Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 20
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted. Speedy Deleted by Fastily (G3) (non-admin closure) Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Max Dell[edit]
- Max Dell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible Hoax. Recreated post PROD deletion. Not listed on IMDb as being in Wrong Turn 3 nor Dr Who Planet of the Dead, so if he was in them, it was a very minor role. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and possibly Speedy Delete as this hoax concerns a minor child. I was writing an AfD while User:The-Pope was doing the same. Here's my entry:
- I cannot find any information to verify the claims in the article, and fear that this may be a hoax page. Here's what we're working with:
- No mention of Max Dell on the 2011 Young Artist Awards page, nor for 2010 or 2009, just to be sure.
- Not listed as a cast member in Wrong Turn 4.
- Not listed as a cast member in Merlin.
- Not listed as a cast member in Doctor Who, although this page seems limited to actors who were in at least two episodes. However, I can find no reliable sources showing evidence of this appearance.
- Not listed as a cast member in the 2010 version of Robin Hood.
- 28 Months Later does not yet have a cast.
- The text of this article, which purports to contain a reprint from some kind of interview, is so poorly written and filled with grammatical errors that it could not possibly come from a legitimate source.
- There are various hits on the web for a child actor named "Max Dell", but they are largely in the form of message boards like Yahoo Answers, and some of them contain what I would consider part of this hoax, and not in the best interests of this child.
- As this article concerns a minor child and cannot be verified, I hope others will endorse immediate action. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Steamroller Assault (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete BLP violation that contains unverifiable information purported to be of a 6-year-old child. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 that this page is redundant to the List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report. If there is still a desire for a merge then that should be the subject of a talk page merge discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report by team[edit]
- List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report by team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is redundant to List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report. Anything that would need to be kept could be merged there, though I believe that breaking them down by team constitutes original research. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I agree w/Mu that we don't need both, given the redundancy. As to OR, it is not clear to me that that is an issue with this list. OR refers to facts for which no reliable, published source exists. The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The report itself mentions the teams of many of the players. Articles covering the report do the same. Perhaps I'm missing something, but from my reading of the Report and those articles I've glanced at there doesn't seem to be an OR issue here. But I do agree with Mu as to the fact that we could probably do with one list (in which event one with the teams, and a sortable by alpha table, would probably be best for the reader).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It isn't original research, but I don;t see the reasoning behind breaking down an existing list at List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report by teams. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Based on your comments and a rereading of the situation, I'm striking the OR comment. As Kirk Radomski worked for the Mets and BALCO is based in the Bay Area, it would make sense for the teams in NYC and the SF Bay Area to have more players in the Mitchell Report than other teams. But I'm glad you both agree that there is no need for this list as a standalone. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Yes, I agree that we don't need two lists, and support you in that. It's not clear to me still, however, which list is better to have. I still lean towards a list in table format, listing teams (as this one does), that contains all info in both lists, and allows an editor to sort by alpha for team and/or player. Given that, I'm not sure how to express my !vote at the moment. I guess a poor man's version of addressing it for the moment, since we can't force any one to create a template, and I would not want to lose this team info, is to merge this into the bottom of the existing list, with a note on the talkpage that for cleanup a table format would be better. We could then delete this article. But I would prefer not to lose this info, which we now all agree is not OR. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, now that the OR comment has been stricken. Rlendog (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Per the above. (Rlendog of course used 1 word to say what somehow I needed 50 to say).--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete do not merge. First of all the list is redundant to the original Michell Report list, but I will oppose a merge because the list at its current form indicates that playing with the team makes the team have something to do with the steroids scandal (as it names every team the accused played for), which is incorrect. Secret account 01:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I myself don't see it as saying that. And I, for one, would be fine with Secret editing the merged article to indicate that such is not the case, for purposes of clarification.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The list is redundant with List of Major League Baseball players named in the Mitchell Report. As the article says "but does not specify whether or not those players took illegal substances while on the team listed", I see no reason to list the team and a merge is not needed. —Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Saltily deleted.. The Bushranger One ping only 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deauxmae[edit]
- Deauxmae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially a repost of the four-times-deleted and now-salted article Deauxma; the spelling of the porn-name has been changed to evade the ban on recreation of the article. Doesn't quite qualify as a db-repost because the subject now has a single porn-award nomination, but still fails WP:PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial reliable sourcing, as before. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt this title too. I agree with the nominator's reasoning and object to the attempt to bypass the salting. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The addition of a single nomination does not change failure to meet WP:PORNBIO, although I appreciated it being sourced. Man, there are a lot of people nominated! Is there anyone in the industry who was not nominated? Also agree with the recommendation to salt--whether this was an honest mistake or a cycnical attempt to dodge the existing salting, it should not be allowed to happen again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt, per Cullen. Moogwrench (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — It does appear to be inconsistent with WP:SONGS. There are several mentions in Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album), none of which are sourced. Merging would not be helpful without proper sourcing. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Save Me from Myself (Christina Aguilera song)[edit]
- Save Me from Myself (Christina Aguilera song) (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 sourcers, no charts, fails WP:SONGS. Saulo Talk to Me 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 23:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - artist is notable, song is not. 11coolguy12 (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Creator has also made several other unsourced articles in the past (La Casa, [[Dynamite (Christina Aguilera song)] and Walk Away (Christina Aguilera song) are a few that have gone unnoticed, and also should be deleted.) — Status {talkcontribs 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of mnemonics#Units of Measure. The Bushranger One ping only 05:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Khdbdcm[edit]
- Khdbdcm (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 unreferenced and has a title most people probably would not serach for, and in my opinion, should be deleted as being unhepful, or at the very least, should be merged into an appropriate article: either List of mnemonics, or International System of Units Brambleclawx 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – to List of mnemonics. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Devoid of any useful content. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged--ready for deletion? I've merged content as recommended above to here. Also did a little bit of cleanup and added a reference. Did not include talk page content. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to SI prefix. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 05:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of oldest living Major League Baseball players[edit]
- Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Major League Baseball players
- Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (4th nomination)
- List of oldest living Major League Baseball players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is based on original research. The topic of which MLB players lived the longest isn't covered in secondary sources, at least not to the point where the subject would become notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the reasons it was kept the first times. Alex (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason it was kept last time, over four years ago, seems to fail WP:INTERESTING. I don't understand why it was kept. It is a blatant example of overcategorization, as a trivial intersection of two unrelated facts (MLB experience and age). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep keep Individual editors should not decide what is useful or considered trivial--Tommieboi (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I check this page evewryday...I am an avid baseball autograph collector and thius page is a great resource tool...It is one of the few reasons I visit wikipedia...Thanx for the voice... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.48.153 (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think it matters if you check it "everwryday", the article must meet the general notablility guideline to be kept. 11coolguy12 (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Legitimate list, whose accuracy is not reasonably subject to question, of general public interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while interesting and useful are not reasons to keep the article, I don't see the original research or meeting any of the criteria of WP:LIST for deletion other than the interception of age/baseball, and those age lists unless it's something really unmaintainable or non-notable like List of oldest living doctors, consensus is usually to keep these pages. The last AFD I would have closed as no-consensus while there was way too many flawed keeps, "listcruft" isn't a reason for deletion neither. Secret account 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I stated the first time around, the information is highly relevant for baseball fans, and it is often front page news. (as it was on ESPN.com when Rollie Stiles died). The information is useful to baseball historians and easily verifiable. EnjoysButter (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was struck out. The Bushranger One ping only 05:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of most experienced baseball players never to play in a World Series[edit]
- List of most experienced baseball players never to play in a World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- List of most experienced baseball managers never to manage in a World Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (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
Unsourced original research. These list was made by going through a list of games played/managed and picking out the people without any WS appearances. There is no notability to the topic. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While interesting it is really an OR project, as the nominator said. An encyclopedia is for the facts, this kind of thing is for fan blogs, etc. Borock (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Legitimate list, whose accuracy is not reasonably subject to dispute, of general public interest. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Although I like the information, it raises a number of problems, consistent with the OR concerns. For example, Clark Griffith's managerial games exclude 1901, 1902 and 1904. Apparently because there was no World Series in those years (and Griffith won the AL pennant in 1901). But is that the right way to measure this? And how do we handle managers and players during 1994? Rlendog (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Rlendog, while I don't really consider the information to be original research (anybody can search it up), it has a broad criteria (what about the players who played during the years where there wasn't any World Series), and it's a trivial list. Secret account 03:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research + complete POV presentation. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 05:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rex Lease[edit]
- Rex Lease (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 fail to see how famous he is right now. He appeared in over "300 films, mainly westerns". He may have met Wikipedia:Notability (people), unless I'm wrong, but I'm not sure about his roles in films. The introduction is very short, and I cannot find either a biography or an autobiography of him in research; I bet this is irrelevant. I see TV series credits in IMDB; he turned out to be a guest star of TV shows in the 1950s. I don't know if {{prod-nn}} would be appropiate. —Gh87 (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Topic notability is demonstrated here and here. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The AFD's Find sources show the error of the nom's statement. WP:ENT met. WP:GNG met. Time to early close per WP:OUTCOMES. No sense we all pile on to remind the nominator about looking beyond current state. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found news articles from the past: Vivian Duncan of the Duncan Sisters accused him for assault[1], and Jack Oakie and he had a fight[2]. Both articles from New York Times require payments for per full story.
I will add them later, but I have to deal with unwanting table of contents and near-pointless filmography. --Gh87 (talk) 05:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Finally added the Duncan sister incident, not the Jack Oakie one. I found the scanned article of Jack Oakie, and I'm not sure if that is gossip-y: Oakie denied the fight, and Lease declined to comment. Thankfully, no TOC yet; should not add more sections to justify TOC yet. --Gh87 (talk) 06:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice, and thanks. Your own reseaching shows this AFd would benefit from a withdrawal. There is plenty upon which to expand information in this article through regular editing. For example, in the 1930 Vivian Duncan incident, Duncan had to undergo surgery due to the injuries, and she intended pursuing the case despite Lease repeatedly having sent her bouquets of roses in apology.San Jose Evening News July 14, 1930 Stating that Duncan struck him first, Lease plead "not guilty", and requested a jury trial. A sidenote is that at that point in time Malibu was so undeveloped as a town, that the local judge arbitrated out of his own small home. The judge also stated that lacking facilities, a trial might be held out-of-doors. San Jose Evening News July 10, 1930 The article might also share that Lease changed his mind about wanting a trial and pled guilty on July 25, 1930 and paid a $50 fine.Prescott Evening Courier July 26, 1930 His later life can be tracked through articles. For example, when despondent in 1936 Rex got drunk and attemped suicide. His own third ex-wife, Elsa Roberts Lease, made a plea for leniency to the court and had the sentence suspended. Pittsburgh Press, October2, 1936 WIndsor Daily Star, October 2, 1936 Reading Eagle October 2, 1936 And the 1934 Oakie-Lease incident can be expanded from sources which do not require pay. Witnesses to the event tell how Oakie directed a wisecrack about a USC football loss at Lease and friends when they latter were dining.[3] Lease took immediate offense, jumped up and swung at Oakie, with one blow "grazing" Okaie's chin right before onlookers intervened. Oakie, contradicting the witnesses and in sympathy of Lease being intoxicated, claimed only that Lease gave him "a little push". The Post-Gazette article also shares that Lease was an amateur boxer known to be "handy with his fists".Pittsburgh Post-Gazette October 29, 1934 Another source offers that Lease himself called newspapers to report "I just socked Jack Oakie".Spokane Daily Chronicle October 29, 1934 Needing work is not a good reason to delete something that is improvable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- topic notability established since subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER for his significant roles in multiple notable films. Moogwrench (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 05:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2010[edit]
- List of Major League Baseball teams by payroll in 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2010 payrolls by team are not notable enough for a standalone list. I believe that making this page about current payrolls would prove too challenging, with all of the ongoing transactions that occur during a season. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Team payrolls are being discussed constantly in the context of baseball and the ability to field a competitive roster, and how certain trades are characterised as dumping payroll. As such, a list of of payrolls for teams is notable from a topic standpoint. I also note that the article is sourced as well. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is always news coverage when someone signs a deal with a team, how much they make, that interesting news. Dream Focus 18:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pine Valley (All My Children)[edit]
- Pine Valley (All My Children) (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's topic is a fictional city of a soap opera that will be cancelled this month. It is full of fictional in-universe references and less of true perspectives. The primary sources would be ABC and the show itself; I can't find third-party publishings, and fansites and fan dedications do not count. I will not propose a "merge" here; instead, I propose a deletion. The page has a history log; I will fear unofficial or disruptive reverts without adding more sources if this will be redirected without deletion. Also, the show itself will be cancelled, so I'm not sure about the fictional city's notability. I originally wanted {{prod}}, but I'm not sure about the show's fans' reactions. —Gh87 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would recommend restating this nomination without regard to the fact that the show is about to go off the air (the last episode will air on September 23). The show has run from 1970 through 2011, making it one of the longest running shows in American television history. The fact that the show is being cancelled suggests that Pine Valley is unlikely to become more notable than it is now, but, on the other hand, if it already is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, being cancelled shouldn't change that status. I don't think this article establishes notability for the fictional town, given that it mostly consists of lists of the fictional events, people, businesses, and institutions associated with the town, but I will remain neutral for the time being to see if anyone can improve the article during the AfD period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems no less significant than Gotham City or Mega-City One. The article is certainly overstuffed with trivia, but that doesn't make the article's subject invalid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Both references are passing mentions not in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Spin-off articles such as this are perfectly allowed, per Wikipedia:Writing about fiction#Summary style approach. It's an article that harbors all the information about a fictional town, which can be thoroughly reliably sourced, as this better link to Google Books shows (searching for Pine Valley All My Children without the quotation marks or parentheses). I'm not about to scurry and source this article just to please anyone who has voted for its deletion, when it is clear from that link I just provided that this topic is notable. I'll just recreate it later, with plenty of sources, if I want. The show being cancelled, though it is set to re-launch on the Internet, has nothing to do with whether or not the topic is notable. Flyer22 (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 subject plainly has some importance but there is a clear consensus that the notability standard has not been met. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Spiring[edit]
- Paul Spiring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Of the possible notability guidelines which could be used to justify this article, I do not believe that any can be satisfied. Firstly, WP:BASIC is not met whatsoever since none of the references are about the subject of the article. Secondly, WP:ACADEMIC cannot apply since he has only once been published in a journal and that was as the author of a letter. Finally, I do not think that WP:AUTHOR can be met, since there are no independent sources to verify that Spiring meets any of the four criteria. Myself and others have tried to improve the article, but I've come to the conclusion that it does not really belong here. SmartSE (talk) 21:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I share concerns with the assessment above, and also have concerns about promotional, perhaps autobiographical editing. However, I found at least two articles in reliable sources via the Google News archives that discuss the claims of the book he co-authored about Conan Doyle. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage on Spiring himself, the sources are on the verge of what I would call substantial, and WP:AUTHOR is not met as far as I can see. Therefore I suggest deletion. Hekerui (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:Author. I spend a lot of time cleaning up this article because it was basically promotional and misleading. Honestly, even now I'm not certain of some of the claims in that article. It's also not clear to me if Spiring was paid or paid for his two books to be published. Everything I can find suggests vanity publisher. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Insufficient coverage about the subject to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails notability and has all the trappings of a vanity page (including a link from the subject's website back to the Wikipedia article). JohnInDC (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't see this article as up to the requirements of WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. The long history of what smells of autobiographical editing and, it seems, the subject treating the Wikipedia page as an annexe of his own website, is not a good sign. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per arguments above. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- hmm, it seems to me that many of the above comments are personalised and not evidential. The subject was my teacher, and several of the above editors have removed perfectly reasonable citations to his notability, particularly from European media sources. I suggest that you first implement an anti-vandalism policy that compels future contributors to log in. It seems unlikely to me that the subject has contributed to this item directly, given that many of the edits are attributable to contributors in different countries simultaneously. Suspicion is not proof! If you don't want contributions from editors without an account, simple, don't permit them! In any event, at least read the citations before deleting them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.114.170 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The question here seems to be is the suubject of the article notable under WP:AUTHOR? Certainly, he appears to have made contributions to existing understanding of the origins of The Hound of the Baskervilles, the early works of PG Wodehouse and the illness of Joseph Merrick. I also researched the subject's website using the term 'Review:' and located several dozen peer reviewed items in various reputable newspapers and journals. I also located an item in the Sunday Times concerning 'Steve Emecz' of MX Publishing that refutes the notion that they are a vanity press outfit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.211.239 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — 217.233.211.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Here's how MX Publishing presents itself on its website's "about" page:
- Publishing a book in your area of expertise is an excellent form of business development and advertising for you and your business. Many of our authors see thousands of visitors to their websites generated by the activity around their books and some generate a lot of new business leads in this way.
- "the book has attracted prospects and secured me clients"
- It is probably the most cost effective marketing that you will ever undertake for your business. Professionally published books appear on tens of thousands of websites as well as the physical copies of the books being a marketing tool in themselves.
- Publishing a book in your area of expertise is an excellent form of business development and advertising for you and your business. Many of our authors see thousands of visitors to their websites generated by the activity around their books and some generate a lot of new business leads in this way.
- It sounds a lot like a vanity press to me. Or more charitably, a marketing tool. JohnInDC (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I came to the same page - certainly fits the model of vanity publishing, I notice the MX publishing name is spammed into a lot of articles, once this AFD is over, I'll attempt some clean-up. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but a conventional publisher is quite different from a vanity press: [[4]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.211.239 (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BASIC is satisfied on the basis of "multiple references" to the subject in verifiable and substantive sources. (TedSherrell (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- But Spiring is not the subject of any of them so multiple references mean nothing. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. He is referred too in most of the accompanying references to this article, and also in multiple others that you have removed recently. Furthermore, the remaining references clearly refer to either his work or ideas. Can you be precise in relation to your claims? [[TedSherrell (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]][reply]
- What I mean is that none of the articles are actually about Spiring in the way that this is about Mark Stephens for example. Simply "being referred to" in sources is not sufficient to meet BASIC. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is partially true, and also partially incorrect. I note that the past attempts by others to add the type of references to which you refer, for example these, has frequently been reversed by yourself? [[TedSherrell (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]][reply]
- Though those are all behind a paywall I was able to learn a bit more about several. The first of them is an article about Spirling's research. While quite brief, and with a focus more on the subjects of the research than on Spirling himself, it at least discusses Spirling. The full article can be found here. The last & 9th item appears to be a letter from Spirling in Germany noting that he's planning to co-author a new book, so we can set that aside as a reliable source. Two of the items (nos. 2 and 6) are reviews by Colin Bradley of books of material compiled or republished by Spirling. I could not find the full original reviews but User:TedSherrell has reprinted them on Amazon, here and here. The rugby one is short, not much more than a squib. The latter is more substantial but Spirling is mentioned only in passing. No. 7 like no. 6 mentions Spirling only in passing. I was able to locate a copy of no. 8 on Spirling's web site. Here, Bradley reviews a book co-authored by Spirling. It's a reasonably substantial review, and Spirling is an actual author. I was unable to find non-paywall information about nos. 3, 4 & 5, though no. 4 appears to have been written by Bradley too. My general sense is of fairly steady but also fairly cursory coverage by one (or perhaps two) journalists reporting for a paper covering matters of local or regional interest. Also the focus is not on Spirling but on the subjects of his research, namely, Conan Doyle and Robinson. It is more than I thought existed but on the whole I am not persuaded that it is sufficient to confer notability. JohnInDC (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is partially true, and also partially incorrect. I note that the past attempts by others to add the type of references to which you refer, for example these, has frequently been reversed by yourself? [[TedSherrell (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]][reply]
- What I mean is that none of the articles are actually about Spiring in the way that this is about Mark Stephens for example. Simply "being referred to" in sources is not sufficient to meet BASIC. SmartSE (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. He is referred too in most of the accompanying references to this article, and also in multiple others that you have removed recently. Furthermore, the remaining references clearly refer to either his work or ideas. Can you be precise in relation to your claims? [[TedSherrell (talk) 07:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)]][reply]
- But Spiring is not the subject of any of them so multiple references mean nothing. SmartSE (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammad Ala[edit]
- Mohammad Ala (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, self-promoting entry that does not meet the notability guideline in anyway -- Marmoulak (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. In fact ( contact ) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It seems that he's notable, please give me a short time to improve the article. Mehran talk 06:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some info with reliable sources that showed he's notable. Mehran talk 08:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Websites like: [5], [6], cannot be used in an encyclopedia! Wikipedia is not an advertisement website! - Marmoulak (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marmoulan jan, please do not delete the references, they are reliable and your revert shows that you want to inaugurate aد edit war. Please clarify why did you remove the references, and do not repeat that before I agree your reasons! Thankس Mehran Debate 16:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mehran, you are obviously confused about what encyclopedic "reliable" actually means! It doesn't hurt to read the rules before making such claims. The websites you have added cannot be considered reliable even by the lowest of standards. Also, I am not the one who started an edit war. You and User:in fact however, seems to be tag teaming to keep this promotional entry on Wikipedia! - Marmoulak (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I should tell you that [7], [8] are not advertisement websites. Mehran Debate 17:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ! link1 is a shady "martial arts"/"meditation" advertising website, and link2 is clearly a self-published and questionable source. The other link that you tried to include multiple times was a dead link, and now you have replaced it with an archived link, which is useless since Mr. Ala doesn't seem to be part of CSULA at the moment! even if he was a staff at CSULA, in no way does that make him a notable person. Wikipedia is neither a place for self-promotion and advertisement nor a college staff directory!! - Marmoulak (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Please just for one time, read that source carefully. If you look The About at one glance, you will see that the website is for a group of researchers (Persian Gulf Study Group) and absolutely is a reliable reference without any questions. 2. I can't understand what you mean "at the moment"?! So if a person retired, he will not notable because he was [for example] a former singer "at the moment"! 3. He wasn't a staff, he was the Director of Productivity Center and has won many awards considered in that page.Mehran Debate 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the one with reading problem here, you are! persiangulfstudies.com is clearly a self-published and questionable source; if you had read Wikipedia's guidelines you would know this. Anyone can create a website and call themselves "researchers" and "experts", it's called self-publishing and self-promotion! Your second "source" is even worse; it's a shady "martial arts"/"meditation" advertising website that qualifies for speedy deletion. Mohammad Ala was at one time part of a collage staff, we don't know the terms of his job termination, but one thing is for certain, he is not even remotely notable; no more notable that the other 6.9 billion people living on earth!! - Marmoulak (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect to your opinion, you call the website self-publishing however it is an official site and got a ministry certification which you are not aware of it. Please do not label self-promotion to the things you wouldn't like. I think these discussions are ineffective, let the others judge too. All the best! Mehran Debate 03:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not 'my opinion'! It's Wikipedia's guidelines. Other users have confirmed this as well. The concept of 'ministry-approved' websites only exists under an Islamist theocracy like the Iranian regime and has no meaning in Wikipedia or free societies (where Wikipedia was created in). Besides, the fact that you know this website has an Iranian regime 'ministry certification', confirms that it's a self-published, self-promotional website and violates NPOV since it's considered conflict of interest. It's seems like the more you try to defend your edits, the worse they look! I suggest you spend more time reading Wikipedia guidelines and familiarizing yourself with the concept of an Encyclopedia, which is neither an advertisement listing site, nor a government propaganda outlet. -- Marmoulak (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect to your opinion, you call the website self-publishing however it is an official site and got a ministry certification which you are not aware of it. Please do not label self-promotion to the things you wouldn't like. I think these discussions are ineffective, let the others judge too. All the best! Mehran Debate 03:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not the one with reading problem here, you are! persiangulfstudies.com is clearly a self-published and questionable source; if you had read Wikipedia's guidelines you would know this. Anyone can create a website and call themselves "researchers" and "experts", it's called self-publishing and self-promotion! Your second "source" is even worse; it's a shady "martial arts"/"meditation" advertising website that qualifies for speedy deletion. Mohammad Ala was at one time part of a collage staff, we don't know the terms of his job termination, but one thing is for certain, he is not even remotely notable; no more notable that the other 6.9 billion people living on earth!! - Marmoulak (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Please just for one time, read that source carefully. If you look The About at one glance, you will see that the website is for a group of researchers (Persian Gulf Study Group) and absolutely is a reliable reference without any questions. 2. I can't understand what you mean "at the moment"?! So if a person retired, he will not notable because he was [for example] a former singer "at the moment"! 3. He wasn't a staff, he was the Director of Productivity Center and has won many awards considered in that page.Mehran Debate 19:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ! link1 is a shady "martial arts"/"meditation" advertising website, and link2 is clearly a self-published and questionable source. The other link that you tried to include multiple times was a dead link, and now you have replaced it with an archived link, which is useless since Mr. Ala doesn't seem to be part of CSULA at the moment! even if he was a staff at CSULA, in no way does that make him a notable person. Wikipedia is neither a place for self-promotion and advertisement nor a college staff directory!! - Marmoulak (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marmoulan jan, please do not delete the references, they are reliable and your revert shows that you want to inaugurate aد edit war. Please clarify why did you remove the references, and do not repeat that before I agree your reasons! Thankس Mehran Debate 16:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is not one single reliable source that mentions "Mohammad Ala" as a notable individual! - Marmoulak (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Websites like: [5], [6], cannot be used in an encyclopedia! Wikipedia is not an advertisement website! - Marmoulak (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added some info with reliable sources that showed he's notable. Mehran talk 08:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deletestriking because the nomination already counts as a "delete !vote, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion - Marmoulak (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete While there is at least one academic paper co-authored by him at Gscholar, I can't find any WP:RS to indicate that he is currently notable enough. This may well change with a bit more time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see him mentioned on the United Nations website at all. If he won the "UN Award for Development Programs in Less Developed Countries", it should be mentioned somewhere. Does that award even really exist? He founded three organizations, but I can't tell if any are notable. He has published articles in a newspaper, I adding references to that. Dream Focus 04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep He is notable, but the article needs to be improved. In fact ( contact ) 09:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What leads you to the conclusion that Ala is notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the founder of many organizations such as Iran Heritage. You may also check some of the links in this page. In fact ( contact ) 05:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is also the founder of Iran Alliance. He is also active in NIAC (National Iranian American Council). In fact ( contact ) 06:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven articles in OEN. In fact ( contact ) 07:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - low assertion of independent notability. His organization doesn't look notable either. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He has founded many organizations, not just one. In fact ( contact ) 06:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable member of Iranian community.--108.18.222.120 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- How could Wikipedia allow this? A real person attacked by some people who are hiding behind a pseudo name? It doesn't make any sense. If anything he/she should be reported as an abuser. My information was correct and readily available. Several awards were internal such as Service Award. I was and still is the creator of IIS. I did not create this Wiki account and I AM IN FAVOR OF DELETING IT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammad Ala (talk • contribs) 01:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC) — Mohammad Ala (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Maybe you should also check google books: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. In fact ( contact ) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe you should check those links. The first two are written by the subject, rather than about him, and the rest are the barest of passing mentions, mainly citations to the subject's work. For an academic to be notable based on citations hundreds are required, not just a handful. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked them, two of them have been written by him. By the way, I did not check everything, these are just examples. In fact ( contact ) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only notable publication that he participated in was the second edition of 'Operations Management: Strategy and Analysis Study Guide', in which he was on of the three authors. In the other editions he has no role. Overall, there is no evidence to indicate that Mohammad Ala is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article about him. -- Marmoulak (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we need better examples. Aticles written by the subject, or citing him without saying anything about him, do not contribute to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't see him passing notability for WP:PROF or any other criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Opinions please. [9] Apart from the fact that, as I pointed out before to the editor, having the first sentence begin with "Mohammad Ala is[citation needed]" is unbelievably stupid, can I get an opinion on the other edits he has once again done. Does anyone doubt "Ala established Persian Gulf Organization"? Also, http://www.iranian.com/main/member/mohammad-ala shows he hasn't just published in their blog section but also their regular section, which counts as notable enough to mention in the article. Does anyone other than Marmoulak doubt the information in his career section? [10] The guy trying to have the article deleted keeps doing odd edits to it. More opinions please. Changing the bit about the National Iranian American Council to a brief and inaccurate bit about him being mentioned in its "blog", which is clearly not what that is linked to in the reference, is wrong. Dream Focus 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is 'unbelievably stupid' is that you are using a user page as a reference on Wikipedia!!!! If you actually know how to read, try reading Wikipedia's rules regarding acceptable reliable sources (WP:RS), as it indicates that: Anyone can create a website, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether personal websites, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated (like Iranian.com, for example!). The same goes for the so-called "Persian Gulf Organization", which just a website created by Mohammad Ala himself. -- Marmoulak (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
A major news sources thinks this award winning professor is notable enough to publish articles by him(not just blog entries). http://www.iranian.com/main/2009/nov/enigma-religion for example.The organizations he has founded, get some coverage, and starting a notable organization is a notable accomplishment that counts towards his Wikipedia notability. He also meets WP:Notability (academics) number 5 and 6. Dream Focus 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Iranian.com is a magazine with 6 million people a month reading it. The blog section is something else.Dream Focus 23:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Iranian.com content is user generated. I have a user account on Iranian.com and have written several articles and blogs for that website myself. By the way, Iranian.com only has about 70000 viewers per month not 6 million!!. Your use of Iranian.com as a source was particularly against WP:RS as you used the user's page, written by the user himself as a source!! -- Marmoulak (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going by what was listed in their Wikipedia article. Doesn't matter though. The user page has a list of what articles he has written, that why I link to it. I'll ask on the reliable sources noticeboard if this is a valid reliable source or not. I don't believe its all user generated, and that some of it does have an editorial process. Dream Focus 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What you believe is irrelevant here. Iranian.com's content is mostly user-generated and the site's owner, Jahanshah Javid, makes a decision to display some of the user-generated content on the front page. Ironically, Jahanshah Javid himself is not notable enough to have Wikipedia article about him, but apparently, according to you, he has the magical power to grant enormous notability to hundreds of people (including myself and Mohammad Ala)!!! -- Marmoulak (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going by what was listed in their Wikipedia article. Doesn't matter though. The user page has a list of what articles he has written, that why I link to it. I'll ask on the reliable sources noticeboard if this is a valid reliable source or not. I don't believe its all user generated, and that some of it does have an editorial process. Dream Focus 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Iranian.com content is user generated. I have a user account on Iranian.com and have written several articles and blogs for that website myself. By the way, Iranian.com only has about 70000 viewers per month not 6 million!!. Your use of Iranian.com as a source was particularly against WP:RS as you used the user's page, written by the user himself as a source!! -- Marmoulak (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are not reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. If a reliable official source and citation can be found for the claim UN Award for Development Programs in Less Developed Countries ping me and I'll reconsider, because that looks gold. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My own best efforts, and those of other editors above, have been unable to come up with any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The sources offered have all been written by the subject, are from clearly unreliable sources, or are trivial passing mentions such as a few citations to his work. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give a little time and try to expand the article instead of requesting for deletion. Compare the page with the first day, the article is in progress. Maybe it would be better to devote your energy to the conversations like above! Mehran Debate 20:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I emailed the guy to ask him about interviews about him or his organizations, mentioning the article about him here as well as the one for his organization at Persian Gulf Organization is up for deletion. Since we don't have anyone to search in Arabic for reliable sources, its hard to determine how notable this person and his organizations are. Hopefully he'd comment soon. Dream Focus 20:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, and apparently is no longer affiliated with CSU Los Angeles. According to this wayback machine link he was a professor there at one time, but he is not currently listed in the faculty directory. And I can't find that the university currently has anything called the Productivity Center, although it apparently did (and he was part of it) in 2003. According to ratemyprofessors.com (which I realize is not a reliable source) he retired in 2006 or 2007. Google Scholar does list some articles by him, but they have received very few citations from others - not enough for WP:ACADEMIC. Maybe his activism will make him notable in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ACADEMIC says The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. http://www.calstatela.edu/univ/ppa/newsrel/opaweb.htm states he won its Outstanding Professors award. Dream Focus 02:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not sufficient to satisfy WP:Prof#C2. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Is there a difference between Distinguished Professor and Outstanding Professor? Dream Focus 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure CSULA is a fine institution but it doesn't seem to be in the top 400 universities, so the answer to your question would be no. regards -- Marmoulak (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clearly "a major institution of higher education and research". It doesn't matter that someone believes there are at least 400 universities in the world that are better. Dream Focus 06:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is a vast difference between a Distinguished Professor and this award. Distinguished Professor is an academic position that brings with it prestige, seniority and, probably, a higher salary. Only the very top professors, based on extensive research records, obtain such a position. This Outstanding Professor award appears to be just a local prize given to five faculty members every year for good teaching - perfectly respectable, but not notability-granting. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure CSULA is a fine institution but it doesn't seem to be in the top 400 universities, so the answer to your question would be no. regards -- Marmoulak (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a difference between Distinguished Professor and Outstanding Professor? Dream Focus 02:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not sufficient to satisfy WP:Prof#C2. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, little to no reliably sourced information about his actual biography, little information on notable impact on scholarship; article has been misused as WP:COATRACK to add credence to his (utterly non-notable) political advocacy activities, which are currently over-emphasized in comparison with his genuine academic work. Also agree with Phil Bridger's argument just above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Near East University#Campus. v/r - TP 02:04, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NEU Indoor Olympic Swimming Pool[edit]
- NEU Indoor Olympic Swimming Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable for a separate article -- merge to the University's article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge - I tried redirecting already, but author reverted. Article is about a nonnotable topic, written in an inappropriately promotional tone, and unreferenced. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting and merging would wipe out the edit history. Not good. Merge or delete, but not both. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why Delete ? - This is the swimming pool one and only olympic swimming pool in the country and also Northern Cyprus issues not related with Turkey. Ali Erdinc Koroglu (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Near East University#Campus. This article is completely unsourced, and the article does not indicate why the pool might be of more than local interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy Deleted by Fastily (G11) (non-admin closure) Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 02:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Pakish Identity[edit]
- The Pakish Identity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An apparently self-published print on demand book (publisher Outskirts Press). After checks via Google, Google Scholar etc, I can find no evidence of the book being reviewed by any reliable source, let alone the sort of evidence required to meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). The single external reference [11] is as much about the author's musical career as the book, and looks questionable regarding independence, notability and journalistic standards (see 'submission guidelines': [12]). I think the case for deletion is quite clear-cut: regardless of the merits or otherwise of the book, it doesn't meet the notability requirements for an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - non-notable vanity-press publication. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - as spam, tagged for G11. ukexpat (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. No evidence of critical reception or commentary that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eran Rozenbom[edit]
- Eran Rozenbom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Football/Soccer player who has never played in a major professional league. Jayron32 19:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Subject has not played in a fully pro league, or received singificant coverage. Therefore, he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - if the article's subject does indeed play for Maccabi Haifa F.C., that club belongs to the Israeli Premier League, which is a professional league. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment back atcha: I believe the standard is fairly unambigiously that they have to have actually played in a match for said team, not merely been named as a roster member. WP:NFOOTBALL specifically states "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." --Jayron32 05:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I missed that he hadn't actually played yet. Weak delete then (would be normal delete, but with the season in progress he might yet play in a game?) - The Bushranger One ping only 05:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment back atcha: I believe the standard is fairly unambigiously that they have to have actually played in a match for said team, not merely been named as a roster member. WP:NFOOTBALL specifically states "A player who signs for a domestic team but has not played in any games is not deemed to have participated in a competition, and is therefore not generally regarded as being notable." --Jayron32 05:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If List of recordings by Hilary Hahn is created, I'll happily provide any information from the page needed for it. The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526[edit]
- Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Back on May 8 2011, using the reasonably common search term Mozart violin sonatas, this article concerning a single CD of four miscellaneous sonatas performed by Hilary Hahn was the first Search suggestion that popped up, rather than the listing I had expected to find. At that time it was then named simply Mozart: Violin Sonatas. To try to avoid this problem I "moved" the page to a new name, adding the specific K. numbers included on the disc. I also left a message on the article's talk page, which has never been responded to. However, even now, as soon as I type in the Search box no more than "Mozart v" this same suggestion continues to pop up as first choice.
The article is nothing but a bare track listing, containing no discussion whatever, or any other kind of useful information -- simply the track names, without even including their timings. It may or may not be a 2005 recording as stated; this is more likely to be the release (P) date.
I'm not opposed in principle to having separate articles on individual recordings, but surely there must be some justification for them, in terms of their notability and how informative the discussion is. Milkunderwood (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Article is 3 1/2 years old so it isn't getting any better. North8000 (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If its not deleted, please consider renaming with a disambiguater so its obvious that this is a specific recording. Something like Mozart: Violin Sonatas K. 301, 304, 376 & 526 (Hilary Hahn album)DavidRF (talk) 21:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I find it hard to put into words WHY classical albums that aren't tied with the work itself, as it were, shouldn't have pages, but they really shouldn't. There's 41 or more listings of albums for each of these concerti at Arkivmusic -- and there's really nothing about Hahn's that makes it special in any way, no matter how well it was received. I imagine the one who made these articles probably did so on good faith, but there's just something so fundamentally wrong with this, though looking at the discussion linked from the article's talk page others disagree. It seems to me that instead of making pointless article pages, especially with redundant track listings, any award/accolade/etc info should be at the artist page. Then, as has been discussed now and again but never really gotten off the ground, a discography section (or separate page if need be) for individual works should be made, with accolades discussed there. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Melodia, your last suggestion here relates to the whole issue of "Notable" or "Selected" Recordings sections in articles, which I agree needs some sort of consensus. Milkunderwood (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to something with a decent disambiguator. Pittsburgh Live reported that the album was a top ten. By itself, that may be nothing, but the album verifiably entered the Billboard Charts for Top Album - Classical. Playbill indicated that the album entered the Billboard chart at number 7. It's release was covered in Billboard. Not quite visible in the snippet view, but reviewed by The New Yorker; and also this from The New Yorker. Behind a pay wall, but reviewed by the [LA Times, St. Louis Post Dispatch. There's more stuff behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whpq, unless a definite consensus is arrived at here for deletion, my own thinking is that 1) if the article is renamed as suggested by DavidRF, and 2) if you might undertake to provide not just the awards and distinctions but also a significant discussion along the lines of "Hahn and her accompanist bring to these sonatas of Mozart ... [referenced thoughts from at least two or more reviews that you have found, perhaps in addition to your own, drawing on your own analysis]", then 3) we come to the more general question posed by Melodia as to whether specific classical recordings should be given their own separate articles at all, as opposed to simply being discussed on the Hilary Hahn page. If these first two conditions are met, then I would suggest the page be retained for the time being, and reconsidered at a later date. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reviews are mostly behind pay walls, so I don't have easy access to the sources to improve the article. In any case, the current state of an article is almost always irrelevant to whether it should be kept or not. As for the issue of whether specific recordings of works should have their own article, the applicable guidance would appear to be WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM for this case. Based on my interpretation, having coverage in multiple independent reliable sources would meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in both those guidelines. The multiple reviews of the album represents such coverage and so this particular album meets both inclusion guidelines. As the current guidelines represent consensus arrived at after some (long) discussion, I'm not sure that this AFD for one particular recording is the appropriate place to decide that classical albums should be merged or noted in the article about the composition rather than in an independent article. Something like that would need broader discussion; a proposal through the WP:Village Pump would be needed if some editors feel strongly that classical recordings needs some separate criteria added to WP:NALBUM to distinguish from other genres. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whpq, unless a definite consensus is arrived at here for deletion, my own thinking is that 1) if the article is renamed as suggested by DavidRF, and 2) if you might undertake to provide not just the awards and distinctions but also a significant discussion along the lines of "Hahn and her accompanist bring to these sonatas of Mozart ... [referenced thoughts from at least two or more reviews that you have found, perhaps in addition to your own, drawing on your own analysis]", then 3) we come to the more general question posed by Melodia as to whether specific classical recordings should be given their own separate articles at all, as opposed to simply being discussed on the Hilary Hahn page. If these first two conditions are met, then I would suggest the page be retained for the time being, and reconsidered at a later date. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. This kind of article is redundant and doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. Recording information can be added to articles on the music itself. --Kleinzach 01:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you clarify your position for me? Are you agreeing with Melodia and believe that classical recordings should not have individual articles, or do you have some issue with the sources that I've turned up and do not believe that inclusion criteria have been satisified? -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Classical recordings are different. You have scores of violinists spending their careers recording large chunks of the violin repertoire (some skewing towards baroque, others not). This happens with each generation of performers. In some cases, the same violinist will record the same piece multiple times. Hilary Hahn has 34 recordings listed at arkivmusic.com and Mozart's K. 301 has 59 recordings listed at the same site. Yes, it was well-received by critics in 2005, what about old recordings by Grumiaux, Perlman, Shaham, Mutter, Szeryng, Accardo, etc, etc etc. And 34 and 59 are relatively modest totals compared to other soloists and other pieces. There's over 200 recordings of the Mendelssohn concerto. Also, its rare that the "albums" are considered works by themselves. Its extremely common for the individual works on classical albums to be collected and repackaged in different ways at a later date. I think the best solution is to have either a List of recordings by Hilary Hahn page or a Hilary Hahn Discography page with a nicely formatted table which could include links to reviews, etc.DavidRF (talk) 17:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG. Wikipedia is no more a recordings database than a sports result database. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per user request (WP:CSD#U1). Hut 8.5 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arman Cagle/Talk/Template[edit]
- User:Arman Cagle/Talk/Template (edit | [[Talk:User:Arman Cagle/Talk/Template|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not want this template. Thanks Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Arman Cagle (Contact me EMail Me Contribs) Please remember if you have any questions, please reply on my talk page. 19:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a hoax. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Biggest Geno[edit]
- The Biggest Geno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this film exists. Nothing at IMDB. There is a film called Koneko Monogatari, but it is The Adventures of Milo and Otis, and some of the "facts" in this article seem to have been taken from real facts from the Milo and Otis article. Randy Poffo is the real name of wrestler Randy Savage. Gamaliel (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The title The Biggest Geno has problems with verifiability, but the title in the article of Koneko monogatari is indeed the original 1986 Japanese title and version of the film that was released in the [US] as Milo and Otis. Under the original title it had its own wide release and won awards. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is a faked rewrite of the article The Adventures of Milo and Otis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moonlight square[edit]
- Moonlight square (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 non-notable square, without making clear where it is. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I wasn't able to find any useful sources for this article. It's totally unsourced, and if it is notable, which seems very doubtful, it does not in any way establish that notability. WP:GNG does not agree with this article. - Metal lunchbox (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research about a place that seems to fail notability. Wikipedia is not a guide. Places of local interest can sometimes have wikis of their own, but not if the entire content is trivial as in this case. Will be worthy of an article only if someone can prove that this square has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as WP:GNG puts it). We need tourist attractions, architectural significance, or notable historical events that took place there. Madalibi (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article doesn't even clearly assert notability for this housing estate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am wondering if it is the same as "月光广場" or Yueguangguangchang. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. That page is now at Yue Guang Guang Chang and has also been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yue Guang Guang Chang). The two articles were created by a student who is part of a school project organized by a professor at Nanjing Normal University. Many experienced editors are helping the students develop their editing skills. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yue Guang Guang Chang, formerly Yueguangguangchang, has been speedily deleted as a duplicate of Moonlight square. On the other hand 月光广場 seems never to have existed, so I assume that is a typo. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, you're right. That page is now at Yue Guang Guang Chang and has also been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yue Guang Guang Chang). The two articles were created by a student who is part of a school project organized by a professor at Nanjing Normal University. Many experienced editors are helping the students develop their editing skills. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:Notability. Non notable housing development. Article consists mainly of unverifiable anecdotes. Safiel (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 20:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dante's Inferno Documented[edit]
- Dante's Inferno Documented (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any reliable sources to establish the notability for this unreleased film. The film's official website seems to indicate that the finished film has not yet been selected for screening at any festival. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I checked out the film's website and this seems to be the project of one person. It might become notable after it is released, but not yet. Borock (talk) 22:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It does seem like a do it yourself project. Actually very cool but not much to say about it when the only source is the project itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NotJustYet. I grant a little personal interest as I was friends with Jeff Conaway, knew of his participation, and was aware of both his input and interest into the project and its topic. And while an independent project, it is not quite the product of just "one" person,[13] and considering content and involved actors it is expected to do well at festivals upon the release of its full version in November 2011.[14] Principle filming has completed, a earlier and shorter version has already screened, and a 14 minute preview (not a trailer) is up.[15] Information about the production IS available,[16][17][18] But it does not have the depth of coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF. Also, and due to its primary cast, we should expect far more coverage in Italian-language sources, than English. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tholf[edit]
- Tholf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unreferenced article about a game that sounds like it was made up by drunken frat boys. No evidence of notability, but prod was removed without comment. LadyofShalott 18:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ONEDAY. I really don't even care whether anyone was sober or not when they invented this game - it doesn't cite any references and appears to be original research only. Several Times (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This would seem to confirm the drunken fratboy theory. No coverage in reliable sources though. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage in independent reliable sources – does not meet WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 02:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NewSQL[edit]
- NewSQL (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:NEOLOGISM that appears to have recently been coined and is being used for marketing by a small group of small companies. As yet no significant coverage in google. noq (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given the names associated with the subject, I think it's possible we will have an article on this topic in few years. But it's just not soup yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball of technologies and concepts that may or may not succeed WP:CRYSTAL. The only sources offered are primary sources and when I Googled, I couldn't find additional sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Move This is a new type of database system that is being explored in many universities. The article needs to be rewritten and cleaned up. The giant list of companies needed to be removed. Maybe just move it to the Parallel database article? UMD-Database (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a [[WP:NEOLOGISM coined to market a report. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jermaine Blackburn[edit]
- Jermaine Blackburn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged for not meeting notability guidelines since February 2009. MJHankel (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I went in and did massive cleanup, ref expansion, added an infobox and categories, etc. to make it pass notability. He played in Australia's National Basketball League, which is the highest professional league you can play in over there. He's also notable for being one of very few players ever to record a quadruple-double in a semi-professional or professional basketball game. I admit the way the article looked before compared to how I made it look now is night and day, and so I understand the initial reasoning for deletion, but he passes notability thresholds for basketball players. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He played in Australia's National Basketball League, satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL. — MT (talk) 04:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - with the new changes, I think the article should now be kept. --MJHankel (talk) 10:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Keep per MT - NBL bestows automatic notability. Rikster2 (talk) 11:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. v/r - TP 02:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kixeye[edit]
- Kixeye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Only 6 hits on Google News, all press releases. All citations are to wikis, facebook or primary sources. Only secondary sources are two technology blogs whose reliablility I'm not too convinced on. Sources were turned up in last AFD (closed as "no consensus" after 3 weeks), but some believe the sources fell under WP:ROUTINE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:32, 13 September 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) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:CORPDEPTH - here are some references (including New York Times and Wall Street Journal) that I've turned up in a relatively brief Google search: [19],[20],[21],[22],[23]. Regarding primary sources from Facebook: As the company predominantly makes games for this medium, they're inevitable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 20:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The purported NYT and WSJ sources are not what they are claimed. NYT source is repost from a third-party tech blog (not saying it's not a useful citation). The WSJ source is a WSJ-sponsored blog. In addition, the Marketwire source is a press release and therefore does not help establish notability. Bongomatic 02:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Topic's notability is established per several reliable sources listed above this message. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Certainly Venture Beat and Techcrunch are credible sources of Start up news: [24] [25] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.32.215 (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 15:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—I'm not convinced the subject satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. There's not really any in-depth coverage from reliable sources; most if not all of the cites are of so-so value. I can't really support a keep at this point, much as I'd like to. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep – (struck double vote comment - Off2riorob (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)) - comment - Per available reliable sources listed above that establish notability of the topic Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for this error above in double voting.
Please refer to my first vote above only.Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC) Please refer to the above only as a comment. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize for this error above in double voting.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was staked. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fangsmith[edit]
- Fangsmith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable sources to indicate usage of this term in mainstream publications. Article was created by a WP:SPA who only edits articles related to the vampire subculture. Previously PRODded, the PROD template was then removed by the article's creator without giving a reason. Difluoroethene (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Weak KeepArticle has an irritating, unencyclopedic "for insiders" conversational tone.Butit appears to be a real wordand topic.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC) But I realized that there are no sources about the topic, just sources that use the word. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced neologism that is little more than a dictionary definition. Belongs at Wictionary, not here. WP:NEO applies. Yunshui (talk) 09:43, 13 September 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, v/r - TP 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam, fang you very much. There is already an article on Father Sebastiaan and this article doesn't and likely cannot offer much beyond a dictionary definition and/or links to fang-making services. Several Times (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Father Sebastiaan article was actually created today as well and may be worth examining more closely if there is a consensus to delete this page. Several Times (talk) 21:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 02:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 Preliminary Marseilles[edit]
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 Preliminary Marseilles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating:
- K-1 Rising 2002
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 Preliminary North America
- K-1 Japan MAX 2002
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 Preliminary Melbourne
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 Preliminary Netherlands
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2002 in Nagoya
another series of non notable sporting results that clearly fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG. Merge together if a few more refs can be found. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all More events that are just routine sports reporting without any indication of notability. Papaursa (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Routine coverage of non-notable events. At best, these events were K-1 qualifying events for qualifying events. Astudent0 (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as per nome and Astudent0. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:50, 19 September 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, v/r - TP 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on relisting: I relisted due to the number of articles nominated, I feel there should be more discussion.--v/r - TP 15:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All WP:EVENT reads "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." These events determine the champions and rankings for the contenders of K-1. Therefore these results of these events have significant lasting effects and thus meet the criteria for WP:EVENT.--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- a new interest in kickboxing Ryan? These events do not determine champions or top rankings, they are qualifying events for other events. Many of the participants are non notable. Where is the significant enduring coverage to prove they meet WP:EVENT? LibStar (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:RECENTISM, WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:NSPORTS. All these pages fail every aspect of EVENT. No persistence, no scope, no depth, no effect, no diversity. Plus no independent sources. These pages are each unsourced preliminary results. Not all sporting events are notable. As an aside, we rarely have articles on individual soccer matches or baseball games, even though these have prominent visibility in national sports sections. If Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it's definitely not a sports section. Would not object if all K-1 events were merged into articles for each year, as a possible compromise. With exceptions, AfD procedure after AfD procedure has shown User:LibStar deletion is the common practice. I tend to agree, at least in the cases above. BusterD (talk) 12:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 02:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jill Whalen[edit]
- Jill Whalen (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, WP:promotional. references in which self authored articles are used. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:03, 12 September 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 Advertising-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination: a search engine optimization (SEO) consultant, speaker and writer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what your reasoning is. That just lists what she does. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But the original nomination didn't mention her field, either, and people browsing AfD for articles they might try to improve may want to know this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see what your reasoning is. That just lists what she does. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Quotes from her and an article published by her do not show notability. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nothing notable in the article and nothing notable to be found online, in Google scholar or in Google books. West Eddy (talk) 06:59, 13 September 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, — Scientizzle 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I originally closed this discussion as delete. However, a re-list of this discussion was requested by Jehochman (talk · contribs) and so I'm opening this back up for discussion. — Scientizzle 15:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A quick search on the topic in Google Books returns multiple solid hits. http://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Jill+Whalen%22 Ignore the stuff on Celtic Tales; go to the bottom of the first page of results, and continue to the second page. There is plenty there to write an article, and more could be found in web-based sources. Dislike of SEOs (a perfectly understandable sentiment) is not a valid reason to delete articles about notable SEOs. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yourself being an SEO invovled personnel is not a valid reason to make non-sense claim that nominations were made for the reason of "dislike". You need stop making things up Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jill Whalen has an entire chapter in this book: Online Marketing Heroes: Interviews with 25 Successful Online Marketing Gurus . Jehochman Talk 16:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you and I had argued over COI, I looked around. From what I gathered, your profession involves search engine optimization. In web articles involving advise on having a page on Wikipedia, you were cited. A question I have for you. Do you provide advise to people and organizations on concerning Wikipedia editing or for that matter, advise involving anything to do with Wikipedia for pay? Here are some articles I looked at Can WP help your business? The Art of SEO for Wikipedia 16 Tips to Gain RespectCantaloupe2 (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Books So who are the people citing her? I looked at a few. Many are Jill of so and so dot com advises "a quote". Many authors appear to be other SEO people, for example Gerry McGovern. To me, this looks to be just another example of SEO producers quoting each other to build upon each other. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Per reliable sources listed above. Also see: this. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Many people have a chapter in a book. There are many authors. Author can write whatever they feel like in their book. That book includes a chapter for each person he interviewed.How do we know that book is a reliable source? They can write a section about their dog, their sister, their favorite celebrity and what not. I still do not find this author to have adequate general notability for inclusion. I hold my ground on my nomination. Wikipedia is NOT a directory of every verifiable persons we can name. It is an encyclopedia. Jill Whalen is not Oprah Winfrey or Thomas Jefferson. She appears notable in very narrow niche community but lacks prominence within the general audience. I am not reporting this from what I know. I am reporting from what I could locate through independent sources that do not involve those in the industry citing each other. Many of the blogs, .com sites that are not prominent to the general population falls in this category in my evaluation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement is false. The chapter is an interview with Jill Whalen, not a chapter written by her. Would you please stop posting misinformation. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You read wrong. I didn't state she wrote it. The book has a chapter for each person the author interviewed. One of the interviewee is Jill Whalen. I hope this clarifies it. I standby the contents in my immediately preceding post. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement is false. The chapter is an interview with Jill Whalen, not a chapter written by her. Would you please stop posting misinformation. Jehochman Talk 22:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article and comments here including externals appear to raise the notability at least above the WP:GNG level of wikipedia inclusion. - Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The basis? Would you provide links to a handful of references that you used to come to the opinion that this article exceeds wp:gng in that 1.) Coverage is beyond trivial(i.e. not snippets here and there), 2.) sources have proper editorial oversight or 3.) they're self-published blog, but the author has established notability through significant coverage in reliable sources in the past? Please include the specific sources you consulted so that we can independently review them to see if they establish adequate notability. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable according to Wikipedia:Notability (people). I don't understand why this debate was re-opened. HairyWombat 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd have expected a better self-promotional article out of a SEO professional, so I have my doubts as to whether the subject did in fact create the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have actual evidence to support your accusations against a named, living person? If not, please redact your comment. This page is not a platform for defamation. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My comment was phrased in terms of my expectations and my doubts. I have direct actual evidence of these, as their holder. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're attempting to scare away editors with opposing views through accusations of wrong doing, such as libel, slander, defamation. Statement of personal expectation is an opinion, not a defamation. Cite the law or WP policies that define Stuartyeates as defamation. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have actual evidence to support your accusations against a named, living person? If not, please redact your comment. This page is not a platform for defamation. Jehochman Talk 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Deleted with a grain of salt.. Also, the SPAs pushing the article smell faintly of WP:SOCK to me. The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trend Micro Mascot[edit]
- Trend Micro Mascot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable advertising mascot - no significant coverage or claims of significance. Tried redirecting to Trend Micro several times, but constantly reverted by a series of SPAs. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a para within Trend Micro at most. ...and as to the writing style! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Easy call. There's absolutely no secondary coverage whatsoever. Completely fails WP:GNG. Reads like a sci-fi novel. Msnicki (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The aticle has extensive writing problems and does not show any importance. I think it may qualify for speedy deletion under G11 or G1. Shakinglord:Kudos, Mailbox, ??? 18:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with salt, so that it cannot be created without admin intervention. A redirect is not needed since topic is clearly advertising. The image is also a copyright violation so needs to go too. W Nowicki (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt to prevent further disruption. no evidence of standalone notability. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 16:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Hertzog[edit]
- Gary Hertzog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Comes close to but does not meet WP:ATH or WP:BIO. Hertzog was drafted by the New Orleans Saints in the 1967 NFL Draft but never appeared in a regular season game. He did play in the Continental Football League, but that is not recognized as a top-level professional league per WP:NGRIDIRON. He appears to have at one time held a Willamette University school shot put record, but otherwise does not appear to meet WP:NTRACK. As for his teaching career, I'm sure he does great things for the students he teaches, but I see nothing from that career to indicate that he meets WP:BIO. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this article blatantly fails each of the two criteria at WP:ANYBIO. Hertzog never broke a sports record and he hasn't been written about in a variety of reliable, secondary sources. Jsayre64 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not the most notable, but a search through the Oregonian archives (1860-1987) provides 19 hits, many trivial, but given his age, we are dealing with the FUTON bias, and if the Oregonian has that many articles, I would hypothesize there would be at least that many for the Salem paper, and it appears he was from Wenatchee, WA, so I'm sure their local paper would have a few stories about the local kid who was drafted into the NFL. I would not be surprised if the NOLA paper also had a small article about their draft pick, maybe a second when he signed. All in all, that tells me the topic of Hertzog passes WP:BIO, and it is the topic we are judging. Aboutmovies (talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if enough information can be found to make Hertzog notable enough for his own article, I'll certainly be willing to change my opinion about this. Jsayre64 (talk) 03:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:If we put barriers on the level of athletic achievement, whether it be state or schools records that have been broken, we might as well delete many of the other athletes that have broken seemingly useless school records in the Wikipedia Directory. Although Gary Hertzog has only achieved mediocre athletic achievements, he has plenty of newspaper articles backing the claims towards him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zman.Firestar (talk • contribs) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as to why that type of argument fails (or at least the first part of your argument). Aboutmovies (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While college athletes can qualify under WP:GNG, there needs to be significant non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources. Passing mentions in game coverage are considered to be routine. I've searched several databases (including NewsLibrary, newspaperarchive.com, and Google news archives) and can't find even one article that is written about Hertzog as the main subject of the article. I agree with Aboutmovies that FUTON bias can come into play with a player from this era, but I don't see any achievements that would lead me to believe in this case that there is significant coverage out there that we are missing. His track accomplishments appear to have been at the community college level, and his football accomplishments were as a lineman for Willamette University which competes at the lowest rung of NCAA athletics (NCAA Division III). Even the article creator, Zman.Firestar, concedes above that Hertzog never achieved more than "mediocre athletic achievements." Contrast this with another recent college football AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Iacone) where research revealed multiple non-trivial stories even though the person played at a small college in the 1960s. Finally, I note that all but one of the article creator's edits are about "Hertzog" and the early ones are in the nature of vandalism. See, e.g., this diff "(Fear The Hertzog!)", this diff (inserting gibberish about "The Hertzog" into an article about "Beefmaster"), and this diff (blanking the entire Costa Rica article with an image of a marijuana leaf). Although under no obligation to do so, I would welcome any comment the article creator may have as to whether or not he/she has a COI/relationship with the subject of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Zman.Firestar's only other new article (about an Oregon high school student) was speedily deleted earlier today. See User talk:Zman.Firestar#Speedy deletion nomination of Konnor Kelley. His article about "The Hertzog" (asserting that The Hertzog was "know for being the most powerful human on the planet" whose toe nail clipping destroyed the Roman and Egyptian empires) was also speedily deleted in February 2011. See User talk:Zman.Firestar#Speedy deletion nomination of The Hertzog. Cbl62 (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He doesn't seem to pass any relevant notability guideline.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article creator Zman.Firestar (talk · contribs) has been indef blocked for vandalism. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Bruce Schneier. v/r - TP 16:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Schneier's Law[edit]
- Schneier's Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Lacks reliable sources. Jojalozzo 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why on earth would you nominate this for deletion? We have ample articles on both the unquestionably notable progenitors; just merge it to one of those if you're not convinced of its tenability. Skomorokh 13:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps it could have been a merge request but I don't see how it fits anywhere on Doctorow's page and some mention of Schneier by Doctorow seems pretty tangential for Schneier's page. If someone can figure out where and how to merge it I wouldn't stand in the way. Jojalozzo 15:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – and I agree that it could be mentioned on one of the people articles, though it's not notable on its own Dicklyon (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is about another humorous maxim described as a scientific law. This one holds that Any person can invent a security system so clever that he or she can't imagine a way of breaking it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. The only sources I could find (including searching Google books and scholar) were the Doctorow quote and that's just not enough for me. Doctorow may have found this notable, but nobody else has. It might be appropriate to mention this "law" on Bruce Schneier's page but there isn't a mention there now, except in the See also section. If this law isn't worth even a mention in the article about the man who supposedly invented it, I can't imagine how it could merit its own separate article. Msnicki (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikiquote. —Ruud 17:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge per Msnicki or Dicklyon. Both have good arguments, and I can live with either outcome. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Bruce Schneier or Delete Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejustice against recreation if he signs with a pro team and plays. The Bushranger One ping only 04:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Tyrone Willis[edit]
- Keith Tyrone Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never played in a regular season game of professional football. Isn't notable by WP: Notability (sports) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 20 September 2011
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?I'm a bit leery of my own judgement here since I am not terribly familiar with WP policies regarding sport (or familiar with sports in general). However, I found this web page which seems to indicate he played 4 games for the Chiefs, which would make him pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are preseason (exhibition) games and they do not count towards passing WP:NGRIDIRON. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case it's a clear case of delete, as I can't find anything that would support WP:BIO or any other criteria. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ATH and WP:GNG.--Giants27(T|C) 20:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete. Per Giants27 and Yeates.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel James Morcombe: The Entire Story[edit]
- Daniel James Morcombe: The Entire Story (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 documentary proposed by a 12-year-old child who frequents youtube. Unreferenced to any reliable independent source, fails WP:FILM. WWGB (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The 12-year old is sponsored and assisted by major companies, friends and other adults. The article is noticeable to Pandorica Inc. Productions as it is one of their first major productions and can get them a long way. The article will be extended and improved once the movie goes further into production and more information is released. On the topic of the top comment on this discussion, "12-year-old child who frequents YouTube"? Really? I would like other people to know that age does not defy one's true talent. This 12-year old's true talent is movie-making. --Rhain1999 (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL, the creator also has a conflict of interest. Bidgee (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There are no indications of notability here Nick-D (talk) 12:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for many reasons. No guarantee this film will ever happen. Obviously fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL, but also no evidence of notability, so probably fails WP:GNG too. Only references are social networking sites. No results if you google the whole title. Also note that the one "keep" vote here seems to be the article's originator, and the film's "director". Hoax? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the general notability guideline due to no significant coverage from reliable sources about the topic. I have no issue with recreation if coverage does emerge. To the article creator Rhain1999, Wikipedia does not lead in generating content; it follows. The topic must have been covered by other (reliable) sources before we do, and it needs to meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which can depend on the subject matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Same reasons as the above 5 deletion comments. North8000 (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Okay. So the page will probably be deleted now, but this is not a hoax. The movie will still be created. You have no control over what I do. If this movie does become successful, however, I will enjoy seeing this page rise into a successfully written article and neither a stub nor a hoax, as you word it. --Rhain1999 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Erik. As I see it, this is not a hoax, just a project which has not yet been realized. If the movie does become successful in the future, the article can be re-created at that time. That doesn't bother me. I've seen articles about musical artists get deleted multiple times before the artists attained some success, but later the artists attained some success and their articles were re-created and kept. That's how things are supposed to work. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone else's comments, and pure common sense. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 23:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Knockharley Cricket Club[edit]
- Knockharley Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable cricket club. Doesn't play anything near top-flight cricket, plays in a regional Irish league in the 7th division thereof. No other demonstration of notability, as there does not appear to be extensive writing about this club in reliable sources, per WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Jayron32 11:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB Mtking (edits) 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mtking (edits) 12:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Snow keep. Aside from the dreadfully worded nomination, was AfD'd -7 minutes- after creation. WP:DANNO The Bushranger One ping only 06:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roman Umistowski[edit]
- Roman Umistowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person doesn't look really interesting Mbch331 (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the polish users think differently; Umiastowski has a voice in the polish wikipedia. Moreover, interesting is somewhat subjective, isn't it? To an illiterate Jibaro of the Amazon basin, or to an american senator, also Shakespeare looks uninteresting. Aristofane di Bisanzio. —Preceding undated comment added 20 September 2011.
- Weak Keep. Looks as though there are a bare minimum worth of references for this biography. Furthermore, the OP has not made a convincing arguement for deletion.--Jayron32 11:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was vaguely going for a weak delete, however this is such a dreadfully worded nomination that I recommend this AfD is first binned as having such a bad start. Mbch331, please take some time to read up on WP:DEL. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This person's name was Roman Umiastowski, but he was better known under his pseudonym Boleslaw Zarnowiecki (author of two futuristic novels), see Between Hitler and Stalin: The Quick Life and Secret Death of Edward Smigly Rydz, Marshal of Poland, Dog Ear Publishing, 2010, p. 160, ISBN 9781608445639 and many other sources at G-Books [26]. The content of our article is easily verifiable/expandable with the help of reliable English and Polish sources. Umiastowski seems to be an important personality for Polish history. I'll move the article to the correct name. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Dreadfully worded nomination aside, Vejvančický makes a good point that this person is notable as an author. I also added a note about his military position, which may be notable (head of propaganda department in the Polish High Staff in '39). The article needs expansion, and better sources, but I think it is encyclopedic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 16:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Defective nom. Article is only 1 day old, notability already somewhat established and looks likely. North8000 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It appears that the nominator may not have followed the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which, if true, nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. There's no mention in the nomination regarding the availability of reliable sources. The nomination's basis is upon opinion about the topic, rather than upon searching for reliable sources, as required per WP:BEFORE requirements. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per source search provided by user Vejvančický, which demonstrates topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article was originally clumsy and badly written but on a notable enough subject. Volunteer Marek 13:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy[edit]
- Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy (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 clearly fails WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. no evidence of signficant coverage in third party sources. LibStar (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am curious what has changed in the two months since this article was last listed for AfD. --TreyGeek (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there has been no attempt at article improvement to address concerns of notability. This is another attempt to gain clear consensus for either keep or delete. LibStar (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Data exchange. v/r - TP 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Data exchange language[edit]
- Data exchange language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
there is no formal definition of a "data exchange language". Any file format (data format) can be used for data exchange (and storage). XML are occassionally coined as "data exchange languages", but this is only informal. Formally, they are structured, extensible markup languages with generic parsers available, and this wide availability of compatible parsers makes them suitable for data exchange. There obviously are benefits for using formal languages in data exchange, but this by no means warrants an article. The contents maybe could/should be merged somewhere and the article replaced with a redirect to a more appropriate place. Chire (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an "easy to use" term, but it doesn't actually convey any meaning beyond "language used for data exchange", which doesn't warrant the need for an article, at most for an wiktionary entry "Computer language used in the exchange of data". It doesn't even mean designed for data exchange. The article is also essentially orphaned. Neither XML or YAML link to it - they use the much more precise terminology of being a markup language. As such, this page is essentially a WP:CRYSTAL attempt at defining a term that is occasionally used, but only informally. (Amazon.com gives me 0 hits when searching for "data exchange language" with quotes) --Chire (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect (to Data exchange?) The phrase is used often enough (and with a standard enough, if informal, meaning not to be unduly ambiguous) to be a natural search term, and the use for data exchange of at least some of the languages concerned is verifiable (in the Wikipedia sense) and should be mentioned somewhere. But that doesn't have to be in this article. (Note: I recently deprodded the article, but more or less for the reasons above rather than any belief that the article should be kept as is.) PWilkinson (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per PWilkinson. Seems like a good solution, particularly given the brief nature of both articles. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As of the many supporters of merge, I've gone ahead and rewritten a section ong Data exchange languages in the Data exchange article. Any objects to replacing the existing Data exchange language article with a redirect? --Chire (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good - so far as I am concerned, go ahead. PWilkinson (talk) 00:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I've gone ahead and put the redirect in place, thus essentially closing this AfD with a result of "merge". I'm not sure from the instructions how to completely / properly close this AfD though. --Chire (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: I did not merge the article, but actually rewrite a new section covering the same topic for the existing article. As such, this actually isn't a merge, but a redirect, is that correct? So I guess the "Afd-merge from" template actually is/was inappropriate... I merged the topic, not the contents. --Chire (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jackie Barrett[edit]
- Jackie Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally nominated by Sgerbic (talk) at TFD. Here is their rationale:
- The page has only 5 sources: One is her personal website, one is her blog, one is a video that no longer exists, one is a reference on a website showing that she has been on a ghost hunt and lastly the only credible one is the reference to the show America's Psychic Challenge that she was on and the link is broken. This person does not fit Notability standards. Her one claim to fame is that she was the runner up on the aforementioned APC, the winner of that show and the other contestants do not have Wikipedia pages. The show host John Burke does not even have a WP page.
— This, that, and the other (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Nearly every somewhat-notability related claim in the text is unsourced. Writing is spun and promotional. North8000 (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Ludwig von Sonntag[edit]
- William Ludwig von Sonntag (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. ubject is not notable: he apparently was present at a notable ooccasion, and is an ancestor of a somewhat notable person, John de Havilland. However, he has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources. There are no Google Books results at all[27] (nor Scholar or News archive, obvisouly), and there are only 13 Google hits at all[28], all based on Wikipedia. So the problem is not only that he hasn't received significant attention, but that he hasn't received any attention or even mention at all, making him unverifiable and certainly totally failing WP:BIO. Searching for him under the name "William Louis von Sonntag" at least solves the unverifiable part, but again shows that he is not notable. Looking for Wilhelm von Sonntag gives hits for a different person. Fram (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: looking for yet another variation of the name, "Wilhelm Louis von Sonntag", gives one sentence in a reliable source, [29], in an entry about a different member of the family, William Louis Sonntag, Sr., who is notable. Fram (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's excellent research under various versions of his name. Even if everything could be verified (which it currently isn't), "being present" at a notable event does not automatically makes him notable. Neither does having notable descendents. --MelanieN (talk) 02:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zen Acharya[edit]
- Zen Acharya (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 really don't think this guy's going to meet notability test - I've just spent about 45 minutes trying to salvage the article, clean up references (found quite a few duplicated refs), and so on - other than press releases about the film, the other sources all seem to be the self-published sources. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Like Pesky, I too have a had a crack at tidying the article up, and deemed it a futile errand. At the end of the day, the only source listed which is worth anything is the APN News report, and that reads so much like a press release that it might as well be self-published. If there are sources out there independent of the subject, I haven't been able to find them. Yunshui (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding: The film might possibly meet the criteria for an article - but I'm cynically suspecting possible COI on this article, in any event - and it's quite likely that the news stories themselves are based mostly (or even wholly) on self-published press releases. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. v/r - TP 15:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
China's University and College Admission System[edit]
- China's University and College Admission 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)
At least two editors have searched for enough sources for the article to pass WP:GNG, but to no avail. We hope that this AfD will prompt others, especially those at the organization, to provide adequate third-party references. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is really not the place to look for help on article improvement. Would it not make more sense to withdraw this AfD and take it to Wikiproject China, or list at Category:Articles needing attention? Yunshui (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't really about improving it. It's about deleting it - hence the name. I thought one of the purposes of AfD is to nominate articles for which adequate sources cannot be found, in the hope that it is either deleted, or saved after others find sources to support it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment AfD is really not the place to look for help on article improvement. Would it not make more sense to withdraw this AfD and take it to Wikiproject China, or list at Category:Articles needing attention? Yunshui (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just had a rather baffling experience. I've tried to establish notability by finding references to CUCAS on the websites of Chinese universities listed on http://www.cucas.edu.cn . My initial small sample consisted of Beijing Normal, Hainan and Southeast Universities. They all provided their own application forms and systems for international students, made no mention of CUCAS and did not link to that site. I then tried searching for sites that link to CUCAS (link:www.cucas.edu.cn -cucas.edu.cn) but found very few Chinese universities. However I did find a prominent link from the China Education and Research Network at http://www.edu.cn/english_1369/index.shtml , and I did find their parent company Beijing Chiwest Co., Ltd http://www.chiwest.cn. They haven't been operating for long - though you might say 2008/2009 is an age ago in a rapidly growing economy - so maybe they need time to establish notability. NebY (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Shared marketing programs aren't independently notable, even when they're bilingual. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. Few if any of the universities listed by this company make any suggestion at all to prospective students that they use this company's services. (As a further example, the CUCAS site currently headlines Zhengzhou University, whose website provides full direct contact details for prospective overseas students http://english.zzu.edu.cn/contactus.htm.) This seems to me to be a major failure to achieve notability. Meanwhile, the sources that are provided seem largely to be passing references and to be insufficient for the primary criteria for notability of organisations given at WP:CORPDEPTH. NebY (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kitchlu Public School[edit]
- Kitchlu Public 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)
No information that shows this school is interesting Mbch331 (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion has been given. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - experience shows that high schools, that invariably make a substantial impact on their communities, have the necessary sources to meet WP:GNG. Because of their notoriously poor presence on the Internet, Indian schools generally require local searches to identify the requisite sources. We don't delete likely notable subjects for lack of sources we tag and improve. TerriersFan (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In my opinion, public schools (and other government agencies) are notable for the reason that TerriersFan wrote and the fact that public schools are ran with tax payer money. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting? That's a nomination?--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the only article this user has nominated for deletion with a "not interesting" rationaile. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nearly 2/3 consensus toward keep. There were arguments for a merge and a few who opposed merge. It appears that Escape Orbit made an argument for keep that stole the AFD after that point. v/r - TP 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo hoax in popular culture[edit]
- Apollo hoax in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
POV fork, trivia page, clearly unencyclopedic, clearly POV and WP:FRINGE article name. Senior Trend (talk) 05:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because you can totally see a guy kick a pop can at 3:30 into the article. Seriously, this is nothing but a catchall for anytime the hoax was mentioned, no matter how trivial. It's trivia and cruft, pure and simple, and the sources are almost nonexistant. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per reasons stated above. Aeonx (talk) 08:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: Noting from the first AfD nomination, much of this article could be very briefly summarized and incorporated into the Moon landing conspiracy theories article; I envision a sentence such as: "The notion that some (or all of the) Apollo moon landings were a hoax has appeared multiple times in popular culture, including ..." (A few significant examples could be mentioned with references - eg. Dark Side of the Moon, Mythbusters.) - Aeonx (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is just another non-notable content fork. Merge whatever stray bits of material have reliable, substantive third-party sources back into the article on the conspiracy theory.--Cúchullain t/c 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.I don't think anything is worth merging into Moon landing conspiracy theories. (I don't see that it is POV, but it is definitely trivia, mostly unsourced, and unencyclopedic. If someone had done a study on this topic, then maybe, but otherwise it is just a collection of trivia.) Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I think it is OK in its revised state. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "...in popular culture" articles are common on WP. I don't see any special problem with this one. It is also more interesting than most. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep an article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor is WP:I don't like it a reason to delete. I don't see a general movement to delete in popular culture articles. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm topic banned (as well as self topic banned) so I can't do it, but you could try nominating Scientology in popular culture and see how many people like it. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW MIA on WP seem to be Judaism in popular culture, Hinduism in popular culture, and Christianity in popular culture. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced,and seems to be original research.Abebenjoe (talk) 20:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Unsourced != unsourceable, and we don't need secondary sources to verify what a primary source (a cultural reference) says. Per WP:ATD, it would also be reasonable to merge this back into the main article, and the listings could be trimmed and rewritten. Thus, while I agree that the article should probably not continue in this specific form, none of the delete !voters have articulated a single policy-based reason to delete the entire article vs. a less drastic cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 21:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We do need secondary sources for any interpretation of the material, for instance how notable it is and how important it is to the subject. I have yet to see any reliable secondary sources that take the Apollo hoax in popular culture as their subject.--Cúchullain t/c 15:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, the quotations from Bill Clinton and Norman Mailer have considerable historical significance, because they suggest mainstream acknowledgement of the reasonability of questioning the alleged moon landings. Second, some of the performing arts references may be similar hints, disguised as fiction--a well-known and often-used technique in movies, books, etc. (Many if not most unauthorized film biographies include an absurd disclaimer that the film is entirely fictional and not based on any persons living or dead, when in fact every knowledgeable viewer knows precisely on whose life the film is loosely based.) The Diamonds Are Forever reference is important for its very early appearance while the Apollo program was still ongoing; and Capricorn One for its highly elaborated and arguably realistic scenario as well as its appropriateness to the timeframe (during the 1970s, when various disparaged "conspiracies" were exposed as true, such as the Tuskegee experiment, CIA drug and mind-control experiments, etc.).--BeSkepticalOfAll (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge The In print section could be used in the main article (perhaps in a new section titled reception or in the current public opinion section). The rest of the article is just a trivialist, fruitlessly trying to organize everytime someone in popular culture has ever referenced the apollo landing as being a hoax. ThemFromSpace 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note In pop culture is something WP does well. In general the articles are useful and people who are not interested can skip them. Steve Dufour (talk) 10:40, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not a fan of "In popular culture", but this is a valid topic for an article. Could do with a clear out of uncited trivia though. The reason this article was forked from Moon landing conspiracy theories were sound See explanation here. Re-merging articles would result in the same problems arising. It also had the beneficial result of clearly differentiating references to a hoax in fiction, from references to a hoax in (claimed) fact. Sometimes it's hard to determine the difference. The nomination is also total nonsense. Which POV is being advanced through the fork? Which fringe theories theories? Dislike for an article name is a reason to suggest renaming it, not deleting the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you about the POV issue. I don't see how it is POV. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Escape Orbit. The cultural points share a common theme and demonstrate the influence of this nonsensical rubbish on certain elements of society. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Steve Dufour, Escape Orbit and JH Hall. To back up Escape, I can't see what "POV fork, trivia page, clearly unencyclopedic, clearly POV and WP:FRINGE article name" means. How can the pop-culture view be a content fork? Notable examples can be kept, and trivia can be removed. Pop-culture is inherently Wikipedic, because we can go beyond print encyclopedias. Unencyclopedic really means (a) the nominator just doesn't like it, (b) the nominator can't grasp the concept of an Internet encyclopedia and its potential, or (c) it's better suited for a fan page or being transwikied to Wikitionary; I don't see how the latter applies. A move or re-name can work for a badly-named article; WP:AfD is not the place to discuss that. 10-lb-hammer, your concerns can be addressed through normal editing processes. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is unencyclopedic is how the article is written, as an exhaustive collection of minutiea. The problem isn't the topic itself but how the content is presented; as a trivialist and not a summary of the topic. Most of our "in popular culture" articles suffer from this and something needs to be done about it. When articles have little or no redeemable content its easiest to delete them and let a caring editor rewrite the article from scratch. ThemFromSpace 04:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Like a lot of "in popular culture" content, much of this is unsourced, trivial garbage that few are going to read and no-one is going to verify. However, some of it isn't and the article topic is perfectly valid. I do not agree that deletion is the surest way of preserving that content or improving the article. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If a reader is doing some research on references to conspiracy theories regarding the Apollo Moon landings, this is the article they need. Less contemporary topics have a place in Wikipedia, too. Deterence Talk 04:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - agree with Escape Orbit. The article would be improved by more references, but AfD is not cleanup. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I really think the unoteworthy trivia should be removed before any real judgment can be made. At the moment it looks like an article but once you remove all the pointless references to Ali G, friends, futurama and loony tunes to name only a few I can't see there will be much left to keep! I agree that the president clinton and Norman Mailer quotes are noteworthy, but I can't see that a lot else is of note at all! Polyamorph (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AfD isn't cleanup but in a case where if clean-up actually happened there would be almost nothing left then it should be taken into consideration. Polyamorph (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivia removed. Per WP:BOLD I removed everything that I considered to be un-noteworthy trivia of no use. Please see the article talk page for the content that I removed. Now users can concentrate on debating the usefulness of what is left, as opposed to the trivia that should never have been in the article in the first place. Best wishes Polyamorph (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That was more than just a trim. I would have preferred to leave that content and allow discerning readers to decide for themselves. But, given the witch-hunt above, I can see why you did it. Deterence Talk 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There was clear consensus both in the current AfD and the previous one that there was a vast quantity of trivial information that needed to be removed from the article. It is better, in my opinion, to actually do that rather than perpetually discussing that it should be done. During an AfD the article does not have to remain static. If there are objections to the content I removed then there is a discussion on the article talk page with all the removed content, since it's an editing issue it should be discussed there. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that consensus at all. Erasing a large chunk of an article during an AFD is usually considered bad form. If those are entries in notable media, then they belong in this popular culture article. Reverting you now. Discuss on the talk page if you believe you have a legitimate reason to remove anything. Saying one thing is more notable than another blue link item seems rather odd. Dream Focus 17:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's trivial pointless trash. Many users have said so. You should not have reverted my edits, it's not poor form to improve an article. Trivia like that does not belong in wikipedia, I left in everything I thought was actually notable and which actually significantly dealt with the hoax story, instead of just passing references. All you have done by reverting my good faith attempt at actually improving the article, as opposed to discussing the same points ad naseum, is advanced the position of those who wish the article to be deleted since there is no place on wikipedia for such pointless trivia. Polyamorph (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some evidence of the consensus I saw User:Escape Orbit mentioned pruning the article to a quarter of it's size and "Could do with a clear out of uncited trivia". User:Bearian said notable examples can be kept and trivia removed. User:Jclemens suggested trimming the listings. Comments on the older AfD that weren't simply !votes similarly implied a severe trimming of the listings being required. In fact the closing admin commented "the discussion shows that any problem the article might have with being an indiscriminate collection of information (as opposed to a legitimate WP:SS spinout) could be solved by editing it down to a reduced size". User:BeSkepticalOfAll highlighted some very notable points that were in the article and I kept those in and some more. With all that plus all the delete arguments I see a consensus that the trivial stuff has to go. If you don't see that then I don't think you've read the discussion thoroughly and more just acted on your own viewpoint, possibly shared by some but certainly not all or most. Consensus is all about fairly weighing discussion, not counting !votes.Polyamorph (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is ample news coverage on the moon landing hoax conspiracy people, making it notable. Seeing how well something notable has gone through popular culture over the years, is quite encyclopedic, and why most popular culture articles nominated end in Keep. Dream Focus 12:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMy attempts at improving this article, per discussions on this page, on the article talk page and the previous AfD, to remove the un-notable trivia on this page have failed and were reverted by another user. I don't feel that there is any noteworthyness of this pointless trivia whatsoever and will not support keeping an article that contains so many references that fail our core policies on notability. There are some items in the list which do significantly cover the hoax story and I believe are notable, some are highlighted above by BeSkepticalOfAll. However if good faith attempts at improving the article are going to be reverted in order to support the inclusion of un-noteworthy passing references to the hoax then the only stance I can possibly take is delete.Polyamorph (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep after an admin reinstated my edits. However, I will only support keeping this article if it is agreed that the non-notable unsourced trivia that dominated the page at the start of tis AfD is not to be restored. The listings that remain are mostly sourced and significantly deal with the hoax, as opposed to being just passing references.Polyamorph (talk) 06:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Polyamorph, your approach to this article is starting to resemble an entirely obstinate my-way-or-it-gets-deleted. This is completely unacceptable. You have so thoroughly poisoned this AfD process that I strongly urge an admin to suspend this AfD and allow time for tempers to cool. Deterence Talk 08:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Poisoned? That's not true but I'm sorry if it's come across like that. I tried to improve the article per a consensus that I saw which I have justified. The Afd template asks users to improve the article to bring it in line with policy if they can do so. There are template messages on the article asking to remove trivia. That's all I've done, it was a good faith attempt at improving the article so that it can be kept. However, if you don't think that removing the trivia was the right thing to do then feel free to oppose it with some credible reasoning, I'm very happy for you to do so! Personally, I won't support keeping the article if the un-noteworthy trivia is restored. But I'm only one user so my support or delete !vote is not the deciding factor here. Overall consensus from the issues raised is. RegardsPolyamorph (talk) 09:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, you're just one editor who appears to have an admin protecting his/her edits. In my experience, that makes it game-over for the rest of us. Deterence Talk 11:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was more another user had an admin keeping a close eye on their edits, nothing to do with me, but I 100% agree with the admin's rational for reverting the restoration of the unsourced trivia per WP:Burden. Feel free to provide some rational as to why that was not valid. Regards Polyamorph (talk) 11:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except you didn't remove it because it was unsourced, but because you didn't feel those examples were important, right? If someone found a review of a television episode which mentions the fake moon landing, wouldn't you still be objecting to it being there? Dream Focus 11:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said at the time and on the talk page of the article itself, you are free to provide a valid reason why the listings should be included. I'm not unreasonable, if you find sources that demonstrate notability then provide them! I never add anything to wikipedia without providing a source. You will also notice that I didn't remove any of the listings that were sourced. I'm not your enemy here, I'm trying to help improve the article. If I'm in the wrong then fine but please just provide some evidence of notability, it's all anyone can ask. But to be fair it's an editing issue now and should really be discussed on the article page. Unless I was wrong to invoke WP:BOLD and make the changes mid-way through the AfD. Although the AfD template message, other maintenance template tags and the overall consensus on this page suggests to me that I did do the right thing. Polyamorph (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is ridiculous. While you're demanding that everyone else jump through hoops, you're "justifying" your own unilateral edits with WP:BOLD. Do I even need to point-out the absurd double-standard here? Deterence Talk 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I get it, you don't like what I did. Clearly I shouldn't have edited the article so drastically mid AfD, now can you please stop attacking me personally over it and concentrate on the content. I was trying to do the right thing. Since neither of you have provided one shred of evidence as to how this information is notable or worthy of inclusion there is no more discussion to be had from me. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is ridiculous. While you're demanding that everyone else jump through hoops, you're "justifying" your own unilateral edits with WP:BOLD. Do I even need to point-out the absurd double-standard here? Deterence Talk 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said at the time and on the talk page of the article itself, you are free to provide a valid reason why the listings should be included. I'm not unreasonable, if you find sources that demonstrate notability then provide them! I never add anything to wikipedia without providing a source. You will also notice that I didn't remove any of the listings that were sourced. I'm not your enemy here, I'm trying to help improve the article. If I'm in the wrong then fine but please just provide some evidence of notability, it's all anyone can ask. But to be fair it's an editing issue now and should really be discussed on the article page. Unless I was wrong to invoke WP:BOLD and make the changes mid-way through the AfD. Although the AfD template message, other maintenance template tags and the overall consensus on this page suggests to me that I did do the right thing. Polyamorph (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't think its a hoax, but there are alot of people who do, movies have been made on the so called conspiracy, and people should have a right to there own opinion, so keep.– Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge with the main article on the conspiracy theory. No need for a seperate "popular culture" article about a fringe theory. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tamanduá - A Brazilian Opera[edit]
- Tamanduá - A Brazilian Opera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not find reliable sources to support notability of musical piece or performances thereof. Fails WP:MUSIC. Moogwrench (talk) 03:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - References have been provided. Tamandua is the only operatic work in Brazilian Portuguese ever produced in the USA. It's uniqueness is in itself enough to justify the article. Brazilian press gave wide coverage to the work. The work was presented in concert format in New York and in the prestigious Peak Performances at Montclair, NJ. In the universe of classical music a single performance can be enough to establish the historical relevance of a work. In Opera this is especially so because an opera evolves the work of a number of people, soloists, chorus, orchestra, conductor, set design, costumes, light, etc and large amounts of sheet music, (a symphony averages 100 to 200 pages, an opera can easily go beyond 1000 pages) the mere fact that it is produced at all implies in a large number of people believing in the artistic quality of the product. This opera has achieved more than that. Previous comments were made while article was under construction and references had not been typed yet. --Humbertoego (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding Humbertoego comment added by Humbertoego (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Humbertoego (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. This work may one day become notable and article worthy, but not yet. It has not received a fully staged complete performance anywhere as far as I can see. These are workshop performances, with selected scenes or even just arias and performed in concert or semi-staged. It seems to have been ignored by the press when it was performed at Montclair State University in New Jersey by students and faculty in the John J. Cali School of Music Opera Workshop. I can find no reviews. And no, in the world of opera a single performance under these circumstances does not make the work historically significant. I've repaired all the broken links in the article so I could analyze the references. They do not attest to notability or wide coverage at all:
- Ref 1. I've substituted the O Globo source with this one from BBC Brasil. O Globo merely reprinted it. It's an interview with the composer about the (then) upcoming performance in New Jersey. It is the sole reference to a reliable, reasonably independent source, albeit largely in the composers own words.
- Ref 2 Puff piece for the (then) upcoming concert performance in New Jersey on BrazilNYC . Primary source, note: Submit your Event "Please, use the fields below to submit your upcoming event to BrazilNYC. Howevere, if you’d like to send us a full press release – and make someone available for an interview – please email us. As a norm, the more information you submit (artists’ bios, YouTube links, exclusive quotes, related articles … ), the more inclined we’ll be to write about your event."
- Ref 3 Video clip posted on NME, no text, cast credits only
- Ref 4 Another reprint of the BBC source.
- Ref 5 Official website (primary source)
- Ref 6. Facebook page (primary source)
- Refs 7-15 Same 2 minute video from a 2008 concert performance posted on blogs or video hosting sites - no text
- Ref 16 Article in Correio Braziliense about a documentary being made about the composer, not a "review" as described in the WP article [30]. The opera is mentioned only in passing and the alleged "quote" appears nowhere in the source.
- There are no reliable sources giving a completely independent analysis, description, or evaluation of the opera. The description currently in the article (and very unencyclopedic) was obviously written by the composer himself, or someone closely affiliated to him. Voceditenore (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC) updated 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC); 09:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per voceditenore.4meter4 (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG as it stands. But a good independent source supporting the claim that Tamandua is the only operatic work in Brazilian Portuguese ever produced in the USA would change things completely. Ping me if such a source emerges. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - clear consensus to keep - on discovery of additional coverage in reliable externals the nominator also offered to withdraw the nomination . (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamwidth[edit]
- Dreamwidth (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 "appears" to have 24 sources, but only two of those are actually independent, reliable sources, and those two only discuss Dreamwidth very briefly. The rest of the sources are either from the company itself or from blogs/livejournal pages. As such, this site does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I make no comment on the quality of the article, but Dreamwidth is a fairly significant site, mostly for its connection to LJ and the exodus of users from LJ towards it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the quality of the site could be a lot better, and I can do my best to recruit more authors - but the article should remain, as Andy Dingley says. ~ tajasel (talk • contribs) 10:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on both of the above--we don't judge whether an article should be kept or not based on the quality of the subject (for example, we don't decide if a person is "good" when we measure whether or not to have a BLP on them). What we are measuring here is whether or not the site, Dreamwidth, has been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Currently, the article doesn't provide any evidence that they have, and I was unable to find any through my own searches. Do either of you have further sources that would demonstrate this site's notability? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, with all due respect, the same sort of deletionist BS that crippled WP's coverage of programming languages and is generally driving editors away from the site. It's a decent article, it has plentiful references, so just be a good chap and bugger off and go delete some vandalism and stop maligning decent, useful articles of public interest, will you? Liam Proven (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note on both of the above--we don't judge whether an article should be kept or not based on the quality of the subject (for example, we don't decide if a person is "good" when we measure whether or not to have a BLP on them). What we are measuring here is whether or not the site, Dreamwidth, has been the subject of detailed discussion in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Currently, the article doesn't provide any evidence that they have, and I was unable to find any through my own searches. Do either of you have further sources that would demonstrate this site's notability? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Comparison of sites using the LiveJournal codebase. I don't think the sources (both the independent ones already listed and what can be found in Google news archive) are sufficient to demonstrate independent notability, but I think we should have some useful content that people can find when they search Wikipedia for Dreamwidth, and that is good enough at least for the basic facts of the service. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As stated in the article, Dreamwidth has been the subject of several presentations at prominent F/OSS conferences since they have one of the highest proportions of female developers of any open source project. Besides which, xkcd, which meets the notability guidelines itself, apparently considers Dreamwidth notable enough to include it on its map of online communities. RickScott (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, we should include that in the article. This discussion is talking about the article's sources, not its notability! (Although the Wikipedia definition of "notability" does depend a lot on its sources.) And for the record, I agree with you that this should be kept, so I'm going to go add that information to the article now. --TheSophera (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Went through a lot of the Google news archive search results. http://www.itworld.com/open-source/78643/how-attract-more-people-your-open-source-project is a reliable source with ample coverage of it within that article. Dream Focus 00:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If that itworld.com source is incorporated into the article, then I withdraw my nomination. I think that's sufficient for this to cross over from borderline to Wikipedia-Notable. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want something added to an article, you have to do it yourself. Articles kept based on evidence found that they are notable, not based on what is actually done to them. Dream Focus 02:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that itworld citation to the article - Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete all except for K-1 Challenge 2005 Xplosion X, on which there is no consensus with no prejudice against renominating individually. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 Slovakia 2005[edit]
- K-1 Slovakia 2005 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating:
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2005 in Paris
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2005 in Hiroshima
- K-1 Challenge 2005 Xplosion X
another sprawling series of fighting results with no evidence of coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Another series of articles that are just routine sports coverage that lack independent sources. The events lack notability except, perhaps, for the World Muay Thai Council (WMC) world title fight at K-1 Challenge 2005 Xplosion X. Even so, I don't think that's enough to save that particular article. Astudent0 (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All WP:EVENT reads "Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect." These events determine the champions and rankings for the contenders of K-1. Therefore these results of these events have significant lasting effects and thus meet the criteria for WP:EVENT.--Ryan.germany (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- a new interest in kickboxing Ryan? These events do not determine champions or top rankings, they are qualifying events for other events. Many of the participants are non notable. Where is the significant enduring coverage to prove they meet WP:EVENT? LibStar (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, except K-1 Challenge 2005 Xplosion X I believe that the WMC world title fight provides sufficient notability, although sourcing remains problematic. The other events are qualifying events, at best, and lack both notability and independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All of these events may have sources. I personally feel that that tagging and improving is the way to go rather than deleting. Many of these events had over 10,000 spectators. I could imagine some press was present. However, it could be hard to find due to much of it could be written in a foreign language. --Ryan.germany (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- a usual round English Premier League game will have over 10,000 spectators and be covered in press, do we create articles for each game? Also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Done. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Consequences of teenage pregnancy[edit]
- Consequences of teenage pregnancy (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 does not seem to be encyclopedic; there is no lead or sections, and it only lists "consequences". It doesn't seem to qualify as either an artile or a list. Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 01:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Could an admin please nuke this? --NINTENDUDE64 01:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted per A7 by Will Beback (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Casalinuovo[edit]
- Michael Casalinuovo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability is asserted; only link is to YouTube page. Bulldog73 talk da contribs go rando 00:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Obvious COI, meets CSD G11. CityOfSilver 00:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 05:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kanetake Ebikawa[edit]
- Kanetake Ebikawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disputed WP:PROD. Initial concern was: Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:CREATIVE. No indication of awards or other recognition; just a list of credits. The article now has some references which confirm that the subject exists, but still nothing to support notability via WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not seeing any reliable sourcing or in-depth coverage to verify the subject's notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:ENTERTAINER 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Designing the mecha which are the key part of these notable series, is an innovative contribution to this field of entertainment. Also meets the requirements for creative professionals at WP:CREATIVE. Do they not talk about mechas in various books? His work gets coverage, and is surely a large part of things, plus he innovates new designs. Dream Focus 00:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Ebikawa is associated with several very notable anime productions, but mechanical designer is not a notable role for Wikipedia standards. Anime News Network, which serves as the primary source, is the proper place for this scope of industry information. --NINTENDUDE64 00:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Did a little further research on mechanical designers to get better context. Kunio Okawara, who's worked on Mobile Suit Gundam and tons of other stuff, has an extensive entry even in English. Although Ebikawa doesn't have Okawara's resume, there appears to be enough here to be notable. --NINTENDUDE64 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kunio Okawara article is also completely unreferenced and needs to be improved or deleted. The only reference it has is to a blog article which no longer exists. Pburka (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that the English version of the Kunio Okawara article basically just needs an Anime News Network or other industry cite has no bearing on this AfD discussion. Everything I said earlier still stands. --NINTENDUDE64 19:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Kunio Okawara article is also completely unreferenced and needs to be improved or deleted. The only reference it has is to a blog article which no longer exists. Pburka (talk) 03:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Did a little further research on mechanical designers to get better context. Kunio Okawara, who's worked on Mobile Suit Gundam and tons of other stuff, has an extensive entry even in English. Although Ebikawa doesn't have Okawara's resume, there appears to be enough here to be notable. --NINTENDUDE64 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per WP:ENT, #3 - "Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - As far as mecha goes you don't get much more high profile than Gundam and others like FMP, Vandread and Kiddy Grade aren't exactly unknown - they have all had multiple releases in the US and the mechanical designs are integral to all of them. Added a number or references, both first and second/third party. I also have a couple of text interviews with him which I can scan if anyone wants to translate them (although they are in official guidebooks so not sure how those stand on reliability). Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Curse of the Toads[edit]
- The Curse of the Toads (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:NBOOKS. no coverage in gnews [31]. no awards either. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question It is unclear on searching whether the author of this book is Jennifer Lisle (as the book cover says) or Echo Freer (as Amazon says in some places). This Amazon site indexes the book under Echo Freer, while this Amazon site lists Lisle as the author (while listing half a dozen books by Freer under "customers also bought...") Lisle's Amazon bio page lists a dozen books by her, including "The Curse of the Ravens" but not "the Curse of the Toads". Amazon doesn't seem to have a author bio page for Echo Freer. Is that a pen name Lisle sometimes uses? More searching just leads to more confusion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NBOOKS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable; author (also up for deletion) not notable; self-publicity seemingly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Lisle[edit]
- Rebecca Lisle (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:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. the book she has an article on is currently up for deletion and she gets passing mentions or refers to another namesake in gnews [32]. no awards won. LibStar (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Does she also publish under the name Echo Freer? I ask because this Amazon site seems confused about whether the author of "Curse of the Toads" is Rebecca Lisle or Echo Freer, while this Amazon site lists her as the author of that book but list half a dozen books by Freer under "customers also bought..." Meanwhile her Amazon bio page lists a dozen books by her, including "The Curse of the Ravens" but not "the Curse of the Toads". All very confusing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. She "published many children's books". Where's the proof? Where is the claim to notability (other than one minor nomination)? If this vanity article can be rewritten with references, I may reconsider. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Well, there are 24 titles listed on www.amazon.co.uk. Some of them, like Wizard Dog, have been remaindered (sale at £0.01) http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wizard-Dog-Rebecca-Lisle/dp/1842708902/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232824005&sr=1-4; several others, like The Dog in the Diamond Collar, are on sale at a normal price and have a good-looking five-star rating from "1 customer review": but the one-and-only-customer is named "Bozey" and comes from GB (the United Kingdom). "Bozey" has in fact written 9 such reviews, 7 of them of Rebecca Lisle books... could Bozey be [Re]becca, perhaps? It looks as if both the WP article and the Amazon pages are self-publicity. Unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heather Shanholtz[edit]
- Heather Shanholtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All of the references are promotional, and I do not think there is any real notability DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:PROMOTION. DonCalo (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Tondo[edit]
- Jerry Tondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is borderline, which is Why I am putting it here. Tondo has voiced some minor characters in some cartoons, but has not had anything really noteworthy. In fact, the whole article has 3 sentances. Borjon22 (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has voiced characters in several major animated productions. 11kowrom 04:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 September 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, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - in my search results I am not finding reliable assertions of getting over the WP:GNG hurdle. Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Variety Weekly Magazine coverage (referenced in the article) serves to establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Binary University College of Management & Entrepreneurship/deleted revisions 2011-02-15[edit]
- Binary University College of Management & Entrepreneurship/deleted revisions 2011-02-15 (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 was created on 15 February, just 1 day after the closure of this AFD discussion. At the time, it probably should have been speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4, but it slipped through the cracks. The original deletion was based on a general lack of notability for the school. The present article does not appear to refute that charge, and appears equally deserving of deletion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the "largest ceiling girder" was the largest -ever- -anywhere-, that would be nearly notable, but more notable as a footnote for the electrical plant itself. The Bushranger One ping only 04:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five Star Industries Trichy[edit]
- Five Star Industries Trichy (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 assertion of notability - the one award it supposedly won is not cited. Otherwise, it's a list of products and other non-notable information. Prod removed by article creator. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This company fails WP:CORP because of the lack of significant, reliable sources discussing it. The citations in the article are passing mentions (Boiler Point News July 2009 and The Hindu dated 10 July 2009) or unreliable press releases (BHEL Press Release dated 25 Jan 2010). A Google News Archive search for "Five Star Industries" "Trichy" yields zero results. I have also searched for "Five Star Industries" on its own and was not impressed by the irrelevant results. Goodvac (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bushranger One ping only 04:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
European Youth For Action[edit]
- European Youth For Action (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 found zero significant coverage for this organization. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see significant coverage in New Statesman Society, Magazines for Libraries, Carfree Cities and a Dutch book Leven volgens je idealen: de andere politieken van huidige sociale bewegingen in Nederland which Google translates as "Living according to your ideals, the other policies of current social movements in the Netherlands". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a document from the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs that calls EYFA a "major group". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The coverage cited above is not significant. New Statesman isn't exactly well known, and all mentions are passing – in the case of the magazines catalog, one scant mention in 1615 pages. The coverage does not approach the significance contemplated by the Wikipedia:ORG guideline. JFHJr (㊟) 07:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've no opinion on this article, but it is a display of ignorance to say that "New Statesman isn't exactly well known.." Emeraude (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – per sources user Cullen328 provided above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Reliable sources give it significant coverage. New Statesman is a reliable source, and whether a particular editor has heard of it or not, is irrelevant. Other Google Book results appear, but I think enough have been found to prove notability already. Dream Focus 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.