adam4267 should be voting to keep this article because Kenny Dalglish was a key Liverpool player at the time, and he was also a key player and manager of the team Adam4267 supports (Celtic). Please produce evidence of us "operating as a cabal". Oh, what's that? There isn't any. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you incapable of communicating without resorting to incivility and unpleasantness? I have every right to raise a concern on this page that the discussion is being dominated by Scottish football supporters likely to have a negative position towards Souness, which could clearly make any debate biased and non-neutral. The cabal issue remains a deep suspicion. Jprw (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No addressing of the facts, just yet another ad hominem attack with no assumption of good faith whatsoever. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you incapable of communicating without resorting to incivility and unpleasantness? I have every right to raise a concern on this page that the discussion is being dominated by Scottish football supporters likely to have a negative position towards Souness, which could clearly make any debate biased and non-neutral. The cabal issue remains a deep suspicion. Jprw (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coming from someone who posted this on my talk page, the mind boggles. Jprw (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you then willing to go on the record and confirm that you harbour no antipathy towards Graeme Souness? Jprw (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, this is all getting a bit ridiculous. You do realise that there is no "record" in a Wikipedia AfD discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is some evidence, the following edit summary from Jmorrison230582: "Graeme Souness making a dirty tackle was a common occurence" Jprw (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a statement of fact, not antipathy (cf Siggi Jonsson and George McCluskey, or look at "Graeme Souness" +tackle on google.). And "for the record", no I don't have any antipathy toward him. I am (just) too young to have watched him play football (I think I started attending games the year after he retired). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jprw, not only have you probably broken the record for using most arguments to avoid in an Afd. But you have also clearly missed the most important conflict of interest. You clearly are attached to this article as you created it, there is also evidence to suggest you are a Liverpool fan which would further mean that you want this article to be kept. Do you not think it's more likely that an editor who created the article and also supports one of the teams will have a bigger conflict of interest than editors who are from the same country as some of the players involved? Adam4267 (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arrant nonsense. I have stuck to trying to concentrate on why the article is notable (the subtle distinction that I have pointed out on perhaps half a dozen occasions has, alas, fallen on deaf ears, including your own). Other editors have repeatedly resorted to using shoddy and superficial arguments and obtuse reasoning and non-sequiturs, and have often lapsed into excursions into incivility. By the way, the link you posted contains several examples of "how not to vote", many of which bear an uncanny resemblance to the majority of delete votes here. I hope that the closing admin takes due note of this, as well as the reasoned and well-justified arguments of the two votes to keep. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And you don't think that what you've said just there is in any way hypocritical? Adam4267 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This really has descended into a farce. Jprw why do you keep saying editors are avoiding the facts and crux of the matter when that has been addressed, when it is you that is avoiding the matter the fact that the references do not justify the existence of the article. This has been pointed out time and time again. Instead of acknowledging this you just lapse into ridiculous arguments about incivility and people not liking Graeme Souness and accusing authors of having no knowledge of football (which I find disgraceful by the way, and smacks of hypocrisy as you sit on your high horse and accuse anyone who has the temerity to question your views as being uncivil). To simplify there is no cabal, no bias against Grameme Souness, no conspiracy, the article is simply not notable by WP guidelines (btw you can't include a guide line you made up as justification).
- The usual garbled incoherence from NapHit, and as for accusing authors of having no knowledge of football (which I find disgraceful by the way) – I'm sorry that you find it disgraceful that I wish to point out that someone who clearly doesn't understand the difference beetween the Carling Cup and the European Cup may be lacking in knowledge about the game. I thought it was a legitimate point to make: you have severely undermined your authority to make useful comments / contributions here – why should we trust anything that you say? Jprw (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This really has descended into a farce. Jprw why do you keep saying editors are avoiding the facts and crux of the matter when that has been addressed, when it is you that is avoiding the matter the fact that the references do not justify the existence of the article. This has been pointed out time and time again. Instead of acknowledging this you just lapse into ridiculous arguments about incivility and people not liking Graeme Souness and accusing authors of having no knowledge of football (which I find disgraceful by the way, and smacks of hypocrisy as you sit on your high horse and accuse anyone who has the temerity to question your views as being uncivil). To simplify there is no cabal, no bias against Grameme Souness, no conspiracy, the article is simply not notable by WP guidelines (btw you can't include a guide line you made up as justification).
- And you don't think that what you've said just there is in any way hypocritical? Adam4267 (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arrant nonsense. I have stuck to trying to concentrate on why the article is notable (the subtle distinction that I have pointed out on perhaps half a dozen occasions has, alas, fallen on deaf ears, including your own). Other editors have repeatedly resorted to using shoddy and superficial arguments and obtuse reasoning and non-sequiturs, and have often lapsed into excursions into incivility. By the way, the link you posted contains several examples of "how not to vote", many of which bear an uncanny resemblance to the majority of delete votes here. I hope that the closing admin takes due note of this, as well as the reasoned and well-justified arguments of the two votes to keep. Jprw (talk) 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is some evidence, the following edit summary from Jmorrison230582: "Graeme Souness making a dirty tackle was a common occurence" Jprw (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, this is all getting a bit ridiculous. You do realise that there is no "record" in a Wikipedia AfD discussion. Adam4267 (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you then willing to go on the record and confirm that you harbour no antipathy towards Graeme Souness? Jprw (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not good enough, please give valid reasons – see here, and please pay particular attention to the following: AfD is a discussion in which all participants are encouraged to give their own independent opinion. It is the ideas of individuals, not the propaganda of others, that is supposed to help determine the outcome. One who bases one's statement on that crowd as a whole is not making any useful contribution to the discussion. Thanks. Jprw (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The consensus below is that sources do not exist to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Curb-stomp[edit]
- Curb-stomp (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 topic does not appear to be much more than a dictionary definition with a list of usages of the term/action described. It does NOT appear that there exists enough source material to expand the article to anything more than a definition and a WP:OR list of pop-culture references to the action. I see nothing that would count for a reliable source which discusses the practice in depth. For anyone that thinks this article should be kept, can you provide any book or journal article or equivalent which discusses this act in detail and in depth, and does more than just mention and/or define and/or demonstrate the act as part of a movie or video game? If not, I can't see where this is a notable thing for a full encyclopedia article, as opposed to merely a Wiktionary entry. I do understand that some terms, for which there ARE in depth reliable source material, do merit encyclopedia articles. The issue here is not that an article like Punch (combat) exists also; that article has books devoted to it. This one appears to have nothing of the sort. Jayron32 22:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If no sources can be found, redirect to American History X. The only source I can find to suggest that this is a real thing other than just something they made up for the movie is this blog post which quotes this story. I read something a while back which said that the curb stomp was something that only existed in the movie, although that may have changed tragically since. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless at least one solid reference is found. I will watch. Stormbay (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral -- If it is decided the article should be redirected, I'd recommend redirecting to stomp, since, well, the victim is stomped upon - surprising, considering the title. The article for stomp already lists that of curb-stomp under its "See also" section. Also, I am adding a recommendation to merge curb-stomp with stomp. ~ |\\//| 10:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per complete lack of WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:20, 2 December 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. discarding the keep votes as a)notability by assertion, b)needs better referencing is a reason to delete not keep c) aboiding redlinks isn't a policy reason to keep. The delete side demonstrate a clear policy basis - lack of sources and due diligence in finding such sources. I have no objection to recreation if sources are found. Spartaz Humbug! 06:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Air[edit]
- Sam Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Charter airline (with only one plane) of questionable notability. Google search on "Sam Air" Bratislava shows a lot of results, but no significant coverage - primarily simple directory listings. Google news search shows zero results. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article creator is WP:SPA and very likely WP:COI. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 22 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Probably meets wp:notability with sources in Slovakia although not established in this article. Probably a COI editor, but the content is encyclopedic. North8000 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an airline operator of Boeing 737 should have an article it just needs better referencing and expansion rather than deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The airline is operational, so it is likely to be included in airport destination lists. If the article was deleted, there would be a red link, and I think that the reader of a destination list should be informed about the airlines listed there. I pretty well now this creates a problem if/when the airline gets defunct, but I hope that further notability can be established through adding of third-party sources. --AdAstra reloaded (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My reading of the only source is that it's routine coverage of a new airline / route. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:23, 2 December 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! 06:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Russian techno[edit]
- Russian techno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Also include: Category:Russian techno, Russian dance music
OR, and a very bad OR. Author does not even seem to know what techno music stands for, as he describes Russian pop instead. The only artist mentioned is tATu, which is far from being a "techno" band. The category also should be deleted: not a single techno artist is listed there; instead, it includes a wild mashup of teen pop, various electronic and even rock acts. The Russian dance music page is a copy of Russian techno, and though its name is more appropriate, it is still an OR without sources.
According to Last.fm, Russia has some obscure minimal techno artists, but the article is certainly not about them, and I doubt they're notable enough to have an article on their own. An article on Russian electronic music in general would be great to do (from 60's and Eduard Artemyev to modern era), but "Russian techno" is not a worthy basis to start from.Garret Beaumain (talk) 17:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 20:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Snotbot. May your metal ass shine forever.--Garret Beaumain (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm unable to find WP:RS in a language that I read. There are no interwiki links to the languages this community is likely to speak. There is only one reference. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:26, 2 December 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! 06:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Today, this was retored & userfied to User:Gobonobo/Laura Lemay per request at WP:REFUND. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Laura Lemay[edit]
- Laura Lemay (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 writer of computer books. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. This article was declined for speedy deletion (CSD A7, G11), however I'm not able to find any assertion of notability within the article as it is, and my research indicates a dearth of reliable, third-party coverage that might amount to anything substantial or in-depth. In fact, my results were almost exclusively pieces the subject had authored, or adverts she had posted. There are no indications of awards, this subject is not widely cited, nor is she regarded as an important figure in her field. JFHJr (㊟) 17:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well-known IT author with many publications that have been widely reviewed.--Michig (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:30, 25 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Stormbay (talk) 04:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She is absolutely an important figure in her field. She easily meets WP:ACADEMIC; in particular, where it says "Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." There are over 6K ghits when searching for "Laura Lemay" syllabus, and most of those ghits are to colleges and universities where her books are/have been required texts. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 10:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does her appearance in syllabi fulfill any WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR-specific requirements at all? Nobody has ever claimed she is an WP:ACADEMIC, so it would be inappropriate to apply those guidelines to this author. If this subject is not widely cited in actual publications, as opposed to reading lists, she fails. I'm afraid your points seem unrelated to establishing this author's notability under current guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ACADEMIC says:
• Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.
• This notability guideline specifies criteria for judging the notability of an academic through reliable sources for the impact of their work.
…academics, in the sense of above definition, may also work outside academia (e.g. in industry, financial sector, government, as a clinical physician, as a practicing lawyer, etc) and their primary job does not have to be academic in nature if they are known for their academic achievements…
…if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant.- If the article doesn't say her books are often required texts for higher-ed courses, then that just means the article should be fixed, not deleted. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does her appearance in syllabi fulfill any WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR-specific requirements at all? Nobody has ever claimed she is an WP:ACADEMIC, so it would be inappropriate to apply those guidelines to this author. If this subject is not widely cited in actual publications, as opposed to reading lists, she fails. I'm afraid your points seem unrelated to establishing this author's notability under current guidelines. JFHJr (㊟) 21:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inadequate coverage in mainstream published media (e.g. Google news archive) to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, and WP:PROF seems far out of reach. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In what way is WP:ACADEMIC "far out of reach"? What's your criteria for "authored several books that are widely used as textbooks"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly, she is not by any stretch of the imagination an academic. She has no advanced degree, does not publish research, holds no academic appointment, does not teach, etc. So WP:ACADEMIC is not the right criterion: WP:AUTHOR is. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In what way is WP:ACADEMIC "far out of reach"? What's your criteria for "authored several books that are widely used as textbooks"? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. The subject is the author of series of WP:run-of-the-mill "how-to" books, which falls far, far, far short of the impact clearly anticipated by WP:ACADEMIC, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR as appropriate to a presumption of notability in lieu of sources. Msnicki (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Googling suggests they don't exist — FFS, are you joking? I take it you didn't look very hard, or you would have come across articles like this one:
Two and a half years ago, Laura Lemay was one of thousands of tech writers slaving away in Silicon Valley, thoroughly unthrilled by the prospect of pumping out yet another lifeless software manual. She yearned to write books with broader appeal, but “everybody told me you’ll never make any money,” Lemay recalls. Today, her name is on 23 different computer books, some of which have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. She has fans and she commands big advances, but she’s more than just a success — she’s a brand name, a publishing power in her own right. Software executives come to her, hats in hand, hoping she’ll deign to write a guide to their latest product.
— Laura Lemay's Beta Books by Andrew Leonard (February 27, 1997) Salon- or this:
Laura Lemay’s wonderful books — from Teach Yourself Web Publishing With HTML in a Week to Teach Yourself Perl and Java — have served as primers for many of today’s web denizens.
— Interview with Laura Lemay Online and Interview with Laura Lemay by Suzanne Stefanac (June 21, 2006), from the book/blog Dispatches from Blogistan: A Travel Guide for the Modern Blogger- I haven't updated her article myself (I'm sure I'd be considered a competitor of hers, and therefore have a COI), but more like this is easily-findable — if you look. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – If you've got a possible WP:COI with the subject as a competitor within an industry, do you think this might inform your view of notability when it comes to persons in your industry? It may be a bit early, I think a consensus as to applying WP:ACADEMIC and WP:PROFESSOR in this case is emerging. JFHJr (㊟) 05:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got no problem admitting that I know who the VIPs are in my field, and I think I've pointed out enough sources above to show that it's not just my personal opinion. If you say there's an emerging consensus as to her being encyclopedic, I'm a happy camper. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said a consensus is emerging. I didn't say that's what it was. The consensus I mention is that this subject would not be proper for consideration under WP:ACADEMIC, a backup to the WP:BASIC. BTW, there's absolutely no way blogistan would pass WP:RS to support a WP:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, I guess a consensus that we would follow existing policy was just wishful thinking on my part… sigh. Out of curiosity, why wouldn't Dispatches from Blogistan: A Travel Guide for the Modern Blogger—a book written by a reputable author from a reputable publisher—be considered a WP:RS? Because it's a book that's about blogs/blogging? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said a consensus is emerging. I didn't say that's what it was. The consensus I mention is that this subject would not be proper for consideration under WP:ACADEMIC, a backup to the WP:BASIC. BTW, there's absolutely no way blogistan would pass WP:RS to support a WP:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got no problem admitting that I know who the VIPs are in my field, and I think I've pointed out enough sources above to show that it's not just my personal opinion. If you say there's an emerging consensus as to her being encyclopedic, I'm a happy camper. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:46, 1 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Halverson[edit]
- Rex Halverson (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He's a tax lawyer in California. Here is his resume. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:11, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. He's a former government official and stills influences politics and policy to a great deal. - User:carbonmotion - 17:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC) (NOTE: User:carbonmotion is the author of the page in question.)[reply]
- Delete as lacking significant coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 25 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the resume which will leave it as a 1 paragraph stub The rest of it not only reads like a resume, it looks like it IS his resume, just pasted in. Terrible content. But subject probably could meet wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone should rewrite the resume part if there is notability here. Stormbay (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Gets stray mentions in a few small newspaper articles from when he was one of multiple deputies to the state controller. Other than that, there are primary listings, professional directories, and social media. Nowehere close to meeting WP:GNG, that I can see. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no editing has taken place to assert notability. Stormbay (talk) 23:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. The state controller is notable; her deputy is not. Google News finds occasional passing mentions but nothing substantive. The supposed California Fair Tax Initiative, that he supposedly authored, has no presence on in the news or on the web that I could find. Basically he's just another lawyer. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 3 December 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. No notability, no proof of exstence. Tone 23:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Junior Eurovision Dance Contest 2011[edit]
- Junior Eurovision Dance Contest 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The main article, Junior Eurovision Dance Contest, was deleted because it was a hoax and no reliable sources were identified on the subject. -- Luke (Talk) 21:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:24, 25 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Catherine Winchester[edit]
- Catherine Winchester (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 - Original reason: Non-notable under criteria for creative professionals; body of work is self-published and cited reviews are not from reliable periodicals. A Quick google search yields no reliable sources, only hits are blogs, sales sites and similar. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 21:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Gets a couple of blog reviews. Sales on the the North South book at least seem non-negligible, unlike many of the authors whose articles come to AfD. Has only been publishing since last year, so I can definitely see her notability increasing, even just based on her current output. But doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG yet. If better sourcing can be found, happy to look again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has lots of blog reviews, no mentioned websites. --Katarighe (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per lack of WP:RS. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:28, 2 December 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! 06:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Telematic Srl[edit]
- Telematic Srl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited, and searches have failed to produce any independent reliable sources. I actually think this could have been speedily deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7, but I decided to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow time for evidence of notability to be presented. PROD was contested by the author of the article, without any reason being given. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- *Note: It has just come to my attention that the article was almost certainly written by an editor with a conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Concur: I too have looked for some independent sources that could be used to turn this subject into a worthwhile article, but I failed. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete stub created by WP:SPA for commercial entity, no WP:RS references. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The consensus below is that "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." Where have I heard that before? Eluchil404 (talk) 04:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Sabbath's Nineteenth Studio Album[edit]
- Black Sabbath's Nineteenth Studio 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)
This article fails the criteria at WP:NALBUMS, WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. The article's title is also an implausible search term, so it shouldn't just be redirected for the time being as is commonly done for future albums with officially confirmed titles. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Too early to keep. The album hasn't even been recorded yet. Mr. Metal Head (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smash per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into a few sentences in the Black Sabbath article. This will doubtless be wp:notable, but it doesn't even have a name yet for the article title, and the content is small enough to merge for now. North8000 (talk) 20:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What the hell is there to merge? Nothing's sourced or verifiable here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's actually more verifiable information at Black Sabbath#Reunion (2010–present) than there is on this article. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just plain speculation. No name, no release date, no track listing, no further more information, nothing. 76.191.133.247 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the Black Sabbath article for now, and recreate when more info is available. There's a source here about them doing a new album, but nothing more concrete. Lugnuts (talk) 10:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the content has already been mentioned in the "Reunion" subsection of Black Sabbath. The current revision of this article is just a few lines redundant, with no additional information provided. If more information has been revealed, rather than a few line as of now, then recreate the article. --G(x) (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not because it isn't notable, but because there isn't any information not found at Black Sabbath#Reunion (2010–present). Once more information is available, then maybe an article should be created. Woknam66 talk James Bond 17:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As more information becomes available add it to "Black Sabbath#Reunion (2010–present)" until a stub length is achieved. Mlpearc powwow 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, especially as WP:HAMMER is now so well accepted as to be de facto policy. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 29 November 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! 06:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Curtis[edit]
- Katherine Curtis (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 She does not meet WP:N. I looked for reliable sources and it's all self-referential at best. Nakedladiesfan (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to the Eyeopener, Curtis "hosts the Naked Nerd, one of the most popular segments on the weekend Naked News magazine program." The Eyeopnener is "Ryerson University's Independent Student Newspaper" and the article's writer is named Matthew Halliday. How is that self-referential? CityOfSilver 20:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think is wp:notable. Major prominent roles in a notable program. North8000 (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails GNG. JoshyDinda (talk) 23:48, 27 November 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! 06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arakasi[edit]
- Arakasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor character. No coverage that I can find in independent reliable sources. Normally I would suggest a redirect for this type of article, but in this case I don't think the character is even a plausible search term. Jenks24 (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable character from a series of novels.
Redirect as a character's name is a plasible search term.--Madison-chan (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- To which article? Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought there was a List of The Empire Trilogy characters page already. You should be bold and create that page and merge this character there. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone created a List of The Empire Trilogy characters article, then I'd be happy for a redirect (note, not a merge because there's no referenced content). Jenks24 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I thought there was a List of The Empire Trilogy characters page already. You should be bold and create that page and merge this character there. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To which article? Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a yet-to-be-created character list, presumably including most or all of the other characters listed on the article's nav template. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unreferenced page with no encyclopedic content. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:32, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ronins and Sailors[edit]
- Ronins and Sailors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources on the subject on the internet. Fails notability, if not WP:FUTURE. User has history of creating hoax articles on TV series. Michitaro (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:33, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Rau[edit]
- Thomas Rau (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 does not appear to qualify as notable under WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Nothing of significance found at Google News or Google Scholar. The article has no references except external links to Rau's own webpages. MelanieN (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing anything even approaching what's required for WP:ACADEMIC; a search didn't turn up anything meaningful. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TBOTNL. I can't find anything of the in-depth nature necessary to satisfy WP:GNG standards. --Jayron32 18:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TBOTNL? I thought I knew most of the Wikipedia jargon but that's a new one on me. --MelanieN (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 2 December 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! 06:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nicklaus Golf Equipment[edit]
- Nicklaus Golf Equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. Note that notability is not inherited. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The company actually has gotten quite a bit of news coverage. It could be argued that the coverage is all derivative of the Nicklaus name; if that's the consensus, it should be redirected to Jack Nicklaus rather than deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 3 December 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! 06:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile Delivery and Tracking System[edit]
- Mobile Delivery and Tracking System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software. The software that this is used alongside with was deleted by prod. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:34, 2 December 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! 06:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Masonic investigations[edit]
- List of Masonic investigations (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 list with a single item doesn't need an article -- especially when the investigation didn't find what the article claims it found. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I hate to suggest a speedy without proof, but, of the editor's 37 edits, I can't find one which is demonstrably not vandalism, except for his comments on his own talk page, which are merely personal attacks. We can only speedy delete if he's the sock of a banned editor. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a trivial overlinking edit in mainspace which could not be described as vandalism. Still, there should be some speedy deletion criterion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article creator is indefinitely blocked, so it's unlikely we'll hear from him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a trivial overlinking edit in mainspace which could not be described as vandalism. Still, there should be some speedy deletion criterion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete title... but perhaps merge content. The article consists of one paragraph that would be best presented in context by being merged into Morgan_Affair#Aftermath:_the_anti-Masonic_movement. As it is, however, notability of the topic is not established .. the only source cited in this "list" is is a single primary source... we would need a secondary source to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect a one item list is not going anywhere. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:35, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruth Brummund[edit]
- Ruth Brummund (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 astrologer appears to fall short of WP:PEOPLE. bobrayner (talk) 19:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I've been watching this article for a while without any improvements made to it. It's mostly edited by the same person who edits Uranian Astrology a lot, which is in itself a suspect article although it is definitely more worthy of inclusion than this horsesh*t biography.Pascal (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some astrologers are notable; she isn't. I could find no coverage about her. --MelanieN (talk) 01:10, 3 December 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. postdlf (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Habbo.COM representatives[edit]
- List of Habbo.COM representatives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced, unencyclopaedic non-notable list of non-notable people.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nominator. I also submit that this should have been speedy deleted. A list of non-notable people should not be in better position than a biography of a non-notable person.--PinkBull 17:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of their avatar names, not their real names. And you can check all their names at www.habbo.com/home/NAMEHERE, I'm not going to source them all, neither am I going to waffle made-up names out of the air. JackJackUK (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone suspects you of making up names. But the best place for this kind of information is on the habbo.com website itself, Wikipedia is not a directory. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is of their avatar names, not their real names. And you can check all their names at www.habbo.com/home/NAMEHERE, I'm not going to source them all, neither am I going to waffle made-up names out of the air. JackJackUK (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Pink Bull. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 18:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Beyond me how this got here in the first place. This should be on Habbo's website, not Wikipedia.--Axel™ (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability attached to topic or persons. However just so its known, it IS very possible for a list of Non-notable people to be Notable enough to keep. See here. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a Rolodex for the tech support staff of an MMORPG. Nate • (chatter) 04:55, 26 November 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. Withdrawn, as Michig points out, there are good sources. I just couldn't find them. My mistake. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beatnik Filmstars[edit]
- Beatnik Filmstars (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, no reliable sources to establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources to establish notability - from a Google search there's coverage from Allmusic, PopMatters, Trouser Press, etc. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 25 November 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. Copyright violation. — Joseph Fox 17:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eton International School[edit]
- Eton International School (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 advertorial for non-notable school. Created by a user that has a fairly obvious conflict of interest: User:Eton edu ph. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyvio from the school's About Us page. So tagged. G11 may also apply. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 25 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kayra[edit]
- Kayra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Couldn't find reliable, secondary sources. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 16:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based as apparently notable based on sources available here. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A serious reference (in Turkish) can be found here [10] Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources have been provided. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:39, 3 December 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. mentioning the term is not the same as a detailed reliable source discussing the subject Spartaz Humbug! 06:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Driving pleasure[edit]
- Driving pleasure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dicdef, OR. 3 sources are broken, the other looks like a research paper. I can't see any way to make this not a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- WP:OR - a poor quality essay. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete Of the 4 references, 3 are dead links, and two of those were never formatted as references. Most of is just a person essay giving someone's thoughts on the subject. Why I said "WEAK delete" is because the subject might be encyclopedic and wp:notable. North8000 (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would need some academic citations before I would consider retaining it. Better to start again; unless of course some one will rescue it duing the AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Fahrvergnügen to keep the history. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Currently just an essay. Could become a topic but should be called Factors that affect driving comfort or similar, as people do not always derive pleasure from speed or racing. Mattg82 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: as per Google Books and Google Scholars - numerous references to features of a car which result in "driving pleasure". "Gear ratios in the five-speed transaxle are sportingly chosen, which means fuel economy suffers in the long run , but at the gain of driving pleasur.", "A transport mode is popular if people are happy to use it", "Combining properties for driving pleasure and driving safety: a challenge for the chassis engineer"--Coin945 (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:39, 2 December 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. discarded keep as vague waves to google searches is not the same as providing a detailed reliable source Spartaz Humbug! 06:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gunblade NY[edit]
- Gunblade NY (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 fails WP:GNG because none of the references I could find were "secondary, reliable, and non-trivial." Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 16:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Just type 'Gunblade NY review' into Google and many sources come up, even a Metacritic page and a 1UP.com review. I would suggest adding to to page, though. Skullbird11 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 2 December 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! 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SomaTone Productions[edit]
- SomaTone Productions (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 in-line refs, history of edits from a banned (clearly COI) user Somatone, just an unsourced credit list. Looks like more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article.--Salvidrim! T·C 16:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Zero inline references, all of the "references" are just a list of bare links, most of which are dead, go to home pages (with no content on this subject) of other websites, or one is to somebody's restricted persona page on a job site or something like that. The "content" is just a list of companies which the editor claims that that the subject is "contracted with" or product which the editor claims contain content from this company. Looks like a brazen, vague and badly done attempt at COI promotion. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I created this article from a userpage that was abandoned. I did not (to my regret) check the refs, but did trim out some obviously improper material. I actually created it to see if it would stand on its own, as we often do have overly promotional articles that are despite that still notable. Unless someone can find really good sources, i am fine with deletion. I tend to be an inclusionist, and decided to give this company a chance here. I have no great insight into how notable they really are. I hope no one thinks of me as engaged in COI promotion, as i had not even heard of them until i found the user page. what i should have done before creating it, is find possible refs: [11] is somewhat marginal as a source (the site does have its own article stub here), but does state the companies significance in the field, and may count as a third party ref (assuming the site and the company arent friends). But, thats all i could find. Their proximity to Pixar and other computer companies hasnt given them much coverage.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking the company might actually be notable (if proper research was done), but the article, as it is right now, does strictly nothing to establish that -- in fact, in my eye, it does the opposite. --Salvidrim! T·C 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trimmed out dead refs, added their IMDB pages (under 2 company name variants). not much left. i will note they were mentioned in 6 WP articles before i created it, all linked to it right now. Yes, they may be notable, and since this info can easily be recreated if proven notable at a later date, its not a huge loss if deleted now.this deletion discussion describes the company as notable in passing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of that discussion, but they present no evidence that this is notable either. --Salvidrim! T·C 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, of course. PS thanks for your civility here, I could have seen someone tearing me a new one for this decision:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- *shrugs* I know it's done in good faith and that you're technically not the author. :) --Salvidrim! T·C 03:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct, of course. PS thanks for your civility here, I could have seen someone tearing me a new one for this decision:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware of that discussion, but they present no evidence that this is notable either. --Salvidrim! T·C 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trimmed out dead refs, added their IMDB pages (under 2 company name variants). not much left. i will note they were mentioned in 6 WP articles before i created it, all linked to it right now. Yes, they may be notable, and since this info can easily be recreated if proven notable at a later date, its not a huge loss if deleted now.this deletion discussion describes the company as notable in passing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm thinking the company might actually be notable (if proper research was done), but the article, as it is right now, does strictly nothing to establish that -- in fact, in my eye, it does the opposite. --Salvidrim! T·C 02:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - they do seem to have received some coverage from semi-reliable sources: see [12] (linked above), [13], [14]. This is a marginal case though, and I can't say we'd really miss this article if it was deleted. Robofish (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:40, 2 December 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! 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Briley Manufacturing[edit]
- Briley Manufacturing (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:CORP. Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find significatn news coverage to demonstrate notability. --MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 3 December 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. can't merge if its unsourced Spartaz Humbug! 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Research Systems Unix Group[edit]
- Research Systems Unix 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)
Fails WP:GROUP. Software developed (other articles) have similar problems, but I'll hold off on AfDing them until a discussion of this article is complete. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - At least one of their projects (Fugu (software)) appears to be potentially notable but I find no independent mention of the group. --Kvng (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to University of Michigan. —Ruud 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge/redirect as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 2 December 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! 06:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zebari Kurds[edit]
- Zebari Kurds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Bbb23 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:41, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Power Continuity Systems[edit]
- Power Continuity Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is an advertisement, notability not established per WP:CORP, only two references are corporate press releases. Brianhe (talk) 02:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:27, 18 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of third-party published sources (e.g. in Google news archive) that could help it pass WP:ORG. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could not find significant coverage of this company. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that there are sufficient sources to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael King (graphic designer)[edit]
- Michael King (graphic designer) (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, on its face except for an unsourced claim to having gained national acclaim. Tagged for notability over a year ago, and for being an orphan for almost a year. Epeefleche (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is a newspaper source linked which goes a long way toward establishing notability. This source, from the Portland Business Journal, would help too. A little work should make for a nice stub. Ideally the nominator should look for sources prior to nominating. -Pete (talk) 04:48, 24 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Peteforsyth, it is possible to find out more about this interesting artist, [15], [16]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:46, 27 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Werner Randelshofer[edit]
- Werner Randelshofer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to reflect notability. Tagged for notability, etc, for over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 04:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 19 November 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His app might be notable, but I don't see evidence that he himself is. Web searches find a few stray mentions, social media, and lots of contact info -only hits. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:43, 2 December 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! 06:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Batch files renamer[edit]
- Batch files renamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article about a non-notable shareware utility. Its only claims to fame are one obscure award and five stars given by one user on a download site. Contested prod. Fails WP:GNG. andy (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom, i am agree with you that this software is new,but i used that software and i like it, so i just want to share a software which works perfectly to Rename multiple Files. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.58.139.63 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC) — 120.58.139.63 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - no reliable 3rd party refs to establish notability of this software; created by an SPA with same name as company, so likely spam/promotional Dialectric (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok you can delete this page from Wikipedia,but one thing i want to say that i have not created this account for Promotion of this software,as i said before i just want to share a good software which works perfectly to Rename multiple Files. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.179.132.3 (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BrotherSoft.com Added Batch File Renamer in Recommended Download.I think that Brothersoft.com is a reliable Source.What you think Guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.58.137.50 (talk) 13:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article does not really have any relieble sources (only reference claims to be a review but actually appears to be a download link). Untill more 3rd party sources are available, I'd say this whould go, it feels like it's just an ad. As a ide note, if it is kept, the reviews section need to state reactions to the program and source the reviews, not just link to them. Millermk90 (talk) 05:21, 3 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health[edit]
- OraTaiao: New Zealand Climate and Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Too close paraphrasing of [17]. Doubt about notability due to the few hits. It mightbe a coincidence that most hits occur in the same period as the launch of this article, what might be signalling a campagne or event. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indicaiton of wp:notability. Of the two reference, one is their own website, the other is to the home page of another organization, no link to the specific material within it. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonprofit advocacy group which has not yet achieved the notability needed for WP:ORG. Google News search found only one reference [18] from a Reliable Source. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 16:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for peer review, it seems notability is not met. I'll take heart from the "not yet" (better than "will never"). It is hard for small advocacy groups with no funding to get traction in Reliable Sources. This group is appropriately referenced in the Climate_change_in_New_Zealand article. George (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:44, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Characters of Hindu mythology[edit]
- Characters of Hindu mythology (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 random list of people with similar names in Hindu mythology. Seems to be a collection of disambiguation. Hindu mythology already exists Redtigerxyz Talk 11:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz Talk 11:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz Talk 11:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only two "references" given are internal links to Wikipedia articles. Looks like pure OR. North8000 (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this material covered in an actual article somewhere? North8000 (talk) 13:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. A random list, there are notable list, and this isn't one. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP should cover this information, but it needs a better treatment than this. BigJim707 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - upon a quick review, it reads like a content fork. Bearian (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete No need for this superfluous list. Rabbabodrool (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:45, 2 December 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. is apparantly a fork Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Atomic Kitten songs[edit]
- List of Atomic Kitten songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redundant information. The discography already covers all the notable songs. Also, most of the new song entries use user-submitted Youtube videos as a source. Novice7 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and emphasizing that it ia a duplication/fork. . Why would there be a "list of songs" article when there is a "discography" article for them? North8000 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the large category Lists of songs by authors or performers. I think it would be illogical to delete this article without considering the very large number of pages of the same category. It would be better to reach a new consensus (if necessary) about this kind of pages which are, in fact, currently considered legitimate. In addition, it is not redundant with the artist's discography since discographies include only singles, not all songs by an artist. And links to Youtube can be removed and replaced with a link providing the track listing. --Europe22 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, A discography and a list of songs are not the same thing, assuming this list is reasonably complete it covers things not in the discography. I would have been more impressed with the list if it actually named the songwriters! --Richhoncho (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or purge non-notable songs) as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:46, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Donga (ditch)[edit]
- Donga (ditch) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
un-notable DicDef, and completely unsourced. Hasn't grown from a 2-line stub in the 4 years it has existed Guinness2702 (talk) 10:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is basically a dictionary entry, a word for things better known by other words.North8000 (talk) 13:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:47, 2 December 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. exists is not the same as written about Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Tell Mama[edit]
- Don't Tell Mama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Hopefully the category is correct.) I doubt that this bar is notable. My speedy deletion was declined last month because it was regular seen in 'Friends', but in my eyes this isn't enough for getting its own article in an encyclopedia. Moreover it is totally unreferenced and I can't find any good reliable source. mabdul 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The venue is 2 blocks from Times Square, has been in business for 30 years and is obviously well known enough (Google alone!) to have its own article. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: please read WP:GHITS. I know that there is a bar in Wiesbaden for over 35 years, but that is not any reason for getting an entry in this encyclopedia, there might be hundreds of thousands bars out there which are long business. Please provide relaible sources! mabdul 16:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Times Square! And then stop giving me orders! I do not need any advice from you of any kind.
- And WP:OSE#General avoidance principle may also be of interest to you.
- You have no idea how tiresome that argument is: this person is no more important than I am, so why does h/s get a WP article?!?!
- Who ever said "hundreds of thousands bars out there which are long business" all should have articles? Why ever infer something sarcastic like that, rather than sticking to this subject?
- This article in no way does any damage of any kind to English WP or the project's credibibilty.
- I have a right to my opinion, you have a right to yours. Respect that, please!
- If you wish to judge this article according to "Wiesbaden" standards (however that's supposed to be relevant?), and keep trying over and over again to get it deleted, that's your prerogative. Let's hope a New Yorker or two will join the discussions, and that you do not succeed with this campaign of yours.
- PS: Wiesbaden is a very lovely town, I've been there several times. But it ain't Times Square. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: please read WP:GHITS. I know that there is a bar in Wiesbaden for over 35 years, but that is not any reason for getting an entry in this encyclopedia, there might be hundreds of thousands bars out there which are long business. Please provide relaible sources! mabdul 16:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, couldn't find any non-trivial mentions. Maybe redirect to Living in a Moment, which contains a song by this name. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources are the bar website and a trivial listing from 2004.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Company website claims: DTM is located on Restaurant Row in the heart of the Theatre District. An award winning venue, featured in numerous TV Shows from “Friends” to “Saturday Night Live”. Performers who began their careers at Don’t Tell Mama have gone on to become the $100,000 Grand Prize Winner on “Star Search”, win the Emmy, Grammy, Tony, Oscar and the Pulitzer Prize!. Maybe (just maybe) notability could be established by tracking down notable awards and notable performers? --Northernhenge (talk) 19:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubtful with the awards. "Award winning" is usually a red flag for "non-notable award that means as much as a gold star on your test". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; fails the GNG. I would advise SergeWoodzing not to make the discussion personal, and to assume good faith. If the subject is notable, feel free to demonstrate that. bobrayner (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, and I'm sorry if I seemed to make the discussion personal! I have tried very hard for years to try to understand WP deletion policies, which seem liberal in some instances and strict in others, but I have come not one iota closer to successs. I sincerely regret getting involved here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - it's certainly famous in NYC, but it may not be notable in the usual sense. 22:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian (talk • contribs)
- Weak delete — well-known, yes; famous, no. — Robert Greer (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It gets a few mentions in serious New York media [19] [20], but these are along the lines of "so-and-so is appearing at..." rather than being ABOUT the venue. And I don't really think that being in business for 30 years qualifies this cabaret, or any other business, as remarkable. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to Ten Pound Hammer, who suggested a possible redirect to Living in a Moment: If this title were to be redirected anywhere, it should be to Cabaret (musical), which contains a very well known song by this name - a song that this cabaret is named after. --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. I don't see clear consensus for a move, it may be better to discuss it on the talk page first. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Melapalayam[edit]
- Melapalayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tanzeel Ahad 09:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- What is the rationale for this deletion? This does seem to be a real place. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks like a real place, and not tiny. Abiity to meet wp:notability is near certain. Article has problems that are not relevant here. North8000 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move to Melapalayam, Tirunelveli. Villages are notable per editor consensus. There is another village named Melapalayam in Karur District. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1: "The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion". Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and speedily. It's obviously a real and notable place, as shown by over 100 mentions in mainstream newspapers.[21] First Light (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and slap the nominator with a WP:TROUT. One of the most bone-headed nominations in recent memory. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The place has its own website www.melapalayam.co.in. May this can be changed to Melapalayam,Tirunelveli. -- Mdrasiq (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 November 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 Procedural keep. This AfD has been open for more than four days, and nobody, not even the nominator, has provided a rationale in support of deletion. If anyone has a reason that they want to delete this article, they can renominate it at AfD. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Microbridge[edit]
- Microbridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tanzeel Ahad 09:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanzeelahad (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question What is the rationale for this AFD nomination? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep No reason given for deletion. Nominator clearly did not execute WP:BEFORE obligations. --Kvng (talk) 17:51, 27 November 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 kept under criterion #1 (nominator withdrew, no dissenting opinions). Non-admin action. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Fisher (architect)[edit]
- Alan Fisher (architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Could not find any proof of notability. Being married to a notable person is not enough. --Elekhh (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've inserted proof of notability into the article. We could make the article bigger and more extensive, but the source establishes it without doubt. Q.E.D., Res ipsa loquitor. That is all. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep There are several hits on Alan B. Fisher. He's credited in reliable sources with at least one specific notable building here (the Ship Tavern) and here (renovation of the Central City Opera House, which is on the National Register of Historic Places). He also appears several times in Denver, the City Beautiful and its Architects, 1893–1941, but all the snippet view will let me see is gossip. I must admit the preponderance of sources I see discuss him in the context of the Fisher & Fisher company, like the one added by 7&6=thirteen. It startles me that he has an article but his father William Ellsworth Fisher apparently doesn't; this seems to be the usual balance in discussion of the firm. However, being less famous than one's father is not an automatic disqualification, and there seems to be adequate coverage of him, although someone who knows Denver and/or has access to books on its architecture such as that last one is going to have a much better chance of adding suitable references than I do.Yngvadottir (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Of course it is not surprising that I would say this since what is there was all put in by me. Well, at least until User 7+6 = 13 showed up and beefed out my stub quite a bit. (Thanks. I count that as a KEEP too) Fisher's best known building is probably the Denver Public Library and that is largely because of the addition by Michael Graves. As far as his father and uncle are concerned (see above comment) I am researching them as well. My master plan for articles on all the Fishers involves following a social network to Alan Fisher's daughter, where I am hoping to get access to family archival material, perhaps learn more about William's suicide, etc. Now I can hear the original research posse not so quietly going berserk, but I believe that a look at my work here will reveal a long term editor with a pretty good track record in doing responsible editing and that if the deletionists can hang on for a while wikipedia will be amply rewarded with a couple of good articles. Alan Fisher was/is probably more famous that his wife, you just know about her because I wrote a wikipedia article about her. I found a wonderful article about Fisher and his wife's interactions with D. H. Lawrence that will make a great source - and so it goes. I beg you not to do anything rash. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thanks for the article improvements, now it looks much better, and is demonstrated that the Fischers are notable. Maybe would be worth contemplating having an article about the family firm with the individual names redirecting there. --Elekhh (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I concur with the plan of Carptrash. I do think that some of the content and sources that have come up in this discussion could be profitably used in the article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there are enough sources for this as a separate article from Fisher & Fisher article, created recently, which had not mentioned Alan, now links to this article. --doncram 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice link. I believe that Fisher & Fisher were his father and uncle. But we will know more as the story unfolds. In its own good time. Carptrash (talk) 02:33, 28 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cinematism[edit]
- Cinematism (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 neologism that is based on one reliable source that says Quentin Tarantino writes scripts while listening to music. The term "cinematism" isn't used in the source and what is described in the article is not what Tarantino talks about in the source. The other two quotes are sourced to wikis, but again, they just say that Tarantino is inspired by music, not that he "creates cinematography with [his] mind using music". It appears this is a term made up by the author of the article, and is original research. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom: neologism. No reliable sources.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The sources provided don't use this term to describe the activity under discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For this definition, failed neologism and possibly fails as WP:OR. There does seem to be some coverage for this term in Paul Virilio's understanding of the word; e.g., see page 5 here. See also this Google Book search. However, as term under Virilio's understanding only really gets tossed around when Virilio's ideas are discussed, I think any WP coverage of it belongs within his article. Other uses of the word seem to be mostly various people's on-the-spot inventions, having various meanings related to the cinema. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:55, 26 November 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! 06:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ERROL[edit]
- ERROL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Every reference on this page is by Yoav Raz or someone who has coauthored with him. Google scholar has 5 hits (three of them linked) for "Entity Relationship Role Oriented Language" and nothing in the first five pages (50 docs) for "ERROL" appears to be related. It does not appear to have been used in any notable systems. In short there appears to be no evidence of notability for this language. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepDelete - it's too long and quite repetitivebut I can't see any clear reason to delete it. It's more than just an experimental language to illustrate a single point. Admittedly it's unlikely to feature on anyone's list of languages they've heard of (SQL is extremely dominant in the field),but the references suggest it is notable enough to have appeared in a few refereed journal articles, thoughthe number of distinct authors is small. --Northernhenge (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Google scholar for the narrow search expression [errol "entity relationship" language markowitz] [22] gives 29 hits. 9 of them are related to the authors of ERROL, Victor M. Markowitz and Yoav Raz. 20 of them are references to ERROL by other authors. The Google scholar search indicated at the page top as a reason for deletion (5 hits) is far from providing a complete citation picture of ERROL; as well it is far from being an indication to the level of interest in ERROL by database query language professionals and many other people interested in convenient access to database information. ERfan111 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This number is also supported by Arnetminer which includes only notable conferences and journals: The single conference ERROL article has a 26 count. Without RRA (2) and other Dr. Markowitz's citations (3) the number 20+ for (conferences and journals) citations is supported.ERfan111 (talk) 09:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — ERfan111 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reshaped relational algebra --Northernhenge (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd also include Talk:Entity_Relationship_Role_Oriented_Language in this AfD, which is an orphaned talk page (which I believe can technically be speedied but should probably be included here). Stuartyeates (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The question here is the notability of ERROL. ERROL and its related articles have been published in notable refereed journal and conferences (see references in ERROL). ERROL has won the national computer science award by ILA in Israel. ERROL has been referenced in at least 20 academic publications by authors different from, and unrelated to the ERROL authors (see my comment above). This establishes sufficient notability. ERfan111 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reference for ERROL receiving this award? Neither the ILA nor the award appear to have wikipedia pages, so it seems unlikely that winning the award automatically grants notability to the recipients. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source I know is Dr. Yoav Raz's personal site (resume and ERROL page). Dr. Raz may have/know other sources. Also Dr. Victor M. Markowitz who is a co-recipient should be able to acknowledge this (email?). Both were at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (CS) at that time and they should have a record. Also ILA themselves, of course. For me the testimony of Dr. Raz is more than satisfactory, and I see no reason to further inquire. Regarding "unlikely that winning the award automatically grants notability to the recipients" I already have seen this idea when you actively participated in the delition of the article Yoav Raz. But now you seem to be confusing award recipient with the reason for award: They got the award because they created ERROL! I find this argument here very strange. BTW, the notability of Dr. Raz is primarily because of Commitment ordering which you have also tried to delete and rightfully failed. ERROL (together with Reshaped relational algebra which you have deleted as well) is just one of his achievements. ERfan111 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "For me the testimony of Dr. Raz is more than satisfactory, and I see no reason to further inquire." - if implemented, that would be an uncommonly clear violation of NOR. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only source I know is Dr. Yoav Raz's personal site (resume and ERROL page). Dr. Raz may have/know other sources. Also Dr. Victor M. Markowitz who is a co-recipient should be able to acknowledge this (email?). Both were at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology (CS) at that time and they should have a record. Also ILA themselves, of course. For me the testimony of Dr. Raz is more than satisfactory, and I see no reason to further inquire. Regarding "unlikely that winning the award automatically grants notability to the recipients" I already have seen this idea when you actively participated in the delition of the article Yoav Raz. But now you seem to be confusing award recipient with the reason for award: They got the award because they created ERROL! I find this argument here very strange. BTW, the notability of Dr. Raz is primarily because of Commitment ordering which you have also tried to delete and rightfully failed. ERROL (together with Reshaped relational algebra which you have deleted as well) is just one of his achievements. ERfan111 (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Publishing articles in peer-reviewed and citing each other's work is what scientists do for a living. This alone doesn't each of the approximately 2 million computer science papers that have been published notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Clearly, winning a Turing Award would make both the author and their work instantly notable. Winning a departmental award given only to local faculty probably not. Do your have 1) some background information on the ILA award and 2) can you cite any papers that discuss ERROL in more depth than merely citing it in the bibliography? —Ruud 10:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a person involved with Academia you should know that honest unbiased scientists cite articles only when relevant, and not "citing each other's work is what scientists do for a living". I hope that as a young scientist yourself you do not adopt such ugly cynical practice, which no academic institute would endorse. Thus accusing 20+ articles (of authors different from the ERROL authors, and unrelated) is indeed an unjustified insult to all these authors.
- Of course ERROL is not among the most notable (Turing award - a very high tree), but you well know that most scientific articles here are not backed by Turing award or alike. The ILA award is a National Israeli award. Also not the most notable, but notable among all Israeli IT professionals and academics at least. ERROL's notability is not confined to Israel alone, as the 20+ citations show.
- About ILA award: I do not know much about it, except that computer science is among few categories in which it is given. You can google ["ILA award" Israel] and see some related entries. Hebrew search probably will provide more entries.
- "can you cite any papers that discuss ERROL in more depth than merely citing it in the bibliography?": In other deletion discusion of WP article connected to Yoav Raz, where like User:Stuartyeatesyou have been active in, it already was said that most citations (in respected articles) do not elaborate on the cited articles, and only text books do this. I have not seen an elaboration on ERROL, but only on its foundation Reshaped reletional algebra.
- ERfan111 (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not intend my comment to be interpreted in such a cynical way. I meant to say that citing is so common that it does not automatically imply scientific work is notable if it has received a few citations, not that citing is in any way a morally deplorable action. Pretty much all published work receives some citations in other work, but these vary in weight from acknowledging prior work ("a colleague at a different university did related work in [x]") to "[x] is the seminal paper this text book is based on" followed by an extensive discussion of the original paper n follow-ups by others. The context of citations is very important here (also see a few of the common criticisms of the h-index), even though the absolute citation count here doesn't seem to be very high in the first place.
- For example, all the references I've included at Generalized algebraic data type have received an adequate number of citations, but likely none of those works (including the theory and algorithms developed therein) is notable enough to warrant an individual article. It's only the subject take as a whole - comprising of several papers by several authors at several universities - that is notable. Even though, and contrary to your claim, most of these articles are discussed at more depth than only one or two sentences in other articles. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize scientific knowledge, not to republish everything that has already been published in academic journals. CCS is an example of work that obviously deserves a separate article, CO is a borderline case and RRA, in my opinion, did not receive enough attention in academia to warrant a separate encyclopedic entry. I'm not yet convinced where on this scale ERROL might fall, clearly somewhere between CO and RRA, but that could still become either a weak keep or a delete. —Ruud 14:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Pretty much all published work receives some citations in other work" - I disagree: An article is cited only if of interest to other work (assuming no abuse and cynicism). Quite many get no citations at all, or very small numbers. Randomly pls check in arnetminer.
- [ERROL] "did not receive enough attention in academia to warrant a separate encyclopedic entry" - I disagree. What is the "right" number and type of citations? ERROL and RRA are unique and special and provide a new, user-friendly approach to data management languages. They are described in several articles cited in ERROL, which are cited in the relevant articles in their area. Not always notability can be measured just by the number and type of citations, as common in Academia. Though not known to be implemented beyond its prototype it has received a national award and it is a "heavy enough" subject to warrant a WP article(s). Deleting it will be a disservice to WP users and closing for them an important aspect of data management. ERfan111 (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a reference for ERROL receiving this award? Neither the ILA nor the award appear to have wikipedia pages, so it seems unlikely that winning the award automatically grants notability to the recipients. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Most academic articles are incremental in their contribution. The ERROL approach is a jump, a new concept. A new Idea needs to be sold, also in Academia, and the authors did not seem to make much effort here (Dr. Raz did not submit his accepted to DKE major ERROL article "since was too busy"; see his ERROL page). Thus ERROL needs to be judged by objective experts in Data management and Database languages who can properly evaluate it (WP should have access to such), rather than by a citation count and arbitrary threshold. ERfan111 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Borderline notable academic work. Does not pass WP:GNG ("topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). A complete lack of inline references, peacock language and excessive zealotry surrounding these article does not help either. —Ruud 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment is a total distortion of facts (a continuation by Ruud on a journey of deletion and tagging with no explanation (by "Neutrality disputed") of at least 13 articles related to Commitment ordering and Dr. Yoav Raz):
- "Does not pass WP:GNG ("topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")" - No. 20+ direct independent citations (some more indirect by RRA). National award.
- "A complete lack of inline references" - No. The article uses the legitimate Inline parenthetical referencing. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing.
- "peacock language" - No. Simple language. Facts and only facts.
- "excessive zealotry surrounding these article" - No. You may find some fanaticism from me here, but not in the article. Very restrained language, with understatement. Facts and only facts.
- Comment - I previously said weak keep. The above discussion has not made me feel any stronger about it. It's a concern that no other significant sources have come to light. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources known to me are summarized in my comment above. Additional possible one can be the ILA CS award citation and its academic committee, if found. The discussion has not added any new sources, but rather took place to dispute additional claims against the article. ERfan111 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a shame. It would be good to have more articles in this area but the nomination said: "there appears to be no evidence of notability for this language". I now agree. I've changed my position to delete. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources known to me are summarized in my comment above. Additional possible one can be the ILA CS award citation and its academic committee, if found. The discussion has not added any new sources, but rather took place to dispute additional claims against the article. ERfan111 (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User:Ruud Koot, who is not an expert in the related areas (of ERROL and Commitment ordering), needs to explain why he has tagged with "neutrality disputed" related to Commitment ordering 10 (!) articles at least (he probably followed all links in CO to its utilization). He was asked to explain it in the respective article's discussions pages, but no reply. Such tagging requires a good understanding of the subject. If he cannot explain the tagging with a reasonable explanation, he should disqualify himself here due to bias. ERfan111 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruud also wrongly downgraded the importance ranking of Commitment ordering from "High" to "Low" though he is not an expert in database concurrency control. There is no doubt about the high importance of CO. Changing importance should be done only by a person with a very good knowledge and understanding in the subject. ERfan111 (talk) 13:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that User:Ruud Koot has to do anything, unless there's a policy I'm overlooking. I'm not sure that I've seen all ten, but I've seen several and they seem fine to me. (List them if you like and I'll go through them.) "neutrality disputed" is a perfectly reasonable tag to use when a WP:SPA is active on the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you are confusing the facts: I, ERfan111, am a WP:SPA. Ruud has put the 10+ tags for Commitment ordering done by User:Comps. He is not a WP:SPA. I see he has been involved with multiple articles, especially his work in Database, reorganizing it and increasing its size from about 26k to >100K. Thus Ruud's tagging is for another reason, not WP:SPA, and I want to know why. I suspect a bias of Ruud against Dr. Yoav Raz who is the author of Commitment ordering and a co-author of ERROL and RRA. ERfan111 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't say what I may or may not be doing without direct knowledge. If you are going to make claims against User:Ruud Koot I suggest that you give diffs or point to direct evidence. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said the reason is WP:SPA, and this is clearly incorrect regardless of any knowledge (?) you may have, as I show above. I do not know what diffs you are referring to, but anybody can see Ruud's "neutrality disputed" tag for Commitment ordering (seen at edit mode) in Concurrency control, Serializability, Global serializability, Distributed concurrency control, Software transactional memory, Snapshot isolation, and more. The most interesting is his tag in Two-phase commit protocol#Tree two-phase commit protocol: Commitment ordering is not mentioned there and irrelevant, but the word "commit" appears all over, and the section is referenced to Yoav Raz's article and the textbook Weikum and Vossen 2001. Weikum and Vossen 2001 explicitly say their respective book section is based on that Yoav Raz reference. So, just a "naive" mistake by Ruud to put there irrelevant tag? It also clearly shows he does not understand the subject, confusing "Commit protocol" with "Commit ordering. ERfan111 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say the reason User:Ruud Koot tagged those articles was because of an SPA. What I know of User:Ruud Koot's motivations is solely what can be deduced from public actions on WP and to the best of my knowledge they have not disclosed motivations explicitly. I put forward a possible motivation which seemed reasonable to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Ruud Koot also took an active part in the deletion of the articles Yoav Raz, History of commitment ordering, Reshaped relational algebra, related to Yoav Raz, as well as the attempt to delete Commitment ordering, as the discussion records show. All these "achievements" of Ruud here and above took place during the last three weeks. ERfan111 (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of Yoav Raz should be appealed: His Commitment ordering, B-tree concurrency control, and Dynamic two-phase commit protocol works are detailed and referenced in the textbook Weikum and Vossen 2001, the latest text on transaction concurrency control (ERROL is another area). This fact which validates his notability, I see has been overlooked in the Yoav Raz deletion discussion. ERfan111 (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The process for this is laid out at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The deletion of Yoav Raz should be appealed: His Commitment ordering, B-tree concurrency control, and Dynamic two-phase commit protocol works are detailed and referenced in the textbook Weikum and Vossen 2001, the latest text on transaction concurrency control (ERROL is another area). This fact which validates his notability, I see has been overlooked in the Yoav Raz deletion discussion. ERfan111 (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said the reason is WP:SPA, and this is clearly incorrect regardless of any knowledge (?) you may have, as I show above. I do not know what diffs you are referring to, but anybody can see Ruud's "neutrality disputed" tag for Commitment ordering (seen at edit mode) in Concurrency control, Serializability, Global serializability, Distributed concurrency control, Software transactional memory, Snapshot isolation, and more. The most interesting is his tag in Two-phase commit protocol#Tree two-phase commit protocol: Commitment ordering is not mentioned there and irrelevant, but the word "commit" appears all over, and the section is referenced to Yoav Raz's article and the textbook Weikum and Vossen 2001. Weikum and Vossen 2001 explicitly say their respective book section is based on that Yoav Raz reference. So, just a "naive" mistake by Ruud to put there irrelevant tag? It also clearly shows he does not understand the subject, confusing "Commit protocol" with "Commit ordering. ERfan111 (talk) 08:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't say what I may or may not be doing without direct knowledge. If you are going to make claims against User:Ruud Koot I suggest that you give diffs or point to direct evidence. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again you are confusing the facts: I, ERfan111, am a WP:SPA. Ruud has put the 10+ tags for Commitment ordering done by User:Comps. He is not a WP:SPA. I see he has been involved with multiple articles, especially his work in Database, reorganizing it and increasing its size from about 26k to >100K. Thus Ruud's tagging is for another reason, not WP:SPA, and I want to know why. I suspect a bias of Ruud against Dr. Yoav Raz who is the author of Commitment ordering and a co-author of ERROL and RRA. ERfan111 (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that User:Ruud Koot has to do anything, unless there's a policy I'm overlooking. I'm not sure that I've seen all ten, but I've seen several and they seem fine to me. (List them if you like and I'll go through them.) "neutrality disputed" is a perfectly reasonable tag to use when a WP:SPA is active on the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on citation: Some academic areas are more popular (often temporarily) than other. This means that they enjoy a high number of publications. If they are "crowded", works get closer in ideas, and thus multiple citations and comparisons exist to show distinction for publication acceptance. If a cited subject is not close or similar, only a reference is sufficient, with no elaboration. A very hot subject today is, for example, Quantum computing with an explosion in publications. Completely different and modest is the area of database languages (used to be hotter in the 1960s-70s, at early databases, before SQL and ERROL). Thus much less total citations. From an independent author point of view, ERROL, being different and apart from almost all database languages, typically needs no elaboration and comparison to the author's (different) work when cited. ERfan111 (talk) 13:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The situation is different in textbooks. They intend to elaborate. Unfortunately I do not know of a book on database languages in the last few decades. I'm sure that such a book will dedicate to ERROL more than an adequate coverage, but such a book is quite unlikely due to lack of sufficient interest beyond few researchers, as far as I can see. Regular modern texts cover few languages in use like SQL and possibly languages for the implemented data models Object model and possibly XML. ERfan111 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're not aware of any database language books published recently, I suggest that you start here. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Preceding discussion pretty much nails it. To establish notability under WP:GNG, you need reliable independent secondary sources. There aren't any. Notability here means other people not connected with the product thought it was worth writing about, not just the author thinks it's pretty cool and wrote a lot about it. Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You ignore what I wrote in the comment above. Articles cannot be too long and do not detail beyond citation if unnecessary to establish their own uniqueness relatively to the citation. 20+ citations in a quite dormant area is sufficient for establishing notability. ERfan111 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of the need for independent sources to establish notability seems confusing? You don't have them. Stick a fork in it. It's done. Msnicki (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People deserve to know about languages beyond SQL and some other implemented languages, especially if a language presents a new idea with potential, and is not some superficial idea, but rather covered with thorough cited research work. People delete the article here in this discussion by far too simplistic criteria, beating the purpose of WP. Kind of automatic. ERfan111 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People deserve to know about languages beyond SQL and some other implemented languages [...] I invite you to look over Query language, which lists a great many languages other than SQL. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent sources are the selective committees that selected the ERROL articles for publication: The committees of the Entity Relationship 1983 conference and the Journal of Systems and Software. ERfan111 (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An independent source is the 1984 ILA computer science award citation text and the names on the committee that decided this. I do not have it yet. ERfan111 (talk) 06:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- People deserve to know about languages beyond SQL and some other implemented languages, especially if a language presents a new idea with potential, and is not some superficial idea, but rather covered with thorough cited research work. People delete the article here in this discussion by far too simplistic criteria, beating the purpose of WP. Kind of automatic. ERfan111 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What part of the need for independent sources to establish notability seems confusing? You don't have them. Stick a fork in it. It's done. Msnicki (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You ignore what I wrote in the comment above. Articles cannot be too long and do not detail beyond citation if unnecessary to establish their own uniqueness relatively to the citation. 20+ citations in a quite dormant area is sufficient for establishing notability. ERfan111 (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Much ado about nothing. Just do it and move on. History2007 (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Just one article among all the many WP is nothing, so why all the ado about its deletion? One article more or less will change nothing. Thus, when you are absolutely board, and find nothing else to do but spending several months writing a WP article, do not be stupid (everybody, not only History2007): Be very careful about notability. Otherwise your article will eventually be deleted. Stay on safe ground. Write only about a very notable subject rather than, for example, about an esoteric database language. Take for example a notable subject like Supercomputing. But an article already exists! So take another absolutely notable subject like China, and write a new article, as History2007 did, about Supercomputing in China. Notability squared! (notability*notability). When using this formula you are completely safe, with a very large number of possible new articles, and a huge contribution to WP. All that you have to do later is to update your article from time to time as the map changes, which will continue to take care of your boredom, while enjoying looking from time to time how other articles are being deleted massively (you may even add your own Delete for the fun, and also feel fulfilled when "protecting" WP from unnecessary, noisy articles). ERfan111 (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article gives WP:UNDUE coverage of one specific entity-relationship language. What would be more appropriate would be a Wikipedia article on such languages more generally, giving appropriate coverage to the several other ones that are more notable than ERROL. As for the 29 hits in an early comment from ERfan (whose name does not exactly convey an image of neutrality): most of them appear to be primarily about other e-r languages and tools and only cite ERROL as part of their competition, rather than having nontrivial coverage of ERROL specifically. For instance, the first one, "A graphical data manipulation language", does not even mention ERROL in the main text of the paper, only includes a reference to it at the end in a collection of "nongraphical ER languages". The second one, on SQL/EER, only has one sentence citing ERROL and four other languages. The third one (skipping the ones by the ERROL authors themselves) is the one on QBD*, again includes it in passing as one of five citations for the phrase "fourth generation languages". So I'm also not convinced that there's really adequate depth of third-party coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Smoke (novel)[edit]
- Smoke (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another editor's PROD reasoning: "Article about a book which is not due to be published until 2013 (see What Wikipedia is not and the notability guidelines for books. Does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines." Also, the two references go to the author's website and to Goodreads (the content of which can be edited by all Goodreads "librarians") -- not independent/reliable sources. This may be notable in the future, but the book isn't even due to be released this or next year. — Jean Calleo (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: We can revisit the issue in 2 years once its released, or possibly before then if it somehow generates a lot of significant coverage prior to that point. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What about redirecting the title to Burned_(Hopkins_novel)#Sequel? The section cites author's website: I never planned a sequel [to Burned], but I now plan to write Smoke, from the POVs of both Pattyn and her sister Jackie. That book will likely be a 2013 YA. [23] I think it could be useful, as people await impatiently any information about the publishing of the book. (see comments at Goodreads). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The book has had no reviews in which to build an article. References used are not independent or reliable. As Qwyrxian correctly says, we can revisit the issue in 2 years time once it has been released and reviews have been made about the book. --BSTemple (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:51, 2 December 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! 06:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Brumfield[edit]
- Amanda Brumfield (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, (notability is not inherited through the relationship to her farther) and as tragic as this homicide is, there is nothing to suggest any lasting significance to the crime. What coverage there is is limited to the routine coverage of a news story nothing more. Mtking (edits) 05:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As said by the nom., notability is not transferred by familial relation. Also, she fails the WP:PERP notability test since the references are only "contemporaneous news coverage." Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 06:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PERP and having a famous father doesn't make her notable.Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Yes I agree being the daughter of a famous person doesnt make her notable. But her crime in itself and the fact that it has been covered by major media outlets makes it so. She isnt less notable then many other "murderess" that has articles on wikipedia. One could argue that this article shouldnt be treated different when it comes to notability based on merits just because she is the daughter of a famous person.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PERP, local news of no global nor historical interest. - DonCalo (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:PERP. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 2 December 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. consensus is there is no sourced content so nothing to merge. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Live Trax Vol. 1[edit]
- Live Trax Vol. 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references of any type, and I have been unable to find any. Album is only available through band's website--not sold in stores or through other online sites. No indication of any notability as required by WP:MUSIC. I originally redirected this album to the discography page back in June, but the redirect was undone. I'm finally getting around to sending these to AfD, and will be bundling all of the Dave Matthew's Band Live Trax albums except one which did have enough reliable independent sources. As I bundle them, I will note any references that do appear in case people want to consider some of the albums independently. Also, note that sometimes references exist, but do nothing other than verify "At Local Stadium X, DMB played (review concert). This concert was recorded and will be available on the DMB website as Live Trax #X"--such references do not adequately meet WP:GNG. For each album, we should leave behind a redirect to the appropriate section of the Dave Matthews Band discography page. An alternative solution would be to try to write a single album on the Live Trax series, but I'm not sure if there is enough useful information that isn't already covered at the discography article; that can be done at any time even following successful redirection of these articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following is a complete list of all articles bundled to this AfD, with any relevant notes:
- Live Trax Vol. 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — included "ref" is to band's own "Tour Almanac" site (not independent)
- Live Trax Vol. 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — incl. allmusic review (allmusic is often on the borderline as RS), and a deadlink to what may be a Rolling Stone review; this may just barely cross over to WP:GNG, but still not WP:MUSIC, so it is more debatable than the others.
- Live Trax Vol. 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — included "ref" is to band's own "Tour Almanac" site (not independent)
- Live Trax Vol. 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 11 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 14 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — both "refs" are to DMB wesbite (not independent)
- Live Trax Vol. 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 16 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — all references are to DMB website (not independent), Almanac (not independent), or a fan site (not RS)
- Live Trax Vol. 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — only ref is to DMB website (not independent)
- Live Trax Vol. 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — all refs are to DMB websites (not independente)
- Live Trax Vol. 19 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax Vol. 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Live Trax 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — both "refs" are to DMB wesbite (not independent)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I've got an embarrassingly large number of these albums, but I have to agree that they don't necessarily warrant individual articles for each album. I'd think an overview article for the Live Trax series could work well (and is what I'd prefer to see), but barring that, merging everything back to Dave Matthews Band discography would be fine too. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I feel these articles can be best represented by either one big Live Trax article or just merging into the discography article. I feel the problem with a Live Trax article would be people would try to add the list of songs on each of the albums making the article exceedingly long so it may be best to just keep it in the discography article. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 01:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd rather the Live Trax series get their own article if only because then what little actual content there currently is could be better merged; we'd have to be a bit vigilant to avoid track listings for all twenty-one albums, but it would be a better way to handle blocks of (sourced) information about each article, such as Live Trax 2008 (though I'll readily admit that the sources could be better). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. If we merge them all together there still won't be any refs. Redirect is possible, I guess. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all: Since all the albums are just track listings and lacking in sources to pass WP:GNG. There is a lack of substantial information on the albums, so there is not a lot too merge. The discography already lists the albums and other info such as recording venues & dates. I'm not sure that track listings will be easy to merge into the discography page. It would be better to have an overview article on these albums but would still have trouble passing WP:GNG due to lack of sources. Mattg82 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Big Eyes[edit]
- Big Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
How has this lasted on Wikipedia for a year with one source? This hasn't been in any sources for a long time, so i can assume this probably won't be happening for awhile. Unlike Star Trek 2, this film is not notable. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 3:46 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. This film has not started production yet, and according to the Internet Movie Database, it has been in a stage of "development unknown" since 2009. The page can be re-created once the movie starts filming. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above and WP:FFCOVERAGE. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 05:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a project that may never be made. However, as we do have a lot of sources which have discussed it,[24] how about after we delete, we redirect the title to Tim Burton#Future projects where we might have it written of in context to his many future plans, even if it is never made? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above.--Axel™ (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:54, 2 December 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 Paulsgrove#Education. Meta consensus is to merge/redirect primary schools to the LEA or community as appropriate. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paulsgrove Primary School[edit]
- Paulsgrove Primary School (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 currently assessing primary schools, and redirecting those that don't meet WP:GNG. Since this article is borderline, I'd like to open up a discussion before unilaterally redirecting it. The article contains 4 references; the first two don't seem to actually be about this school. The second two are not online, but seem to merely verify the original organization of the school and the names of recent head teachers. A google news search reveals a few other sources (see [25]), but none seem to discuss the school in detail as required by WP:GNG. As such, I believe this article should be redirected to a relevant section of its locality or list of local schools. However, as I'm not certain, I invite other opinions first. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paulsgrove per standard practice for nn schools, where it is already mentioned in the education section. Uncontroversial redirect - this AfD can then be closed. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above - this is clearly nn at present. A touch more of the content might be able to be taken to the Paulgrove article too. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Paulsgrove#Education. We do not normally have articles on Primary Schools. There is a paragraph in the locality article, which could usefully be expanded from what we have here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question: I want to clarify that I am aware that we normally don't have article on Primary schools, but it is also true that if a primary school meets WP:GNG, it may have its own article. Are the commenters above saying that the sources in the article are not sufficient? The reason I ask is that while I think it should probably be redirected, it definitely isn't "obvious" or "clear". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources alone, any number of them, and/or a well written and researched article do not notability make. The sources in the article certainly confirm some of the claims, but those particular claims are routine, such as for example, a list of headteachers, or foundation date (most new schools are officially opened by a local dignitary), and do not assert any particular reasons for importance, outstanding performance, or being notable in a unique way (age, listed building, royal charter, exceptionally high number of notable alumni, a major incident with national coverage,etc.). There is however every case for expanding the education section of the locality article with some of the more interesting points about the school. As a redirect, it can always be restored as a stand-alone if one day the school satisfies notability requirements. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given WP:ORG and it's emphasis on coverage in national or international media (and possibly WP:NONPROFIT as well fwiw) I'd argue that in the case of the majority of primary schools you have, almost by default, a tendency towards a lack of notability. In this case I'd argue that it's actually pretty clear - there are cases where I can be convinced that some notability might have occurred at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:25, 29 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Hiram Key (band)[edit]
- The Hiram Key (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)
Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND, WP:FAILN, and, as said above, WP:GNG. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 06:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG amid the lack of independent published sources (while there are sources provided, they are not reliable). Till I Go Home (talk) 07:38, 25 November 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 OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network#Programming. Spartaz Humbug! 06:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of programs broadcast by OWN[edit]
- List of programs broadcast by OWN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic Tanzeel Ahad 02:43, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network#Programming. Similar articles exist for other networks (see Category:Lists of television series by network), but OWN has been broadcasting for less than a year and its list of programs is not yet long enough to require a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Metropolitan90. This article is minute, but the section on the main OWN page is quite built out. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:34, 25 November 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. Policy basis is CFORK and RS. Keep arguments based on ITSUSEFUL and the order of release don't overcome policy Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes[edit]
- List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel episodes (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 does this exist when we have List of Angel episodes and List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because it treats the shows as a unit, with original broadcast order and preservation preserved in a way that individual show overviews will not. If you want, you could consider it a parent to each show episode list, which are in turn parents to the season articles. I'll notify Wikiproject Buffyverse and see what they have to say, I'm kind of ambivalent on whether we need a whole separate list article to cover that. Jclemens (talk) 02:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Drive a stake into it. These are two separate shows, even if they share the same fictional universe. Occasionally characters from one series cross over to the other, but the storylines, as far as I can recall, don't really intertwine. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, barring any compelling precedent for this sort of thing with other series. Is there such a precedent? Doniago (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if there is a precedent or not- but there isn't any TV show that I've watched that I know of which split into 2 shows sharing a plotline and running in tandem... If there isn't a precedent then we're currently setting one. FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless secondary sources took note of this, I don't feel it's notable enough to merit setting a precedent. Also, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation. The two shows rarely actually had crossover episodes and when they did it was generally characters but not storylines that crossed over. If no precedent exists, I feel a stronger case needs to be made as to why we should establish one. Doniago (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The storylines are more intertwined than just characters popping over from each show. These shows were designed to be watched in the order they were broadcast, and therefore is it noteworthy. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but you failed to address my concerns regarding secondary sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. How do you define a "storyline"? An object is found in one show that's taken to the other show to help the characters there solve a problem. That's part of the same story. Who gets to decide if that's "important" enough? The fact of the matter is that these shows were designed to be viewed in a certain order. A character leaves one show with a bit of information, and then appears in the other show's next episode with said information. It's not just characters making "guest appearances". Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, whether or not it's important enough is defined as whether or not it received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean? TV Guide? Sci-fi magazines? Variety? What do you want them to say? Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, whether or not it's important enough is defined as whether or not it received coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doniago (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. How do you define a "storyline"? An object is found in one show that's taken to the other show to help the characters there solve a problem. That's part of the same story. Who gets to decide if that's "important" enough? The fact of the matter is that these shows were designed to be viewed in a certain order. A character leaves one show with a bit of information, and then appears in the other show's next episode with said information. It's not just characters making "guest appearances". Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's nice, but you failed to address my concerns regarding secondary sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The storylines are more intertwined than just characters popping over from each show. These shows were designed to be watched in the order they were broadcast, and therefore is it noteworthy. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless secondary sources took note of this, I don't feel it's notable enough to merit setting a precedent. Also, that's somewhat of a misrepresentation. The two shows rarely actually had crossover episodes and when they did it was generally characters but not storylines that crossed over. If no precedent exists, I feel a stronger case needs to be made as to why we should establish one. Doniago (talk) 06:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if there is a precedent or not- but there isn't any TV show that I've watched that I know of which split into 2 shows sharing a plotline and running in tandem... If there isn't a precedent then we're currently setting one. FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, barring any compelling precedent for this sort of thing with other series. Is there such a precedent? Doniago (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I understand that there's some value to seeing the episodes of both shows in order, to understand the crossovers, but Wikipedia is not a guide to the best way of viewing related TV series. The information in the separate lists is factual, well sourced, and complete, and anything beyond that amounts to fancruft. There's also a slippery slope argument - are we opening the door to Chronological list of Marvel Comics issues or List of episodes of shows in the Tommy Westphall Universe? There's a lot of other ways to merge disparate lists of fictional elements in redundant and unencyclopaedic ways - it's not like Buffy and Angel are a special and unique situation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is the sort of WP:OR/fancruft that needs to be avoided in an encyclopedia project, it it just synthesis of fictional material rearranged in perceived chronological order. Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of River Song, deleted for similar reasons. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actually where you are wrong. This is NOT a list of fictional materials rearranged in perceived chronological order. I would completely agree with the deletion if it was. This is actually a list of ACTUAL chronological broadcast -- the way the writers of both shows (who often jumped about between shows) designed them to be watched. This is not just a fan re-arranging of episodes, but the order in which the creative team of the show meant them to be watched, and indeed the actual order they were shown on TV.Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pointless and unencyclopedic cross-tabulation of two other encyclopedic lists. synthesis, original research, miscellaneous information. We don't need an endless set of articles cross tabulating other lists for their possible commonalities. (Risking WP:BEANS: For instance, if this article is kept, we might end up with articles cross-tabulating TV western series and noting when the same historical characters from one series appeared in another: Wyatt Earp in the series The Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp appeared in Bat Masterson (TV series) and contrariwise. Granted, fictional characters appearing in different series is more remarkable than historical characters doing so. Such fictional character crossovers have been fairly common throughout the history of TV, as a promotional gimmick. See Fictional crossover#Crossovers between established shows Edison (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. It's very troubling that the people who want this page deleted are actually unaware of its contents. To repeat what has already been pointed out: This is not a fan arranged list of a fictional storyline, but a CREATOR arranged list of episodes designed to be watched in a specific order. Buffy and Angel was overseen by one creative team, and the episode orders are specifically synchronised them. This verifiable and notable information. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see any real arguments for deletion that go beyond "I don't like it". Wikipedia does cover popular culture. These two shows are more tightly coupled than most (same characters, parallel stories, many cross-overs). This article presents this verifiable and, IMHO, notable information. Francis Bond (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguments The arguments above explicitly draw on WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:CRUFT. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand WP:OR's relevance to the discussion here. And please remember that Wiki is not paper encyclopedia. This article may be personally uninteresting to you, but it is verifiable and relevant to the encyclopedia project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OR If this is attempting to harmonize or synchronize the continuities of the two programs, then it is original research. If it's simply writing out the airdates, then it's trivial. Note that (e.g.) we don't have a similar broadcast schedule for the iterations of Star Trek. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- please stop mindlessly quoting policies without taking care to pay attention to their actual meaning and purpose It's not an "attempt" to synchronise the two together- they are synchronised- the plotline of the same characters run through both, in the order they were broadcast. It's also not "simply writing out the airdates". Just like List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes isn't... And whilst I'm on the subject of countless WP:unrelateds, "If reasons are given, "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers."
- The point you have made which is at first glance arguably valid is your point concerning WP:SYNTH. However, it's not an example of synthesis (unlike many many fanology articles are), because these two TV shows are in the (to my knowledge) fairly unique position of being the same story told through two different named protagonists and some different side characters (most belong equally to both series)- this article isn't a in-universe treatise on fan continuity, it's a list of episodes, in order, of one plot. For some reason after series 1 and 2, Whedon decided to splice the story up between two named characters.
- Is it synthesis to say "these T.V. series contain the same characters and the same sequential plotline, have the same screenwriters and directors and are aired one after the other, therefore they belong in the same article."? If so then isn't ANY list of episodes article valid for AfD — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk • contribs) 02:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop You're being rude to me. If you want to be rude, I'm not going to converse with you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The way the storyline weaves between these two shows makes this article more useful than the two articles List of Angel episodes and List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes. I take the point about not listing things in a fan constructed "order of events". But this show isn't akin to that, in that the episodes were broadcast in this order, and designed to be watched in this order. Each series assumes you watch the other as far as that many events in one series make absolutely no sense whatsoever without watching the other. There are numerous examples of the "previously ..." at the beginning of the episode of one series showing clips of the other series, because it assumes you watch them in tandem. --FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles just because people find them useful or interesting though. An encyclopedia is not a repository for fandom imaginations, see the link to the Dr. Who-related discussion I gave above. This is the sort of thing that could be redone at the Buffyverse Wikia page. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how "fandom imaginations" applies here... This is the original broadcast order of a series intended to be watched in tandem. It's as factually accurate and as relevant as, say List of Scrubs episodes is in saying that episode 1 precedes episode 2 etc. Although I do notice that the scrubs article doesn't give a little plot summary for each episode. So if any fancruft does need to be pruned here- perhaps that is it. And maybe a format of simply a table with columns such as "episode name" "writer(s)" "director(s)" "original air date" would be more appropriate to wikipedia. FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that it takes original content and rearranges it to a personal preference based on an in-universe and fictional sequence. We don't take content and remix it how we like to put on the encyclopedia, that is the essence of synthesis. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's not just an "in universe" chronology, which is why the comparison to the River Song article isn't justified. This is the real world broadcast order. It's not "remixing" of content. It's the content, as-is.
- The problem is that it takes original content and rearranges it to a personal preference based on an in-universe and fictional sequence. We don't take content and remix it how we like to put on the encyclopedia, that is the essence of synthesis. Tarc (talk) 17:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how "fandom imaginations" applies here... This is the original broadcast order of a series intended to be watched in tandem. It's as factually accurate and as relevant as, say List of Scrubs episodes is in saying that episode 1 precedes episode 2 etc. Although I do notice that the scrubs article doesn't give a little plot summary for each episode. So if any fancruft does need to be pruned here- perhaps that is it. And maybe a format of simply a table with columns such as "episode name" "writer(s)" "director(s)" "original air date" would be more appropriate to wikipedia. FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't keep articles just because people find them useful or interesting though. An encyclopedia is not a repository for fandom imaginations, see the link to the Dr. Who-related discussion I gave above. This is the sort of thing that could be redone at the Buffyverse Wikia page. Tarc (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, it is true that placing the the Amber Spyglass after the Subtle Knife is an "in universe sequence". But it's also the order the books were released, and is pretty self-evident that they should be place one after the other in His Dark Materials FinallyEditingWithAUsername (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong, there's no other way to say it. This article places two different shows into the context of the so-called "Buffyverse". It is an in-universe treatment of two separate episode lists; that it mirrors the broadcast dates as well is incidental. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. This isn't a fan-made list. The show's were specifically designed to be watched in an order set out by the creators... and then broadcast in that order. It's possible to get spoilers for one show by watching the other show first. The fact that it mirrors broadcast dates is not incidental, it's fundamental! It's as important as any show's episode order. The fact that they can be enjoyed separately is what's incidental. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambivalent: I despise the censorship-motivated trend toward erring on the side of deleting things. It originates with people wikilawyering to censor ideas that are true, but that they want to silence...and then has been spread by the kind of sheeple who obsess over "rules" and forcing everyone to obey them. The preteen busybody little girl sort of mindset, in arrested-development adults. Anyway, despite that, this is a ridiculously redundant set of data. Perhaps someone should script a way to unify the two original pages, but make it possible to separate them. For example, make one version with a sortable wikitable, so people can sort out the two series, then redirect all three to that one.--Kaz (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I Have a SOLUTION!: Why don't we list ONLY the transitional episodes? For example, the three seasons of JUST Buffy don't need to be listed, at all, nor the last season of just Angel. Whenever one show has several in a row, you only list the first and last. This cuts the size in the list to less than HALF of what it is, now. We keep only the part that actually provides the information the article purports to provide. --Kaz (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: These shows were originally aired in the order listed in the article for the very purpose of the crossover events making sense when viewing. Noticing this fact is not original research, but just listing the order of the episodes as they aired. While it's not Wikipedia's job to help out fans in their own personal viewing I also do not see any good argument against keeping it. It is factual, there is no original research, there is no in-universe fan manipulation, and I don't see any clear slippery slope to some of the more absurd examples given above. It would be nice if there were some reliable sources discussing the intertwined nature of the two shows and establishing the significance of that to each show's plot lines but my quick Internet search did not produce anything (I did find an interview where Joss Whedon talks about the possibility of more crossovers here. I also think the plot summaries are fine, they're small and explain the the crossover events. SQGibbon (talk) 05:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to assume that you don't mean that the reason to get rid of it is because it is useful to fans—I don't think I've ever seen a policy or guideline about that. So what, instead, is your argument? As has been pointed out it's not original research, it's not a synthesis, it's not fan in-universe manipulation. If it is any of those things please spell it out for us with the relevant text from those guidelines because clearly we're not seeing it. SQGibbon (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I hypothetically ask, would it be equally valid for us to keep a list of all issues of Marvel Comics ever, in date of publication order, on the basis of them being explicitly shared plotlines? If the answer is yes then I can't see any objection to this article. But I suspect that that would represent an unencyclopaedic level of detail - that Wikipedia is not a guide to achieving a best viewing/reading experience for media - and that both lists should be cut. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know enough about Marvel comics to know if the comparison is apt. In Buffy/Angel the universes were kept synchronized via crossovers being aired at particular times. As far as I know this is a unique situation in television (crossovers happen in plenty of shows but maintaining continuity across shows is what appears to be unique here). Whether that is sufficient to justify this article I guess is what's being discussed. There are a couple of things I would like to see, an independent reliable source that establishes the significance of the crossover/continuity issue or perhaps (like Kaz above) a way to combine the separate Buffy and Angel episode lists into one sortable table to allow for just looking at the Buffy episodes or the Angel episodes but then sort the combined list by air date with the crossovers highlighted in some manner. This seems like a lot of work but would eliminate the overlap of information (three articles with two lists) while preserving all the relevant information. Yes, this would be a list like no other television list but it reflects what appears to be a unique situation (and might provide a template for if/when this sort of thing happens again). SQGibbon (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I hypothetically ask, would it be equally valid for us to keep a list of all issues of Marvel Comics ever, in date of publication order, on the basis of them being explicitly shared plotlines? If the answer is yes then I can't see any objection to this article. But I suspect that that would represent an unencyclopaedic level of detail - that Wikipedia is not a guide to achieving a best viewing/reading experience for media - and that both lists should be cut. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to assume that you don't mean that the reason to get rid of it is because it is useful to fans—I don't think I've ever seen a policy or guideline about that. So what, instead, is your argument? As has been pointed out it's not original research, it's not a synthesis, it's not fan in-universe manipulation. If it is any of those things please spell it out for us with the relevant text from those guidelines because clearly we're not seeing it. SQGibbon (talk) 17:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A useful article for anyone interested. Verifiable, not Original Research nor is it in-universe. The article is in not harmful at all.--Knulclunk (talk) 02:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: A useful article that currently it doesn't highlight its notability over and above the two separate pages enough. Specifically, IMHO, it should in someway refer directly to the individual pages (perhaps using <onlyinclude> sections for the earlier seasons of Buffy and the last season of Angel to avoid real duplication). Mark Hurd (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article is extremely useful and noteworthy and is NOT just a list of fan arranged fiction. Not only are the two shows obviously hugely notable in popular culture, and their crossovers and tie ins, not to mention the original broadcast order (as presented in this article) are extremely important and noteworthy for those interested in both shows, but their chronological order was set by the team that ran both shows. A separate list for both shows does NOT present the same information. This is very important to note. I understand if those not overly familiar with both shows are unable to appreciate this, but the broadcast order of both shows is of historical significance (at least in terms of popular culture). The two shows were phenomenons of their time, and the storyline between the two was intertwined in such a way that the broadcast order of the two of them is important and noteworthy. Finally, to reiterate: This order of episodes is as valid any ordering of episodes for any TV show, because just like them, they represent a deliberate CREATOR chosen chronology. In other words: These shows were designed to be watched in this specific order. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You would greatly help your case if you provided sources backing up your statements. Doniago (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer_and_Angel_episodes&action=edit§ion=1Comment. It is very telling that the Buffyverse Wiki lists the Buffy and Angel episodes separately. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's just because no-one has taken the time to Wikify the webpage they link to instead: http://www.simonhampel.com/buffy.html Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Redundant. An article like "List of Buffy and Angel crossovers" which would only include the episodes in which characters from one show appear on the other, not counting when the characters switch their shows (ex: Wesley's first appearance on Angel) might be useful, though. JDDJS (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lists for each series provide the same info that I get from this. As JDDJS says, a list of crossovers between the shows may be more useful and interesting. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As it stands now, I say delete, as it's mainly listcruft. Sure, the shows feature crossovers, but saying you need to switch between the two shows with each episode to understand is absurd. 80% of this article is unnecessary, such as listing the first three seasons of Buffy and the last season of Angel, and given there's what, maybe 2-5 crossover events in the interim. What should happen is that this article should be turned into just a listing of the crossovers (preferably in prose format), as that would actually be useful. Should be noted that there's a list of crossovers (in prose format) in the individual Buffy and Angel season pages. Drovethrughosts (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree with JDDJS and Drovethrughosts. Cut the article down to talk about only the crossover events between the two series (and obviously change the name to something like "List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel crossovers"), and leave the complete lists to the List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes and List of Angel episodes articles. Spidey 104 14:51, 2 December 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. postdlf (talk) 03:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of movies broadcast by Disney XD[edit]
- List of movies broadcast by Disney XD (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 is not a TV guide. Mattg82 (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Exactly. Per policy, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; abandoned fancruft with no particular use I can find. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Channels broadcasting movies is nothing special. SL93 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This might be interesting if these were original Disney XD movies, but just from the quick glance I just took, I know for a fact that most of these are not. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:00, 1 December 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 ChemSpider. merge as appropriate Spartaz Humbug! 06:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SyntheticPages[edit]
- SyntheticPages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Notability - The ref and links are are primary sources. There's no secondary source. Widefox (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails WP:WEB - Commercial site (seeking advertising) Widefox (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On basis of good provenance. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Do you have any proof of provenance? We work on verifiability here. Widefox (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Royal Society of Chemistry is pretty good provenance. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge into Royal Society of Chemistry and/or ChemSpider. It doesn't appear to meet criteria in WP:WEB (but I fail so see how the above "Commercial site (seeking advertising)" argument is relevant here). Even if the database isn't notable enough for a standalone article, the article's current content is valuable and relevant to both the Royal Society of Chemistry and ChemSpider. ChemNerd (talk) 21:51, 22 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ChemSpider. ditto ChemNerd's reasoning. ~ Lhynard (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ChemSpider, with a small section on it also in Royal Society of Chemistry, where it seems to be not mentioned. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge / redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:01, 2 December 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 Cockfight#Other bird species. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Canary fighting[edit]
- Canary fighting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a the fictional activity of Canary Fighting. The article references a single instance in the US in 2009 when Vinkensport was reported in the media using the term Canary Fighting. Fourisplenty (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe with a rename to Connecticut Canary Fighting Arrest (2009) or similar. The story received attention from many reliable sources . . . that would make it notable. A quick google search turns up: [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], etc.--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A single event/News article in July 2009 that was of zero lasting and historical interest and impact. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37].,--BabbaQ (talk) 22:22, 23 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cockfight#Other bird species, where it is already mentioned. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per Clarityfiend. All of BabbaQ's additional refs point to the same event, so I think existing section within Cockfight article does the job. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per NOTNEWS to the suggested target above. All coverage is of that one event, which is certainly not notable enough in and of itself.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:02, 2 December 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! 06:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bank al Etihad[edit]
- Bank al Etihad (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)
On the surface this article qualifies for G11, but it was recently extensively rewritten by a COI editor. However, looking through the page history, I couldn't find a non-spammy version to revert to. A search for sources on both the current name and on "union bank jordan", its former name, turned up a bunch of advertising and directory-type sources as well as coverage of its name change. If this is in fact one of the largest banks in Jordan as a previous version of the article claimed (without a source), then it probably does meet notability criteria. But in any case, I think TNT is in order here. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Union Bank has relaunched its Corporate Identity and officially changed its name to Bank al Etihad, you can check their website bankaletihad.com. Anything under the name of Union Bank has been deleted.
below is the official Trademark registration certificate highlighting changing the name from Union Bank to Bank al Etihad
- Comment If the bank has changed its name, then references to the old name should NOT be removed from information relating to when that was the name. It is a part of the history of the bank. I would advise User:Bank al Etihad to read WP:COI, and probably WP:SOCK before they appeal for unblocking. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 21 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like an advert to me. They even have their own Wikipedia account to support it. If it where completely re-done, maybe it could be kept...--Axel™ (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 2 December 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 Slave narrative. Spartaz Humbug! 06:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slave journal[edit]
- Slave journal (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 references or sources, appears to be original research. Kelly hi! 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and then redirect to Slave narrative per the Principle of least astonishment. The "slave journal" described on the existing page has to do with sexual dominance and submission; if this is a legitimate topic, it should have a qualifier in the title like Slave journal (S&M) or some other appropriate qualifier. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:04, 2 December 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coal in Europe[edit]
- Coal in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Personal essay with a highly specific point of view. Essentially a content fork of Coal for the purposes of pushing an agenda. Prod contested, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The topic seems like it ought to be notable. After all, the first institution of what eventually became the European Union was the European Coal and Steel Community. Perhaps a rewrite is needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the topic is probably notable, though whether there is enough to justify a separate article from Coal is perhaps debatable. However, I still believe the current incarnation has too much original research and the best approach would be to delete this as inherently a particular point of view on the subject and start afresh if there is a properly sourced, neutral article to be written. I don't think we can get there from here. Sparthorse (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pro. In my opinion this article deserves place, since there are other equal summary articles, like Renewable energy in the European Union. Watti Renew (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Coal is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. According to IEA Coal Information (2007) world production and use of coal have increased considerably in recent years. According to James Hansen the single most important action needed to tackle the climate crisis is to reduce CO2 emissions from coal. ref.The True Cost of Coal 27.11.2008 pages 66-69 Watti Renew (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - the article, if kept, should not be dominated by global warming issues. I'm concerned that it is, and the creator, above, is clearly most interested in that. So sympathetic to deletion William M. Connolley (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Notable topic, but strange article. Kemerovo and Kuzbass are in Asian part of Russia, not in Europe. And there is too much negative focus against the industry, with what looks like WP:UNDUE in some places.
So my vote would be delete unless the major issues with the article are fixed.We need this fork from Coal, but not a POV fork. GreyHood Talk 17:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Keep. I've been trying to trim the article down and make it less POV, and I hope I've made progress so far. It seem needs work, but I hope that people will consider the progress made when deciding whether or not to delete this article. I think that there is hope for it, even though it could still use work.--Slon02 (talk) 05:33, 24 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Absolutely an encyclopedic concept. Good information here as well. Fix POV concerns through the normal editing process. Per the above, Kemerovo/Kuzbas are indeed part of Asian Russia, so some tweaking of the title might be in order in the rather likely event that this closes a keep. Carrite (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A valid, encyclopedic topic that is covered by reliable sources and academia. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like an artificial topic (the intersection of coal and Europe, i.e. a material and a continent)/ fork. Most of it is anti-coal editorial, has miniscule content in areas other than that. By it's title (combining the name of a continent and a material), it would be prone to being a synthesis/soapbox/coatrack/POV magnet because nobody could say specifically what it is and isn't about. North8000 (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Obviously encyclopedic topic. Any perceived problems should be discussed on the talk page, and handled through normal editing practices. Click the Google news archive search link at the top of the AFD and you can scan through the results and find places talking about the coal in Europe. Dream Focus 20:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as improved. --♫GoP♫TCN 14:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an improved and documented article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 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. lacks RS Spartaz Humbug! 06:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mustafa Sa'eed[edit]
- Mustafa Sa'eed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character that is notable of his own. Can be merged with Season of Migration to the North, the book in which he appears. Night of the Big Wind talk 14:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote this article and the problem is that i don't have an English reference, I had the book in arabic only so I can't put a lot of references on the article.
Any useful changes are always welcome and I thank you for giving me this change in my first article here.• Engfrompalestine (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep if enough references can be found/added to support the article. It actually has more information (and is specifically written about Mustafa) than the Season of Migration to the North page. --Stvfetterly (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 17 November 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 2 December 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Computer!Totaal[edit]
- Computer!Totaal (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 redirect for a magazine of questionable notability. No significant claims of notability. Google search on "Computer!Totaal" shows only 254 unique results, but none significant coverage - a lot of trivial or directory mentions, primary/related references, or mentions from unreliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I remove the quotation marks from your search string I get 2.2 million search results (this may vary of course Google.nl probably will find more results than Google.com (which automatically redirects to Google.nl if you search in the Netherlands)). SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the largest
(or perhaps second-largest)Dutch computer magazine. I get 1.4 million Google hits, so I think you did something wrong there.—Ruud 10:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I fixed the link and updated the results, but no, I did not do "something wrong" - check the link. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly Google is broken. I get many relevant results in the query without the quotation marks that are not included in results of the query with quotation marks. —Ruud 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you don't like the results - removing the quotes (which adds in separate mentions of both "computer" and "totaal", and not the specific phrase) still only tops out at 477 unique results - and again, very little of that is significant coverage - I'm seeing a lot of trivial and/or directory mentions, download links, and many unrelated mentions. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the most widely read Dutch computer magazine and you'd be hard-pressed to find a Dutch IT worker that doesn't know it. It's notable. I'm not really interested into those results as they only demonstrate your (lack of) search skills. Fore example, did your query manage to find these [38] [39] pages at the National Library of the Netherlands? —Ruud 17:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- MikeWazowski, you are misunderstanding the Google results in a way that clearly demonstrates why counting Google hits is a bad idea. When presenting results a Google web search first truncates its findings to the first 1000, and then eliminates duplicates, so you will never see more than a thousand results listed. Your method of counting finds only 219 hits for "Wikipedia", so Wikipedia must be even less notable than Computer!Totaal. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly you don't like the results - removing the quotes (which adds in separate mentions of both "computer" and "totaal", and not the specific phrase) still only tops out at 477 unique results - and again, very little of that is significant coverage - I'm seeing a lot of trivial and/or directory mentions, download links, and many unrelated mentions. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly Google is broken. I get many relevant results in the query without the quotation marks that are not included in results of the query with quotation marks. —Ruud 11:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed the link and updated the results, but no, I did not do "something wrong" - check the link. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most well-known computer magazines in the Netherlands. Enough evidence that it's notable, see above. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 18:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - How can a magazine with circulation approaching 100,000 be non-notable? --Kvng (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Dutch-speaking people participating in this article all understand and claim the importance of the largest computer magazine in the Netherlands (and Flanders?). The non-Dutch speaking people participating in this discussion are unable to appreciate the iimportance of the magazine for a population of approximately 27 million Dutch speaking people (in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Germany, South Africa, Suriname and the former Netherlands Antilles). I ask the non-Dutch people to reconsider their own expertise on the subject and refrain from editing this page if they don't have the expertise they need to contribute to this entry. Obviously, not speaking the language doesn't always mean that you can't contribute to this entry, but I believe one should be an expert in the paper magazine publishing industry or another relevant field if one is going to contribute to the subject of Computer!Totaal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtalkprogrammer (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I might prefer a secondary source for the magazine's circulation, but there is a valid claim of notability (largest/most significant computer magazine in the Netherlands) supported by a reliable source. IMHO, the article should be expanded and improved, not deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 00:57, 3 December 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. This has to be closed eventually, and no further progress is being made. The qualifications as a physicist have been shown to be borderline, and the discussion on that point is about which side of the dividing line it fallls, with the arguments using the same data being mainly repeated rounds of "yes he qualifies", and "no he doesn't." To the extent I can judge, the significance as a creationist has been debated similarly. I see few if any of the WP:PROF regulars have wanted to give a keep or delete, because it would be just one more opinion added to the mix. All I thought I could usefully add was one technical point, and if I were forced to choose between keep or delete, I 'm not at all sure which way by own voice would fall. Similar people have been kept or deleted about half the time each. If thought worthwhile to continue this, I'd strongly suggest waiting a few months. In the meanwhile, it would help to make the strongest article--strong in the sense of reasonable cited non-exagerated statements.
DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Hartnett (physicist)[edit]
- John Hartnett (physicist) (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 can't turn up any reliable sources establishing notability. Hartnett has apparently published some papers in peer-reviewed journals, and he is cited now and then on creationwiki and CMI, but not prominently, and neither is a reliable source for the purposes of WP:N. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Please also check his UWA profile, which outlines a few awards he's received, his two patents and one book. I don't believe these alone are enough to meet the GNG, particularly due to lack of further sourcing elsewhere, or a claim of notability in the UWA profile, but it's the best source we have right now. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No evidence for notability either as a physicist or a creationist.
- As a physicist: has been a tenured professor for only two years. A h-index of 12 is about what is expected for a new professor; nothing out of the ordinary. A Google search turned up nothing in the way of third-party reporting indicating sufficient notability beyond that expected for a two-year professor; nothing remarkable. Awards are not out of the ordinary. Does not meet any of the criteria listed in WP:PROF.
- As a creationist:
- In-universe: Rather scant reports from in-universe sources, mostly low grade. His book shows very little evidence of having had significant impact inside he creationist community. Google hits are mostly to reviews and in-universe blogs and forums. Nothing that indicates that he is in the top, second or even third tier of the creationist community.
- Independent: Practically no mention in independent sources, all of which are blogs and forums, at best. No evidence that his book has received any attention outside the creationist community. In fact, no evidence for notability as a creationist outside of the creationist community at all. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject does not meet the academic notability guidelines, however he does meet the general notability guidelines and the biography notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think so. See my comment on your vote below. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls. advise what you mean under the weasel words "creationist community". CMI is arguably the most prominent YEC community (I'm not aware of any comparable journal to the Journal of Creation of theirs), and as a such cites Hartnett quite frequently IMHO and the fact that they devoted DVD to his discussion with R.Humphreys on creationist cosmology theories ("For the first time, two of the world’s leading creationist cosmologists share the same stage and discuss each other’s models that seek to explain how distant starlight, allegedly millions of light years away, could reach the earth within a 6,000 year-old Creation. The answers appeal to understandable, known science that is also revealing that the secular cosmological models of the big bang is increasingly becoming untenable. It’s an exciting time for creationist cosmology.") suggests that these two are actually nowadays the most prominent creationist cosmologist. If he is not notable then I really cannot imagine who else should be. ("In the Middle of the Action" Dr John Hartnett; Hubble, Bubble: Big Bang in Trouble; Dr. John Hartnett; [40])
- As a physicist his papers are used by European Space Agency[41].--Stephfo (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CMI is notable, but Hartnett is not a leading figure either in CMI Worldwide or CMI Australia. He's listed as a "(part time) speaker and writer".[[42]] With only two books, a dozen articles, a modest number of tracts and blog entries, and a DVD for his own misistry, and very little for other creationist outlets, his writing output is modest. Like I said, in the worldwide creationist community, he's not in the top, second or third tier. Certainly not in the top 100 for the world. In Australia, he MIGHT be second tier, but more likely third tier. I doubt he makes the top 20 for the country. In any case, not prominent enough to be notable as a creationist, even in Australia.
- As for his scientific work, it is clearly not out of the ordinary for a second-year
associateprofessor. With a h-factor of only 12, and no extraordinary accomplishments, awards or press coverage, he is very, very far from meeting the requirements of WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Where does it say he is an Associate Professor (Level D)? His university page says he a Research Professor. That is a full Professor (Level E) in Australia. Earlier he was described as "a tenured professor". No academic staff in Australia have tenure, although many have what is called a permanent position, even though there are a wide set of criteria for dismissing them. Also that designation does not start at "Associate Professor", as tenure does in the US. It can start at "Lecturer" (Level B) or even "Tutor" (Level A). He appears to have 150 publications. That counts for something. I'm not sure on this one, but the arguments for deletion are not that strong. I'll settle for a weak keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got that off his by-line at CMI's website, but it seems either erroneous or outdated. His CV on the university website says he has been a "Tenured Research Professor" since 2009. Before that, he was a "Principal Research Fellow". His CV updated one year ago lists:
- Thesis: 1
- Edited book: 1
- Refereed Book Chapters: 6
- Refereed Journal Papers: 86
- Refereed Conference Papers: 3
- Conference Papers: 81
- Patents: 2
- Web of Science Citation Report: Total citations: 612; Average: 8.15; h-index: 12.
- That's a total of 96 refereed publications. That's confirmed here: [[43]]. It probably went up to about 105-110 in the meantime. To me as a biologist, this seems very high, but I have no idea how that compares to other physicists. Publication counts vary wildly from discipline to discipline.
- The h-index might have gone up a point or two in the last year, but even at 15 is par for the course for a Research Professor. From our article on h-index:
- "Hirsch suggested (with large error bars) that, for physicists, a value for h of about 12 might be typical for advancement to tenure (associate professor) at major research universities. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences."
- Granted, the h-index is not perfect and has it's limitiations, but it's a better indication of impact than the raw citation count, which varies widely from field to field.
- He does not have a distinguished professorship or named chair, or the equivalent. He is not a department head, or hold any other high post at the university. He is not a fellow of any prestigious society.
- I thought he had it cinched, though, when I noticed the award from the IEEE. However, the award he received is not among the top awards offered by the IEEE, at least as far as I can tell. [[44]]. The otehr awards he have received are not prestigious enough for WP:PROF.
- Most disappointing was the almost total lack of press coverage concerning his scientific pursuits. Blogs, newsletters, university press releases, yes. But nothing much in the scientific press, and nothing in the popular press as far as I could determine. Not even in the local press. Nothing that would equal a feature article in a regional or national newspaper.
- He's generated more publicity as a creationist, but even here, it's mostly blogs, newsletters, anouncements, book-reviews, and mentions in his own ministry's publications. Again, nothing that would equal a feature article in a regional or national newspaper.
- So overall, I have to stick with my assessment. Par for the course for a two-year professor, and at best third or fourth tier for a creationist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got that off his by-line at CMI's website, but it seems either erroneous or outdated. His CV on the university website says he has been a "Tenured Research Professor" since 2009. Before that, he was a "Principal Research Fellow". His CV updated one year ago lists:
- Where does it say he is an Associate Professor (Level D)? His university page says he a Research Professor. That is a full Professor (Level E) in Australia. Earlier he was described as "a tenured professor". No academic staff in Australia have tenure, although many have what is called a permanent position, even though there are a wide set of criteria for dismissing them. Also that designation does not start at "Associate Professor", as tenure does in the US. It can start at "Lecturer" (Level B) or even "Tutor" (Level A). He appears to have 150 publications. That counts for something. I'm not sure on this one, but the arguments for deletion are not that strong. I'll settle for a weak keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe to claim he is "only" a "(part time) speaker and writer" while being aware that he is employed at University which is his primary employer is quite a nonsense, as under such conditions it is very natural, IMHO. Who is more notable creationist cosmologist in your opinion? --Stephfo (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Add. "Nothing that indicates that he is in the top, second or even third tier of the creationist community." Pls. explain your objective criteria for indication that ceratain creationist cosmologist should be on "the top, second or even third tier of the creationist community", as I regards such words for WP:WEASEL in their current form. Thanx.--Stephfo (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've explained above in great detail the criteria I used to make my assessment. Read again for the answers to your questions. And NEVER put your posts before other editors in a discussion again, as you did twice now. That was very rude. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject does not meet the academic notability guidelines, however he does meet the general notability guidelines and the biography notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject has recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources (for example[45]) and meets the general notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "significant coverage" of which you speak was published in the subject's own university newsletter, ScienceNetwork WA, which does not qualify as a third party source. The Science Alert newletter you link to is a compilation of articles from university newsletters and press-releases from Australia and New Zealand, and it seems that they are willing to publish any such articles submitted. The article is solely the product of the subjects own university. There is no editorial input or content from the side of Science Alert. In fact, Science Alert refers readers wishing to comment on the article back to the University's web page. I doubt this establishes sufficient notability to satisfy WP:GNG. It appears to be specifically excluded as not independent of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But I guess if article was taken by 3rd party entity, then it is already a bit different story, because ScienceAlert is not OWN university: it is the first and only website to cover the whole of Australasian science and to present its announced research outcomes to the public for free. Besides providing the latest news from Australasian universities and research institutions, the service provides quality feature articles and opinions from qualified Australasian scientific and science writers and a specialised scientific jobs directory.--Stephfo (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but no dice. Science Alert did not write an article on him. They posted a university press release on him, without editing or commentary. All of the information originated from his own university. Science Alert is the equivalent of a blog. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have quite tough time to follow your way of thinking, are you suggesting that CERN Document Server, Foundations of Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu, Cornell University Library, International journal of theoretical physics, Foundations of physics, Astrophysics and space science etc. are stupid to notice his research work and papers and WP should be much smarter than them and regard him and his works for unworthy of any attention? Are all of these media related to his own university in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stepho, those are the journals in which he published his papers, or repository sites of his papers or data. They don't count toward establishing notability. They are not reports ON him, but reports BY him, and thus not independent. As a two-year professor, of course he's going to have published papers in scientific journals. There's nothing unusual about that. All two-year professors have done so. The question is whether his work has made an extraordinary impact in the scientific community. There is no evidence for that. A citations count of 612 and a h-index of about 15 indicate that he does not stand out from the crowd of two-year professors. WP:PROF policy states that we don't do articles on ordinary two-year professors. That's too low on the academic ladder. In five or ten years, he may qualify, but not now. I am not dismissing his work. Quite the contrary. He's clearly a good professor and scientist, just not an outstanding one yet. He deserves recognition, of course, but not his own article on WP. READ THE POLICY: WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but main reason to create this article was not to point out that somebody is an academic. But even if being so, I hope you have read the criteria you are referring to:
- The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- Is someone claims that "We show that the best terrestrial artificial clocks substantially exceed the performance of astronomical sources as time-keepers in terms of accuracy (as defined by cesium primary frequency standards) and stability." and scientific community accept such claims and lets given person to construct such clocks at the level of European Space Agency research program, to me it indicated his ideas gained a significant recognition.
- Also "the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). More than two million people around the globe read our publications, in five languages and on a variety of digital and print platforms. We publish Technology Review magazine, the world’s oldest technology magazine (established 1899)"; If someone accepts a work there, to me it indicates they regard it for notable of beiing mentioned in the the world’s oldest technology magazine.--Stephfo (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
- You purposefully vaguely interpret this criterion, in my strong conviction the awards he received are exactly of this sort, academic and international:
- The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
- • IEEE UFFC Society 2010 W.G. Cady Award, presented at the IEEE Frequency Control Symposium, New Port Beach, California, USA, 2nd June, 2010. The citation reads “For the construction of the ultra-stable cryogenic sapphire dielectric resonator oscillators and promotion of their applications in the fields of frequency metrology and radio-astronomy.”
- The person is in a field of literature (e.g writer or poet) (note: he wrote two influential books in creationist community: "this is only the beginning of the exciting implications of this revolutionary book."--Stephfo (talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)) or the fine arts (e.g. musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE, there in further:[reply]
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- FYI, the person introduced new concept of creationist cosmology, based on new solution of Einstein's Field Equations, significantly new in having no need for dark matter and dark energy, as it is sourced ("Carmeli’s cosmology fits data for an accelerating and decelerating universe without dark matter or dark energy". CERN document Server.--Stephfo (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, solved the light-travel problem known as horizon problem of creationist cosmologies, as it is reflected in creationist media referred there as breakthrough.--Stephfo (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are presenting vague accusations on the notability from creationist perspective, but as a matter of fact the most influential YEC community clearly regards him for being one of "two of the world’s leading creationist cosmologists",
that means TOP2 should you have problems reading it(note: there has been wrong logic in my argument "two of the world’s leading" does not necessarily mean TOP2, however personally I still believe they are, as otherwise it would not make sense for YEC community to distribute notion on discussion of two cosmologists of theirs if one of them would be below third tier. I believe they have selected TOP2 for such dispute.--Stephfo (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)), not below "the top, second or even third tier" as you would wish for.[reply] - pls. seee also: Academics/professors meeting none of these conditions may still be notable if they meet the conditions of ... other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable.--Stephfo (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you've written confirms my assessment: Par for the course for a two-year professor, and at best third or fourth tier for a creationist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but if he is at best third or fourth tier, can you reveal your ranking which creationists would supersede him on 1st and 2nd tier? Thanx. --Stephfo (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Top tier means people like Ken Ham, Michael Behe, amd Duane Gish. People who get a lot of attention from both the media and independent scholars of the subject. Of the people who belong to CMI Australia, only Carl Wieland would be in the top tier of creationists worldwide. Don Batten, Tas Walker and David Catchpoole are second tier at best. Everyone else, including Hartnett, is third tier or below. Don't forget that YEC is only one branch of the Creationist movement, CMI is only one part of YEC, and CMI Australia is only one part of CMI Worldwide. Even within CMI Australia, Hartnett is clearly not in the top tier.[[46]] Almost all of his press coverage comes from his own organization, CMI. None of which counts for establishing notability on WP because it is not independent coverage. There's very, very little about him in other creationist media outlets, and what there is is blogs, newsletters, book reviews and the like. There has been practically no mention of his creationist activities in non-creationist media outlets, only a couple of blog-type entries. Sorry, but Hartnett does not qualify as a notable creationist by a long shot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry again, but what has Behe to do with creation cosmology field? Personally, I never heard about K.Ham. or Wieland and I'm not aware of any influential In my VERY STRONG opinion, creationist cosmology of Hartnett is the ABSOLOUTE TOP within YEC community, TOP2, in fact, together with Humphrey, who alone can be the only creation cosmologist to take TOP1 position, IMHO; sounds absolute oddity that YEC community should call his cosmology a breakthrough and report to his book as revolutionary should you be right that he is creation cosmologist of "3rd tier at the very best. Pls. explain the term "creationist media outlets". As a matter of fact, he clearly qualifies as "The person ... known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" and coverage of his e.g. star light travel problem in Journal of creation (I'm not aware of any other comparable creationist journal) is clear evidence you are wrong, IMHO. His cosmology is directly mentioned in the article on creation cosmologies and thus it makes very much sense that WP reader would have a chance to read about this person who it is. --Stephfo (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've never heard of Wieland? Great, because you've just proved my case. Wieland is the leader of CMI Australia, in other words, Hartnett's boss. It is not my job to educate you about the creationst movement. That is your responsibility. Since it's clear that you have nothing more to add, I consider this case closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I really never heard of Wieland and I'm not aware that he would ever come up with any theory in the creationist cosmology field that would be possible to rank him as more influencial in this field than Hartnett. This article is not about administration of institutions but about physicist -creationist cosmologist who writes revolutionary books in this field and makes significant breakthroughs in solving problems in this field.--Stephfo (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've never heard of Wieland? Great, because you've just proved my case. Wieland is the leader of CMI Australia, in other words, Hartnett's boss. It is not my job to educate you about the creationst movement. That is your responsibility. Since it's clear that you have nothing more to add, I consider this case closed. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry again, but what has Behe to do with creation cosmology field? Personally, I never heard about K.Ham. or Wieland and I'm not aware of any influential In my VERY STRONG opinion, creationist cosmology of Hartnett is the ABSOLOUTE TOP within YEC community, TOP2, in fact, together with Humphrey, who alone can be the only creation cosmologist to take TOP1 position, IMHO; sounds absolute oddity that YEC community should call his cosmology a breakthrough and report to his book as revolutionary should you be right that he is creation cosmologist of "3rd tier at the very best. Pls. explain the term "creationist media outlets". As a matter of fact, he clearly qualifies as "The person ... known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" and coverage of his e.g. star light travel problem in Journal of creation (I'm not aware of any other comparable creationist journal) is clear evidence you are wrong, IMHO. His cosmology is directly mentioned in the article on creation cosmologies and thus it makes very much sense that WP reader would have a chance to read about this person who it is. --Stephfo (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Top tier means people like Ken Ham, Michael Behe, amd Duane Gish. People who get a lot of attention from both the media and independent scholars of the subject. Of the people who belong to CMI Australia, only Carl Wieland would be in the top tier of creationists worldwide. Don Batten, Tas Walker and David Catchpoole are second tier at best. Everyone else, including Hartnett, is third tier or below. Don't forget that YEC is only one branch of the Creationist movement, CMI is only one part of YEC, and CMI Australia is only one part of CMI Worldwide. Even within CMI Australia, Hartnett is clearly not in the top tier.[[46]] Almost all of his press coverage comes from his own organization, CMI. None of which counts for establishing notability on WP because it is not independent coverage. There's very, very little about him in other creationist media outlets, and what there is is blogs, newsletters, book reviews and the like. There has been practically no mention of his creationist activities in non-creationist media outlets, only a couple of blog-type entries. Sorry, but Hartnett does not qualify as a notable creationist by a long shot. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but if he is at best third or fourth tier, can you reveal your ranking which creationists would supersede him on 1st and 2nd tier? Thanx. --Stephfo (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you've written confirms my assessment: Par for the course for a two-year professor, and at best third or fourth tier for a creationist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but main reason to create this article was not to point out that somebody is an academic. But even if being so, I hope you have read the criteria you are referring to:
- Stepho, those are the journals in which he published his papers, or repository sites of his papers or data. They don't count toward establishing notability. They are not reports ON him, but reports BY him, and thus not independent. As a two-year professor, of course he's going to have published papers in scientific journals. There's nothing unusual about that. All two-year professors have done so. The question is whether his work has made an extraordinary impact in the scientific community. There is no evidence for that. A citations count of 612 and a h-index of about 15 indicate that he does not stand out from the crowd of two-year professors. WP:PROF policy states that we don't do articles on ordinary two-year professors. That's too low on the academic ladder. In five or ten years, he may qualify, but not now. I am not dismissing his work. Quite the contrary. He's clearly a good professor and scientist, just not an outstanding one yet. He deserves recognition, of course, but not his own article on WP. READ THE POLICY: WP:PROF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have quite tough time to follow your way of thinking, are you suggesting that CERN Document Server, Foundations of Physics, http://adsabs.harvard.edu, Cornell University Library, International journal of theoretical physics, Foundations of physics, Astrophysics and space science etc. are stupid to notice his research work and papers and WP should be much smarter than them and regard him and his works for unworthy of any attention? Are all of these media related to his own university in your opinion?--Stephfo (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but no dice. Science Alert did not write an article on him. They posted a university press release on him, without editing or commentary. All of the information originated from his own university. Science Alert is the equivalent of a blog. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But I guess if article was taken by 3rd party entity, then it is already a bit different story, because ScienceAlert is not OWN university: it is the first and only website to cover the whole of Australasian science and to present its announced research outcomes to the public for free. Besides providing the latest news from Australasian universities and research institutions, the service provides quality feature articles and opinions from qualified Australasian scientific and science writers and a specialised scientific jobs directory.--Stephfo (talk) 03:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "significant coverage" of which you speak was published in the subject's own university newsletter, ScienceNetwork WA, which does not qualify as a third party source. The Science Alert newletter you link to is a compilation of articles from university newsletters and press-releases from Australia and New Zealand, and it seems that they are willing to publish any such articles submitted. The article is solely the product of the subjects own university. There is no editorial input or content from the side of Science Alert. In fact, Science Alert refers readers wishing to comment on the article back to the University's web page. I doubt this establishes sufficient notability to satisfy WP:GNG. It appears to be specifically excluded as not independent of the subject. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the person doesn't satisfy WP:PROF. As for significant coverage in other reliable sources, there is not significant coverage for an independent article. Their h-index is far less than average for a professor notable in their field. Polyamorph (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls. advise why you regard his work in the field of sapphire-based high stability clocks for unworthy of attention. For me it sounds like very interesting topic and I think for other WP readers it might be the same. --Stephfo (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's reliable then it could be cited within an existing wikipedia article on relevant clocks, but isn't give a valid argument for an article on John Hartnett himself.Polyamorph (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO the recognition of someone's contribution in the science field is by accepting his papers and using them in references in other articles, please explain what's wrong with this: [47] wrt. your sentence "there is not significant coverage for an independent article." Acceptance of something by scientific community means that somebody independent have read it and found it worthy of inclusion into the scientific databases, at the very minimum, and many of google hits on scholar papers show that his articles are used in references, thus contrary to your claim he is covered in reliable sources. Or are you going to suggest that these DBs are unreliable, because, for example, If I wrote an paper on teapot orbiting around Pluto, they would accept it w/o peer-review and even use in further as reference in other articles?--Stephfo (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He has publications, so does every other academic. The mere fact that he has peer reviewed publications doesn't make him notable. His h-index is relatively poor compared to most academics and not indicative of someone leading or making a significant impact to the field. Polyamorph (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These are the citation Results from web of knowledge (that I just ran)
- Results found: 143
- Sum of the Times Cited [?] : 627
- Sum of Times Cited without self-citations [?] : 329
- Citing Articles[?] : 321
- Average Citations per Item [?] : 4.38
- h-index [?] : 12
- Notice how misleading the h-index is since half of his citations are self-citations! Really I know some postdoctoral fellows who have a better citation record than this, it's not really indicative of someone influencial in their field.Polyamorph (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) note the overall publications may be slightly higher than his actual publications if there is more than one J G Hartnett, this would only tend to reduce the overall h-index further.[reply]
- My sentence "there is not significant coverage for an independent article." was referring to the significant coverage outside academia. Since I already stated they fail WP:PROF, they also do not satisfy WP:GNG.Polyamorph (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He has publications, so does every other academic. The mere fact that he has peer reviewed publications doesn't make him notable. His h-index is relatively poor compared to most academics and not indicative of someone leading or making a significant impact to the field. Polyamorph (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO the recognition of someone's contribution in the science field is by accepting his papers and using them in references in other articles, please explain what's wrong with this: [47] wrt. your sentence "there is not significant coverage for an independent article." Acceptance of something by scientific community means that somebody independent have read it and found it worthy of inclusion into the scientific databases, at the very minimum, and many of google hits on scholar papers show that his articles are used in references, thus contrary to your claim he is covered in reliable sources. Or are you going to suggest that these DBs are unreliable, because, for example, If I wrote an paper on teapot orbiting around Pluto, they would accept it w/o peer-review and even use in further as reference in other articles?--Stephfo (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's reliable then it could be cited within an existing wikipedia article on relevant clocks, but isn't give a valid argument for an article on John Hartnett himself.Polyamorph (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pls. advise why you regard his work in the field of sapphire-based high stability clocks for unworthy of attention. For me it sounds like very interesting topic and I think for other WP readers it might be the same. --Stephfo (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But my argument is not that he is notable as PROF (if we are not discussing creationist perspective), that has only secondary meaning and is in a way just coincidence that has nothing to do with fact that his ideas and papers are related to work on sapphire-based high stability clocks arguably regarded as the most stable clock in the universe and you seem to fail to address this argument. I found it notable enough and interesting for common WP reader, please advise why it should harm WP to bring attention to such subject and person that developed and constructs such high-stability clocks. Moreover, please explain if your delete vote is just related to PROF subject, you seem to omit creationist perspective, and my reading then is that you do not oppose notability in that area and do not mind if article will be kept on those grounds, correct? Thankx for explanations.--Stephfo (talk) 13:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my above comment I wrote "if [the sapphire-clock article] is reliable then it could be cited within an existing wikipedia article on relevant clocks, but isn't give a valid argument for an article on John Hartnett himself." No I don't think there are grounds for keeping the article from a creationist perspective as there is insufficient notability, this has been discussed in detail above and I don't have anything to add with respect to creationism. I agree with the arguments presented for deletion. Polyamorph (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was discussed in detail pls. let me know what the answer was how Hartnett ranks in the creationist cosmology field, which creationist cosmologist is more notable than him should he be below 3rd tier? Why solution of Einstein's field equation's solving star light travel problem is referred to as breakthrough in your opinion and his book as revolutionary (this directly classifies as "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique" - as matter of fact, his theory is considered NEW and BREAKTHROUGH, REVOLUTIONARY) and what other creationist journal should bring it into news if the one that has IMHO the highest circulation is not the right one?
- I also regard for weird that IEEE regards his contribution on development of stable clock (more than pulsars) for valid argument to AWARD him for what can be read also as significant new concept (usage of pulsar vs. sapphire-clock terrestrial clock) but WP should regard it as not worth of attention.--Stephfo (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not an expert on creationists so won't comment on that aspect. If he is notable as a creationist then the article should be John Hartnett (creationist) not John Hartnett (physicist). Dominus Vobisdu has already made some pretty valid comments above. Where are the reliable sources that state this author has gained any notoriety whatsoever? Polyamorph (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The citations for his work in physics, while not bad, don't really rise to the level of passing WP:PROF#C1 for me, there is no evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF criteria, and I don't think he passes WP:GNG for his creationism. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainstream mainstream media. Like multiple articles in major national newspapers or magazines. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, and Ted Haggard are good examples, as well as (probably) anyone from this category. — Jess· Δ♥ 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PLS. DELETE THIS ARTICLE OF MINE, I DO NOT WANT ANYMORE TO HAVE IT ESTABLISHED. THANKS.--Stephfo (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG and PROF. No significant third party coverage to establish notability. Noformation Talk 22:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Searching through Google news archive results I find this [48] gives him ample coverage, he notable for his work. Brief mention of him at another news source [49] "University of Western Australia physics professor and super-clock maker, John Hartnett" and mentions what his team is building. A notable professor based on the coverage his work gets. Google news search doesn't cover all scientific publications of course, so more about him is surely out there. Dream Focus 23:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source you mention is from the newsletter of his own university (discussed above), and the second source gives him only three paragraphs in a long article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [50] states that a television show on God TV mentions covers his work in Starlight, Time and the New Physics. "Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations." So he has gotten coverage on at least one television show. His work surely gets covered in Christian news, magazines, and shows. Dream Focus 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- God TV did not cover Hartnett. The program you mention was not produced by God TV. God TV just aired a documentary that was produced by Creation Ministries International, of which Hartnett is a member. All but one of the other people mentioned in that section of the article are members of CMI: Tas Walker and Carl Wieland, Gary Bates, Jonathan Safarti, Phillip Bell, David Catchpoole and John Sanford. Sorry, but a documentary produced by his own organization cannot be considered an independent source, and the fact that God TV aired it does not establish any notability for Hartnett.
- I'm sorry, but even within the Christian and creationist media, there is very little third-party mention of Hartnett. He is rarely mentioned except in material published by his own organization, and what little there is is low-grade: blogs, book reviews, announcements, and the like. Nothing like a feature article in a widely read news source. Very far from meeting WP requirements for notablility. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "only three paragraphs in a long article"? That makes him notable. The size of the rest of the article isn't relevant. And who made the documentary isn't relevant. Someone independent to them showed it on their station. He was featured enough in it to count towards his notability. Dream Focus 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Three paragraphs qualifies as scant mention, at best. God TV contributed nothing to the material present. They just aired it. It cannot even be argued that the documentary was chosen because it considered Hartnett notable. It was chosen because it was produced by CMI Australia. And the only reason Hartnett was in it is because he is a member of CMI Australia. Having a non-independently produced documentary aired on a minor TV station that even among Christians is considered fringe does little to bolster Hartnett's notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "only three paragraphs in a long article"? That makes him notable. The size of the rest of the article isn't relevant. And who made the documentary isn't relevant. Someone independent to them showed it on their station. He was featured enough in it to count towards his notability. Dream Focus 15:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [50] states that a television show on God TV mentions covers his work in Starlight, Time and the New Physics. "Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations." So he has gotten coverage on at least one television show. His work surely gets covered in Christian news, magazines, and shows. Dream Focus 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The first source you mention is from the newsletter of his own university (discussed above), and the second source gives him only three paragraphs in a long article. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia:Notability (academics) states,
- An alternative standard, "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" is often cited. This criterion has the advantage of being concise though it is not universally accepted. Determining the notability of an average professor is difficult in itself and usually relies on one of the nine more detailed criteria above. When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average.
- We have a full professor (or the Australian equivalent) that based on academics alone as a member of the Frequency Standards and Metrology research group may or may not rise to be more notable than the "average college instructor/professor", but given his additional status as a rare creationist cosmologist, his story is of significance to the readers of Wikipedia. The very length of this AfD debate verifies this interest. Additional notability (attracting attention) comes from being a speaker. Unscintillating (talk) 05:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a strange argument. To my understanding, you're making three claims: You've said that simply because he is a creationist, that makes him more worthy of an article than if he was not a creationist; you've said that since a few people have participated in this AfD, that makes him more worthy of an article than subjects with fewer AfD participants; you've said that he has attracted attention, but the discussion above has been unable to turn up any significant attention in reliable sources, and you haven't furnished any of your own. Have I misunderstood you? These criteria you've outlined are not typical for judging notability, and if applied, I think they'd be fairly disastrous for wikipedia. — Jess· Δ♥ 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the previous post has taken my language out of context, I didn't say "creationist", I said "rare creationist cosmologist". And yes, it is not me saying that, it is throughout our notability guidelines that notability is the sum of whatever elements we have that contribute to notability, so Hartnett gains notability from being a physicist, and Harnett gains notability from being a creationist cosmologist. This was the main point of my post, using WP:PROF. The second point regarding AfD participation attributes things I never said. And saying that the discussion above "has been unable to turn up any significant attention" is not matched by the general tone of the discussion above, which agrees that sources exist both for Hartnett the physicist, and Hartnett the creationist cosmologist. Here is a 2007 essay by an MIT cosmologist, who names Harnett as one of five creationist-cosmologist book authors, and then says, "Most of their books have a sales rank on amazon.com an order of magnitude better than the one I wrote about postwar physics." WP:CORP identifies that one of the definitions of wp:notability is "attracting attention". Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a strange argument. To my understanding, you're making three claims: You've said that simply because he is a creationist, that makes him more worthy of an article than if he was not a creationist; you've said that since a few people have participated in this AfD, that makes him more worthy of an article than subjects with fewer AfD participants; you've said that he has attracted attention, but the discussion above has been unable to turn up any significant attention in reliable sources, and you haven't furnished any of your own. Have I misunderstood you? These criteria you've outlined are not typical for judging notability, and if applied, I think they'd be fairly disastrous for wikipedia. — Jess· Δ♥ 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unscintillating makes no valid argument. No way is this person more notable than the average college instructor/professor, they are far less than average and wikipedia is not a crystal ball so what they might become in the future is of no concern to us right now. Most professors will have numerous news sources on themselves and their work. Academically they are not worthy of inclusion, particularly since their citation record is nothing special n the first place and skewed by self-citations. No one has provided any valid sources to indicate notability. And since when was the length of an AfD an indication of notability! Polyamorph (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous post uses the phrase "no valid argument" but no evidence is given, "crystal ball" with no link, "most professors" with no references given....John Hartnett, in addition to being a respected physicist known worldwide both for his work with ultra-precise clocks and his opposition to the "big bang" theory, is also a favorite of the worldwide creationist community (see creationwiki webpage, and conservapedia webpage). I also agree with DreamFocus that he passes WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You want a link? How about this WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL! This is wikipedia POLICY, you can't have an article on the off chance it might become notable at some time in the future. Per WP:BURDEN the burden is on you not me to provide the evidence. http://creationwiki.org and http://conservapedia.com don't pass as reliable sources. As for passing GNG, you can agree with Dreamfocus all you like, but they're well known for wanting to keep any old crap on this resource. Without the evidence you have zero argument. Polyamorph (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to point out that WP:BURDEN says no such thing. StAnselm (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It states "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Hence the burden is on the author of the article or those who wish to keep the article to provide the evidence that the author is notable. No such evidence has been provided. Polyamorph (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Polyamorph, WP:V, which contains WP:BURDEN, is a part of content policy, see WP:N#NNC. As the nutshell at WP:N states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." As StAnselm said, "WP:BURDEN says no such thing." Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still haven't provided any evidence to demonstrate notability. I don't care if you think I've directed people to the wrong guidleine or not, you need to provide some substantial evidence if your claim that the person is notable is to hold any weight whatsoever.Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Polyamorph, WP:V, which contains WP:BURDEN, is a part of content policy, see WP:N#NNC. As the nutshell at WP:N states, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." As StAnselm said, "WP:BURDEN says no such thing." Unscintillating (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It states "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Hence the burden is on the author of the article or those who wish to keep the article to provide the evidence that the author is notable. No such evidence has been provided. Polyamorph (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd just like to point out that WP:BURDEN says no such thing. StAnselm (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You want a link? How about this WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL! This is wikipedia POLICY, you can't have an article on the off chance it might become notable at some time in the future. Per WP:BURDEN the burden is on you not me to provide the evidence. http://creationwiki.org and http://conservapedia.com don't pass as reliable sources. As for passing GNG, you can agree with Dreamfocus all you like, but they're well known for wanting to keep any old crap on this resource. Without the evidence you have zero argument. Polyamorph (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous post uses the phrase "no valid argument" but no evidence is given, "crystal ball" with no link, "most professors" with no references given....John Hartnett, in addition to being a respected physicist known worldwide both for his work with ultra-precise clocks and his opposition to the "big bang" theory, is also a favorite of the worldwide creationist community (see creationwiki webpage, and conservapedia webpage). I also agree with DreamFocus that he passes WP:GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 08:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [51] He is an "Associate Professor (the equivalent of Reader in the UK which would be Full Professor in the USA)". Dream Focus 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucky him, how does that make him notable? An associate professor at the same university that he obtained both his undergraduate and postgraduate degree is not very impressive either. He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1973 but didn't get his PhD until 2001, yet we're expected to believe his a leader of his field? There is no evidence to suggest he is and no reliable sources have been provided to indicate that this person has done anything sufficiently notable to have an entire wikipedia page devoted to them. Their research may be notable and can be included in some relevant articles I'm sure. I know plenty of readers, associate and full professors, none of whom have their own wikipedia page. If their job is a valid criterion for inclusion then we should just start writing a wikipedia page for every single academic in every single university around the world. Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to stay consistent with my position to withdraw the article in situation when there is no interest to the topics I personally found interesting, but I have to comment on accusation "He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1973 but didn't get his PhD until 2001" because I regard it for blow below the belt. In one interview with him available in print from creationist conference he is explaining why he decided to enter the PhD program after ca 20 years and it definitely was not because he would have intellectual problems to make it earlier, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that he would have had intellectual problems to make it earlier, only that he didn't get his PhD until 2001...Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You stated "No way is this person more notable than the average college instructor/professor". I showed that he was, having a title that ranks him above that. "Full professor is the highest rank that a professor can achieve". I'm not making a case on him based on that though, just showing a link to clarifying his status. The coverage I found in the above section is all that is needed to prove his notability. Dream Focus 12:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the highest rank one can achieve by a long shot, he's just a normal member of academic staff with nothing really to distinguish him from the rest. Polyamorph (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You stated "No way is this person more notable than the average college instructor/professor". I showed that he was, having a title that ranks him above that. "Full professor is the highest rank that a professor can achieve". I'm not making a case on him based on that though, just showing a link to clarifying his status. The coverage I found in the above section is all that is needed to prove his notability. Dream Focus 12:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying that he would have had intellectual problems to make it earlier, only that he didn't get his PhD until 2001...Polyamorph (talk) 07:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to stay consistent with my position to withdraw the article in situation when there is no interest to the topics I personally found interesting, but I have to comment on accusation "He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1973 but didn't get his PhD until 2001" because I regard it for blow below the belt. In one interview with him available in print from creationist conference he is explaining why he decided to enter the PhD program after ca 20 years and it definitely was not because he would have intellectual problems to make it earlier, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucky him, how does that make him notable? An associate professor at the same university that he obtained both his undergraduate and postgraduate degree is not very impressive either. He obtained his undergraduate degree in 1973 but didn't get his PhD until 2001, yet we're expected to believe his a leader of his field? There is no evidence to suggest he is and no reliable sources have been provided to indicate that this person has done anything sufficiently notable to have an entire wikipedia page devoted to them. Their research may be notable and can be included in some relevant articles I'm sure. I know plenty of readers, associate and full professors, none of whom have their own wikipedia page. If their job is a valid criterion for inclusion then we should just start writing a wikipedia page for every single academic in every single university around the world. Polyamorph (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unscintillating makes no valid argument. No way is this person more notable than the average college instructor/professor, they are far less than average and wikipedia is not a crystal ball so what they might become in the future is of no concern to us right now. Most professors will have numerous news sources on themselves and their work. Academically they are not worthy of inclusion, particularly since their citation record is nothing special n the first place and skewed by self-citations. No one has provided any valid sources to indicate notability. And since when was the length of an AfD an indication of notability! Polyamorph (talk) 06:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks the needed significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources.--Yaksar (let's chat) 08:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, what kind of sources are these: [52](narrowing selection --Stephfo (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)), and for my future better understanding. Thanks for explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the same guy, except maybe the first one. Second source is "Zoltan Hartnett", Third is "Derek Harnett", Fourth is "John G Hartnett", Fifth is "John Locke", etc. If there's a specific source you want to discuss, you should present it alone. Linking to google search results is often unhelpful. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally, google search gives you first the best hits for defined phrase, and then it goes for standalone words of that phrase. Your problem is maybe to realize this and go for first hits, not when google start to pick up whatever correlated comes across.
- [53], [54], [55]; [56] [57] [58] I'm not saying it is hundreds, but he definitely is covered in the creationist literature, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You provided a link to a google search predominantly littered with irrelevant results. I asked you to link to specific books. Responding that I have "a problem" using google is silly; you provided the link. The books you've listed now do say that he exists, yes, but most don't discuss him at all in detail. One only includes a quote from him without any discussion whatsoever. Another says he disagrees with dark matter and then moves on to another topic immediately. I don't know how useful these are. Do you have significant independent coverage? In other words, something that talks about him for more than a few words. — Jess· Δ♥ 20:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [53], [54], [55]; [56] [57] [58] I'm not saying it is hundreds, but he definitely is covered in the creationist literature, IMHO.--Stephfo (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally, google search gives you first the best hits for defined phrase, and then it goes for standalone words of that phrase. Your problem is maybe to realize this and go for first hits, not when google start to pick up whatever correlated comes across.
- Not the same guy, except maybe the first one. Second source is "Zoltan Hartnett", Third is "Derek Harnett", Fourth is "John G Hartnett", Fifth is "John Locke", etc. If there's a specific source you want to discuss, you should present it alone. Linking to google search results is often unhelpful. — Jess· Δ♥ 18:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, what kind of sources are these: [52](narrowing selection --Stephfo (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)), and for my future better understanding. Thanks for explanation. --Stephfo (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional article written with the intent to to burnish the credentials of creationists. The article creator is attempting to push a biography to continue his ongoing fundamentalist Christian crusade against science. The person is clearly not notable failing WP:PROF rather dramatically and being consigned to the general dregs of the fringe creation science community that lives off the teat of Answers in Genesis. We don't need to have a Wikipedia article about every creationist &mdash only the ones who receive serious independent third-party notice which this guy does not have. 69.86.225.27 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:SOAP above. Subject as an individual at best dubiously meets applicable notability guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable individual as per WP:GNG. The fact that some of his views run contrary to accepted science means should be noted in the article, not used as a reason to delete the article. JORGENEV 13:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the significant coverage then that establishes notability? Because thus far no sources have been provided that prove this individual is notable as either a physicist or as a creationist. No sources have been provided which satisfy WP:BIO, our guideline for articles on specific individuals. Some trivial references have been given but per WP:BIO "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Some primary sources have also been given but again per WP:BIO "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". Polyamorph (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: total up the mentions and we're left with a solid case for notability. From WP:BASIC: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." – Lionel (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The scant mention he receives in independent sources is far too trivial to add up to even an article in a local newspaper. In fact, not even an article in an independent Christian or creationist periodical. Brief announcements, a few mostly promotional book reviews, and a few blog entries are not worth very much. Outside of CMI and his own university, nobody much has seemed to even notice him, never mind be interested enough to write about him. A hill of nothin' is still nothin'. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to get the grasp of your line of reasoning, how do you explain yourself that CERN server, Foundations of Physics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Space Science, ScienceNetwork WA, VerticalNews. etc. have published his papers and give attention to him or why European Space Agency started to cooperate with him if outside of his University nobody have noticed him, you seem to contradict yourself, IMHO. Moreover, do you proclaim that God TV is run by CMI (In two highly informative programmes, ... and in ‘Starlight, Time and the New Physics’ Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations.)? Strange expectation...More over, he has 18 entries in TrueOrigin archive, creationist' variant of TalkOrigin archive that is commonly used at Wikipedia and regarded as established reliable source. If nobody of creationists seem to notice him, why they gave him so much room?--Stephfo (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Articles writen BY Hartnett and published in scientific journals do not count towards establishing notability. Only articles ABOUT him do. This has been explained to you several times by several different different editors.
- 2) Material produced by Hartnett's university or CMI do not count toward establishing notability. Those sources are not independent.
- 3) I never said that God TV was run by CMI.
- 4) True.origin archive is a very poor quality blog that is itself not notable. It is not considered reliable on WP, and is not used as a source. The article on it was deleted twice [[59]] and [[60]] for being not notable.
- 5) Harnett has received very little notice in the creationist community outside of CMI. There is no evidence that his writings or books have had any significant impact. There has never been a feature-level article about him in any creationist publication except Creation Journal, which is published by CMI, and is thus not independent. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) We seem to have different perception how science works. IMHO, for scientist it is not important to read about a person, which pub he is going for beer in the evening etc., but what matters is the content that he produces and then the notability of his work is given in fact that they can build up on his/her papers and make their own scientific research. As I already mentioned, I doubt that all these subjects we mentioned like CERN server etc. would accept paper written by me e.g. on topic of teapots orbiting around Pluto, on the contrary I'm pretty much sure such paper would not make it to get there. If papers of someone else make it, that means he is notable of such act.
- All scientists publish in scientific journals, the science that is published is indeed often very notable. The scientist themselves, however, is not notable for wikipedia purposes, unless their research activity begins to bring them some personal notoriety. Polyamorph (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And this personal notoriety is proven by fact that journalist approach him and cite him when writing about e.g. topic of sapphire clock, for example (otherwise they would go for someone else who would they regard for more notable to be consulted in given subject), or when creationists chose his opinions to be presented in their TV or invite him for being speaker at their conferences.--Stephfo (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All scientists publish in scientific journals, the science that is published is indeed often very notable. The scientist themselves, however, is not notable for wikipedia purposes, unless their research activity begins to bring them some personal notoriety. Polyamorph (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2.) I agree that these sources are not independent, on the other hand, first of all, there are other sources who are writing about him, and then Technical Journal and Creation are the only Journals I'm personally aware of as notable out of production by creationists, and if someone is selected there to me it implies he has been peer-reviewed and found notable for this community.
- 3.) I agree you never said a God TV was run by CMI, but the nature of the Q was to show you that CMI is not the only one source noticing Hartnett to exist as creationist cosmologist, what you seem to be trying to promote. Creationists do not have that many media in hands to expect larger coverage than the one that already is there.
- 4.) The nature of argument was not to discuss the acceptability of True.Origin by WP, but showing that creationists give huge volume of room to Hartnett and are aware of his influence in the field. That's the fact contrary to your claim that he gained just scant coverage by them. Your answer in no way addresses this point. Moreover, if the True.Origin should be negligible, it is then strange that Talk.Origin who are already accepted source are debating with them and even providing hyperlinks to their archive in particular debates. That proves Tru.Origin is notable community within creationist movement, in fact to such degree that Talk.Origin people choose them as creationist representatives to have debate with [A Creationist Rebuts this FAQ] and exchange the dispute opinions with.
- 5.) The media nowadays go electronic, as I already mentioned, I'm not aware of any creationist media that would have comparable circulation to journal creation and the coverage is in my strong opinion proportional to the extent the creationist community is able to produce given the year of publication of his theoretical new concepts and volume of media they have available. --Stephfo (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.) We seem to have different perception how science works. IMHO, for scientist it is not important to read about a person, which pub he is going for beer in the evening etc., but what matters is the content that he produces and then the notability of his work is given in fact that they can build up on his/her papers and make their own scientific research. As I already mentioned, I doubt that all these subjects we mentioned like CERN server etc. would accept paper written by me e.g. on topic of teapots orbiting around Pluto, on the contrary I'm pretty much sure such paper would not make it to get there. If papers of someone else make it, that means he is notable of such act.
- Just to get the grasp of your line of reasoning, how do you explain yourself that CERN server, Foundations of Physics, International Journal of Theoretical Physics, Astrophysics and Space Science, ScienceNetwork WA, VerticalNews. etc. have published his papers and give attention to him or why European Space Agency started to cooperate with him if outside of his University nobody have noticed him, you seem to contradict yourself, IMHO. Moreover, do you proclaim that God TV is run by CMI (In two highly informative programmes, ... and in ‘Starlight, Time and the New Physics’ Dr John Hartnett sets out to explain light-years in an earth that is not billions of years old, with some eye-opening explanations.)? Strange expectation...More over, he has 18 entries in TrueOrigin archive, creationist' variant of TalkOrigin archive that is commonly used at Wikipedia and regarded as established reliable source. If nobody of creationists seem to notice him, why they gave him so much room?--Stephfo (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The scant mention he receives in independent sources is far too trivial to add up to even an article in a local newspaper. In fact, not even an article in an independent Christian or creationist periodical. Brief announcements, a few mostly promotional book reviews, and a few blog entries are not worth very much. Outside of CMI and his own university, nobody much has seemed to even notice him, never mind be interested enough to write about him. A hill of nothin' is still nothin'. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I concur with Dominus Vobisdu's well researched and well reasoned arguments. --MelanieN (talk) 21:12, 24 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think meets wp:notability. Many wp:notability related sources and references, numerous published works. North8000 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As above his published works are not an indication of notability, especially since many of the citations are from the author himself. Please provide some evidence for your claims and more importantly some evidence that the person has been discussed in reliable sources.Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I appreciate that this may be a borderline case. Google Scholar seems to produce a lot of hits for him, perhaps more than his CV suggests. A search for "JG Hartnett" gives an H-index of 15, but it misses the top result for "John Hartnett", which has over 100 citations. So I'm happy with passing him under WP:PROF, though I think we do have WP:GNG to fall back on. StAnselm (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How did you determine the google scholar h-index. Only I ran the author through web of knowledge and his h-index is only 12 (see the analysis below my !vote above), with a substantial quantity of citations being self-citations. So it is not a credible indication of notability. There is no evidence that this author is being discussed in reliable sources. Polyamorph (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- as a rough guide, the h index compiled from GS will be twice that from WoS, because of the additional references from books and conferences and the like. It seems to hold up fairly well in most of the pure sciences. The difference here is larger than usual. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 28 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond M. Jackson[edit]
- Raymond M. Jackson (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 can't find anything online in the way of independent reliable coverage that would indicate his notability, only turning up a local obituary and a few trivial mentions. Previous versions of the page were much longer, but the references used don't seem sufficiently reliable to me. I Prodded the article earlier, but took it to AfD at the request of the article's creator. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Findagrave link here matches name, title/occupation, deathdate, veteran, & location; rank of PFC during WWII service gives no claim or indication of WP:Soldier; found a testimonial and sermons, but no coverage. Dru of Id (talk) 18:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- looks like a NN pastor to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Run-of-the-mill pastor who has not inspired any significant coverage that I could find. --MelanieN (talk) 03:42, 3 December 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. !Votes are pretty much split down the middle. The "keep" side has presented sources, and there's nothing overwhelmingly strong from the delete side that suggests the article should be deleted in the face of them. Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Occupy_Windsor[edit]
- Occupy_Windsor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Flagged for non-notability and not saved. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor a primary source for information, nor a blog, all of which is threatened by this article. No evidence that this element of the protest is notable on its own, never mind part of the larger "movement". Wikipedia community has decided that Occupy "movement" is not notable enough for front page inclusion. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, and redirect to Occupy Canada. Joefridayquaker (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Occupy Canada. The content is largely already reflected in the destination article, but there's no reason to avoid a redirect (they're cheap!). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Despite being small, (which can be fixed with time), this article provides informative content on one of the elements of the Occupy saga, and as such it has encyclopaedic value to anyone doing research into the Occupy movement. Further more, I am not the least bit surprised to see that Doktorbuk made this AfD nomination. He is fanatically obsessed with removing all traces of the Occupy movement from Wikipedia and, as recent discussions with him have demonstrated, there is absolutely no reasoning with him whatsoever. Deterence Talk 11:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 18. Snotbot t • c » 19:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Neutralitytalk 19:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are numerous reliable sources covering this. The article itself is weak; it should be expanded and rewritten from a NPOV. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per availability of numerous reliable sources. See Google news search results for some of them. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no need to have articles for every single centre where an Occupy protest took place. PKT(alk) 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Each protest is unique, with unique events. Why just "delete" the information? See also WP:ATD. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can be easily covered in a list article. Most of the news items cited above do not contain anything worthy of long-term inclusion. Separating this article from the rest of the occupy movement in Canada simply makes it difficult for readers to obtain information. JimSukwutput 17:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The size an article on it's own has never been grounds for deletion. Stick a stub tag on it and let interested parties expand it. As for "Wikipedia community has decided that Occupy "movement" is not notable enough for front page inclusion", this isn't the front page, it's a stub, and must be handled differently. Spence Powell never made the front page, but I don't see people trying to delete his page. --76.18.43.253 (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Everything important can be already found in Occupy Canada and what's left seems to violate WP:NOTWHOSWHO - so far the importance of these people have not been shown. Zangar (talk) 16:07, 23 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and leave a redirect behind to Occupy Canada. There's nothing in this article worth keeping, and it's adequately described in the Occupy Canada article already. Every individual city's occupy movement isn't automatically notable- this one happens to not be notable, even while others are.--Slon02 (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - We may or may not like the Occupy movement. I'm a critic myself. That's neither here nor there. We may wish that the myriad of small articles were merged into fewer big articles. That's probably in the cards somewhere down the road, but it's early days yet. There will be books and scholarly articles written and that will influence the way that we look at this social phenomenon. That's also neither here nor there. The question is whether this is an event with multiple instances of significant, independently published coverage. Footnotes are showing in the piece which indicate that this is a topic which does indeed pass the General Notability Guideline. Carrite (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article is currently incomplete. I've added more references to the article. Events continue to occur, more press coverage in reliable sources is written and published, GNG is further surpassed. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete /merge/ redirect to Occupy Canada. Has not the wp:notability, scale or material for stand-alone. North8000 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. Adding the references currently in the article here, as many of delete !votes seem to be based upon opinion of the protest and the stub size of the article, (which is incomplete at this time), rather than topic notability itself per notability guidelines. Notice how per these references, the article can be easily expanded.
- “An inside look at Occupy Windsor”, CBC News, November 11, 2011
- "Occupy Windsor stands united with Detroit demonstrators". CBC News. October 24, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- Chen, Dalson (October 27, 2011). "Occupy Windsor protesters staying put". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - Jarvis, Anne (November 16, 2011). "Jarvis: Occupiers seeking equality". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - "City dampens Occupy Windsor camp". CBC News. November 17, 2011. Retrieved November 20, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- Battegello, Dave (November 18, 2011). "Occupy Windsor continues despite sprinklers". The Windsor Star. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - "Occupy Windsor not a concern for mayor, police". CBC News. November 23, 2011. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does indeed appear to meet WP:GNG based on coverage, including that linked above. --DGaw (talk) 04:35, 26 November 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 to delete. There is no consensus below as to whether the sources are sufficient to support an article or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ardagh Castle cheese[edit]
- Ardagh Castle cheese (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 cheese maker, only claim to significance is a Bronze medal in the 2011 British Cheese awards. Fails WP:ORG. Mtking (edits) 22:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The cheese is very notable within Ireland and is a renowned brand. It has been included in a Bord Bia pamphlet on Irish cheeses and it has also been included in a book on Irish cheese - both referenced in the article and both independent of the source material as per WP:GNG since both works were not produced by anyone affiliated with the creator. The cheese has also won international awards, for example a bronze medal at this years British Cheese Awards 2011. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bord Bia (the Irish Food board) who's mission is to grow the success of a world class food and horticulture industry by providing strategic market development, promotion and information services. can't be called an independent source, they are a marketing agency. The book also (from what i have been able to find on-line about it, website, facebook page etc) has the feel of part marketing effort. Mtking (edits) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets face it - cheese producers are local and more often than not, that doesn't make international news. So in the context of cheese, we're not going to get a lot of sources. But in this case we have two valid secondary sources. The Irish Food board (Bord Bia) is a valid secondary source. They're an official government organisation, established by an act of parliment, involved in the promotion and development of Irish food. They have a focus on Irish food and they are experts. It's not some fanboy cheese site (they do exist). There's also a book on Irish cheese. Another valid secondary source - and guess what? Ardagh Castle have a full chapter. Those references satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG. --HighKing (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Bord Bia (the Irish Food board) who's mission is to grow the success of a world class food and horticulture industry by providing strategic market development, promotion and information services. can't be called an independent source, they are a marketing agency. The book also (from what i have been able to find on-line about it, website, facebook page etc) has the feel of part marketing effort. Mtking (edits) 00:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nominator's rebuttal. Side note, I originally asked for a CSD on this article and firmly maintain that it should be deleted. M Magister Scientatalk (18 November 2011)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (ec!) Cases like this where there are some sources available are always going to be subject to each !voters opinion as to whether it clears the notability bar. This one doesn't reach my bar, even considering its inclusion as one of over 50 cheesemakers in a book about Irish cheeses, and an article in a local newspaper, and after winning a bronze award. I'd suggest trying again in a few years once it's won several gold awards and been written about in a national paper or two. —SMALLJIM 00:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria for inclusion in GNG is the coverage and that's been met. The consideration of awards is only if there hasn't been good coverage in secondary sources, it's used for athletes when there's no articles devoted specifically to talking about them in depth. WP:ATHLETE isn't what's being considered here. Dmcq (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Week Keep - Per the book and newspaper sources in the article. The general notability guideline is being met. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Sources seem to suffer from being hyper-local, non-independent, promotional, or simply lacking in significant coverage of the topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:32, 28 November 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Blalock[edit]
- Tyler Blalock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsigned indie artist that fails WP:NMUSIC. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 18 November 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, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unsigned artist, fails WP:NMUSIC. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources found; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow Talk 05:23, 28 November 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. postdlf has demonstrated that this is a valid genre and that sources can be found so the page itself is valid. Unsourced entries can be removed editorially Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of New jack swing artists[edit]
- List of New jack swing artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original Research. Unreferenced list of BLPs. Fails WP:Verifiability. Ei1sos (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You really need to follow WP:BEFORE before you list something at AFD. Did you think this was a made up musical genre? The very first article linked in the list, Janet Jackson, has a statement classifying her first album as new jack swing that is sourced to a musicologist's work. Obviously there are reliable sources out there that classify certain recording artists as having produced work in this genre, so it the claim that this is unverifiable is easily proven incorrect. And that's all that it means to fail WP:V; that it cannot be verified, not that it isn't at present. Something does not fail WP:V just because it is currently unsourced, nor is it necessarily OR for that reason either. It's possible that some entries shouldn't be in the list because no reliable source and are there because of some editor's original research, but that's a matter for cleanup. postdlf (talk) 06:52, 18 November 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, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of sources
and beginning with "this is a list". The genre is valid, but the list is completely unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Delete for all reasons listed above. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 23:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only "reason" presented above is that the list is presently unsourced. That's not a valid reason for deletion. postdlf (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There. I just added references for 17 entries, and changed the unreferenced tag to a refimprove tag. I have zero interest in this topic, but I really can't stand this kind of lazy deletion voting. We do not delete articles for fixable problems, and anyone who doesn't bother to do even a minimal bit of research to check whether an article can be verified before trying to get it deleted should be kicked in the shins. Being unverifiable is not fixable; being merely unverified at present is fixable. Lesson over. postdlf (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly Keep - Ei1sos (talk) should have made some effort to add some sources instead of just putting it up for deletion. Kudos to postdlf for making the effort to improve the article. Anyway the Article no longer conforms to Ei1sos's reasons for deletion and is therefore redundant IMO Vexorg (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced BLP inforamtion. If we need this in wikipedia, do it as a catagory. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IF this was unreferenced BLP information, how would it be any more permissible as a category? At any rate, around 25 entries already had references at the time you posted your !vote and undoubtedly more can be sourced. Further, music style classification isn't really the kind of "contentious" material BLP is concerned with, so we can take our time to verify the rest and remove only those entries that turn out to be unverifiable/incorrect. Again, every deletion !vote in this AFD was factually incorrect when made and/or has been easily refuted. The standards of WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:ATD are not being met here. postdlf (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The consensus below is that the sources are sufficient to support notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gleann Gabhra[edit]
- Gleann Gabhra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional reading article on a non-notable cheese firm. Fails WP:GNG Mtking (edits) 00:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a reputable newspaper to me and no indication they were paid for this. Dmcq (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as it fulfills WP:ORG. It has received coverage in a national newspaper, and a major award. --HighKing (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per sources currently in the article, topic is meeting the General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:16, 25 November 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. This deletion discussion was improperly closed. (non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 23:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
International HL7 Implementations[edit]
- International HL7 Implementations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is very short and not complete. I don't believe it is currently useful. Thats why I have nominated it to be deleted :) Robjp21019 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Not useful Seems to be being improved now
- Too soon let the editor have some time to work on the article first. Eeekster (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice I agree with the above user - I don't know the rules about this but as the user that submitted this request I'm withdrawing it.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.