Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 29
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ristfeuchthorn[edit]
- Ristfeuchthorn (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 sure how notability for mountains is determined, but the article contains no information aside from its location. Not even useful as a stub. Remurmur (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the German article is somewhat longer. The google translation, however, is a bit dampening:
The Ristfeuchthorn is a mountain in Bavaria , with 1569 m altitude. It is a very well-developed summit, which is accessible from different sides. At the foot of the municipality lies Ristfeuchthorns Schneizlreuth and Weissbach gorge . In the spring after the snow melt are many waterfalls to see the fall there through the wall into the depths.
- But I'm disinclined to !vote delete; its a mountain - apparently one which is known for climbing[1] (not an RS, sorry) and has at least one waterfall. There must be more to it which we can eventually find documentation on. I prefer KEEPing it as a stub and hopefully improving it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The German text is, as KC says, rather thin, but GBooks gives lots and lots of hits including some reasonably lengthy passages in travel guides. Mangoe (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think I will have to take a look when I when I come back to Germany. Article could do with a picture or two. Agathoclea (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep don't delete geo articles expand them. you have 512 bavarian mountain articles to delete in addition. 98.163.75.189 (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are no notability guidelines for mountains because nobody ever envisaged that anyone editing an encyclopedia wouldn't know that mountains are encyclopedic topics. And how is this "not even useful as a stub"? It gives some basic information and can be built on from sources such as the ones found by the Google Books search linked above. That's precisely what stubs are useful for. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many mountains are there in the world? Thousands? Millions? Is every one necessarily notable? Geography seems to enjoy an incredibly low bar for notability on Wikipedia, with any hunk of rock with a name enjoying status as an article. I mean, if that's what we've decided is good enough for the project, fine. The nomination was mostly meant to test feelings on the matter.--Remurmur (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From someone whose main editing interest appears to be video games the statement that "geography seems to enjoy an incredibly low bar for notability on Wikipedia" seems rather disingenuous. Geography has always been one of the core topics of encyclopedias. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How many mountains are there in the world? Thousands? Millions? Is every one necessarily notable? Geography seems to enjoy an incredibly low bar for notability on Wikipedia, with any hunk of rock with a name enjoying status as an article. I mean, if that's what we've decided is good enough for the project, fine. The nomination was mostly meant to test feelings on the matter.--Remurmur (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep no reason given in the nomination for deletion other than no information is better than a stub. If that were the case, we would need to delete about 90% of our articles which fall in the Category:Stubs tree... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 30 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. G3 applies Courcelles 15:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emerson Adriano Catarina[edit]
- Emerson Adriano Catarina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hoax, per this entry. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only verifiable sources are blogs. User:Fred Bauder Talk 22:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And all of those blogs appear to have been created on the same day as this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as flagrant hoax. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax or not (& there's no Portuguese article) not notable. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. 11coolguy12 (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per this. Béria Lima msg 20:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax.--Slon02 (talk) 00:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel)[edit]
- The Return To Gibraltar (science fiction novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:BK Heywoodg 22:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets wikikedia criteria, Hedwoodg raised this issue and bot addressed it.--Mziboy (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hedwoodg had article marked for automatic deletion and article was defended by wikipedia users, as notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs)
- Delete per nom, fails WP:NBOOK, sources generally fail WP:RS. Yunshui (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails the 5 criteria listed in WP:BK, lack of independent reliable sources.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Do not Delete, consider the book in light of South African history and racism against black South Africans. Its notable because Sibanda should not be seen in a vacuum. Maybe we are using too much of a subjective interpretation of wikipedia notability. The factors stated by the founder are supposed to be taken within a context and not in comparative terms. E.g Mandela's books are notable but so is the first white person writing a book in a genre dominated by black writers, even if that book has not garnered literary accolades. The novelty itself demands that wikipedia at least footnote the book and make information available to researchers on black science-fiction world wide. Science fiction is traditionally an old boy's club if I may --- forgive me, if a black African from an underpriviliged background has written a story, I think wikipedia should footnote that. Its a trend, a break, a historic moment. Wikipedia criteria is intended as an inclusive record of all notable footnotes within a subject, thus The Return to Gibraltar, would qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 22:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
--Mziboy (talk) 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a look myself and come up with nothing, but if you can find me a couple of sources (that aren't blogs, forums or user-generated; those I can find in abundance) which show that this book is noted for its author's ethnicity then I'll happily switch to Keep. Yunshui (talk) 23:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: I agree with Mziboy - if you understand South African history it makes sense. If you don't, then you need a source! ---- that a black person doing something traditionally done by whites is notable given the South African context. Perhaps, this shows a lack of understanding by Yunshui, no disrespect intended. Do we really need a source restating the obvious---- that racism in South Africa disadvantaged black South Africans or that Jews were persecuted during Nazi Germany...comeone Yunshi! Our cultural bias is an issue here, we are mostly white people looking up our noses at a historyy and context we know little off. If you were a black South African from Soweto looking at Ken Sibanda's science fiction, how would you see it? Lets not be racists in how we evaluate content for wikipedia, this is not the platform for that. Wikipedia is intended to contain notable content given the subjective contexts and history so as to give researchers all the tools they need. --68.54.159.179 (talk) 00:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)— 68.54.159.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No lack of understanding, merely an adherence to policy. If someone has independently written about, discussed, made a documentary about or otherwise noted the importance of this book in the context of South African history, then it definitely has a place on Wikipedia. However, without such a source, the claim would be original research, which is a no-no here. Instead of berating me for my ignorance, why not try actually find a source to back up your claim? Yunshui (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68.54.159.179, with all respect, this is NOT about whether racism is notable (should *every* book on the Holocaust, or SA history be included?), or indeed whether subject/story of the book is notable, but whether the BOOK is notable, and whether the BOOK meets WP:BK. It also doesn't mean the book can be mentioned on the authors page. Heywoodg talk 07:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I DISAGREE Heywoog, I am as familiar with WP:Bk as you are; while every book on the holocaust and South African Racism will not be included on Wikipedia because of WP:BK, books that show a trend written by individuals who are an exception to genre norms qualify under WP: BK. Again, I hold Ph.B in South African history and know for a fact that this is considered exceptional given South African History. Lets keep our ignorance out of the discussion! The fact that you known close to nothing on South Africa does not give you the right to exclude the entry into wikipedia. Again, going back to the founder's intention - Wikipedia, notes the notable encyclopedic information making it readily available to the public and researchers. It is not intended as Heywoodg's personal selection forum! The note on The Return to Gibraltar is relevant and important because of who Ken Sibanda is as a black South African and given black South African under privilege! Again, the entry is intended to make accessible those researching black science fiction; African written science fiction and black South African fiction. Again, you are wrong about the entry of the book on the author's page for the same reasons.
When you previously put the entry for immediate deletion, other users refused on similar grounds! Many people disagree with you --- that the first science fiction epic written by a black South African is not notable and relevant! --Mziboy (talk) 09:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mziboy, Please keep personal insults out of this. We are discussing the book, not me. Thanks.
- The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4] - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
- The book has won a major literary award. - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
- The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement. - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
- The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5] - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
- The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes.[6] - No evidence found/provided so fail on this.
Does the book meet one or more of those criteria, and if so, which one? Heywoodg talk 10:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong!!!!I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE I CAN EXPLAIN THIS WITHOUT INSULTING YOU. YES IT MEETS THE CRITERIA< SPECIFICALLY THE LAST POINT ----- Again for the tenth time, a black man writing a science fiction book from Apartheid South Africa where science fiction books have been written by white people only is significant, even if Hedwoodg does not think so!!!!!!!!!! You are acting like because you concluded its insignificant that wikipedia should follow.--Mziboy (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Resources and coverage: There are numerous newspapers in both the United States and Spain that have written about the book! see article references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mziboy (talk • contribs) 12:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please only !vote once in AfD discussions. I have stricken your first Do not delete/Keep !vote above. Yunshui (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, despite calling me a nazi, racist, and white supremist on your talk page, Mziboy you have also lied about your relationship with Proteus Books. It turns out that you works for them. Well, that is where your abusive email to me came from anyway. Heywoodg talk 16:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BK. Dayewalker (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---- I don't think so, never worked for Proteus Books or Euro Weekly or Montclair Times or any of the mentioned sources. Liar! What abusive email are you talking about.
Comment Against the argument that Sibanda's work is notable because of his ethnicity, I note that the infobox on his page lists his nationality as South African/American. His professional career appears to have largely taken place in the States. This book was published, again, according to its infobox, in the States. There are a fair few authors in Category:African American science fiction writers who might disagree with the claim that his work is unique... Yunshui (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification - Yunshu:
Please explain in simple English, what you are trying to say above? Ken Sibanda is a black African born science fiction writer; there are very few such writers coming from Apartheid South Africa. Thank you --Mziboy (talk) 23:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also you repeated the exact same comment on Ken Sibanda deletion page; interesting enough, with the same amount of misinformation!--Mziboy (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject does not meet WP:N. Virtually no reliable sources. --Daniel 15:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: this AfD was closed after the author of the article blanked it and it was deleted per WP:CSD#G7. He then re-created the article under a different title (The Return to Gibraltar), so I have moved it back to the original title and reopened the AfD. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nom. No indication has been provided that this meets any of the criteria of WP:BK. The argument that this meets #5 is rather contrived. In an age where an African American is President of the USA, it's really nothing special any more that an African writes a science fiction novel. And despite being a huge SF lover myself (my collection spans 36 meters, can't really say how many books), let's keep things in perspective. The first African to write a novel might have been notable. The first African to write an SF novel? No way. What's next: the first African to write a 311 page novel? This argument really is trivial. --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- correction - the incredibly obscure Sibanda is nowhere near the first African writer to write an SF novel; see the SF anthology series Dark Matter and many more since those were published. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought Dark Matter were stories and essays. The claim here is the first "novel". But frankly I'd indeed be amazed that we'd have to wait until 2011 for the first African to write an SF novel... --Crusio (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- clarify - I meant that you will find in the Dark Matter series a number of writers, some of them African, who have written SF novels long before this fellow came along. As you say, the anthologies themselves consist of stories, excerpts and essays. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, see what you mean. Now the wait is for the first Rwandan to write an SF novel, the first Monegask, etc... :-) And then the first Monegask to write a time-travel short story. Wow, the possibilities are endless! OK, got to go, as you see, there's important work to do now... --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. No credible assertion of notability. Google search on "The Return To Gibraltar" "Ken Sibanda" only shows 70 unique results, mainly social media, press releases, or simple sales links. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am unable to find any acceptable sources on Google platforms, nor with an alternate database search. Fails WP:BK across the board, and sources appear to fail WP:RS. Wikipedia is not in the business of promotion or original research WP:PROMO and WP:NOT#OR, nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information WP:N. Accusations in this thread pertaining to racism etc., are specious, without merit and have no relevance on the determination of inclusion. In fact, reliable sources would have to say that rascism is relevant or even related for it to be considered. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable book; we have lots of articles here about notable SF by African writers, writers of the African diaspora, etc.; this is not one of them. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable according to WP:BK. Also lack of independent reliable sources.Ezaid Fabber (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BK. The special pleading above is... unconvincing to say the least. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Please stop voting more than once. The book does rise to the level of a footnote on wikipedia. There is a problem with what we consider as notability here and I think a subjective perspective is being taken. The book is not a bestseller but it deserves a foortnote on wikiepdia. I also dont agree with the criticism on the sources: all sources appear to be independent. He is an emerging notable voice!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.28.62 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC) Also, if there is another epic written by an African born author, for the benefit of the forum please give name of book and author, as well as where there were born in Africa. Thank you.— 209.212.28.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- reply Nnedi Okorafor is the first one who comes to mind, American-born daughter of Igbo Nigerian parents, who has regularly visited Nigeria since she was very young. There's also the Kenyan Ngũgĩ wa Thiong'o, author of Wizard of the Crow.--Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - basically a self-published book (note the president of Proteus books shares the same surname as the author) and clearly not well-promoted or distributed, yet I think it may be notable for the reasons given above and would prefer to see a wait and see attitude than for it to be deleted right now. The only significant award that recognizes science fiction by black authors, The Carl Brandon Parallax Award, has a 1-3 year time delay between publication and award consideration, due to the lack of resources of the society. Without mass production there is little-to-no chance it would be seriously in the running for any other award.
- With all due respect to Orange Mike, there are not actually any authors in either of the Dark Matter anthologies who were born in Africa, so far as I can tell, so his statement that there are African authors published in those books who have also published novels is twice incorrect. One author in the series is from Haiti, one from Jamaica, one from Trinidad, but most from America and none from Africa. And Crusio's comment that "In an age where an African American is President of the USA, it's really nothing special any more that an African writes a science fiction novel" is just completely wrong and not based on reality outside of opinion. OrangeMike's reference to an author from Kenya reflects a horrible sort of broad generalization (as though Africa was all one big country) that does not respond to the valid point that it is notable to see an SF novel coming from a black South African. South Africa and Kenya are very different places. To quote the American author OrangeMike seems to want to count as African, Nnedi Okorafor, “Africa is a big diverse place”[1]. Even white South African sf author Lauren Beukes is a rarity. This article should stay. Netmouse (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have two sets of criteria, WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, which serve to distinguish the notable from the non-notable. This book does not fulfill any of the criteria in either set. If Sibanda's book is noted for being a sci-fi book by a black South African then someone, somewhere (outside of this discussion page) would have written about it or in some other way made note of the fact. Since they have not (or at least have not been quoted or used as sources) then under Wikipedia's guidelines it is not notable for being written by a black South African sci-fi writer. Thus, the special pleading arguments advance above are spurious - if he was notable, he would have been noted. Yunshui (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I also don't think we should start including or excluding books based purely on the skin colour of the author. Heywoodg talk 21:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UK Amateur and Semi Pro MMA Competition 2010[edit]
- UK Amateur and Semi Pro MMA Competition 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)
Non-notable regional sporting event featuring not fully professional athletes. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - amateur and semi pro says it all, doesn't it? Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Fight League: Erupption[edit]
- American Fight League: Erupption (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:
Non-notable sporting event for a non-notable MMA promotion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Non-notable. The event (besides the article title being misspelled) was run by what appear to be mostly a local/regional organization that held only one other event. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both My reasearch supports TreyGeek's conclusion. The articles are about a non-notable local promotion and one of its events. Papaursa (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Both Found nothing that shows this organization or event are notable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christos Batavanis[edit]
- Christos Batavanis (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 - has made no senior appearances for club or country. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Unless he makes his debut for Larissa, he fails WP:NSPORT and there is insufficient coverage for him to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 12:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G11) by Fastily. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nadia Jin[edit]
- Nadia Jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be non-notable. No reliable sources are provided and I can find none myself. The page has had a PROD and CSD disputed in the past. Only one majot contributor, possible COI but not possible to be sure. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Looking past the blatant advertorial content, the subject does not satisfy any inclusion guidelines. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search results and and no results from a Google News Archive search. The only other applicable inclusion guideline I see is WP:CREATIVE which is also not satisfied. Victoria Beckham wearing your print in a dress not made by you, does not make a person notable. It probably doesn't even make the company that made the dress notable. OlYellerTalktome 20:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:19, 29 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 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shammy McFly[edit]
- Shammy McFly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A hip hop artist. Unable to find any reliable sources. Her record company, GreenLyte Mafia Entertainment, appears to be an amateur, independent label. The label's website is on a free host and its design is out of the 90s. Has released no albums, but has done two mixed tapes that are free to download. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no coverage in reliable sources; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow Talk 22:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Riverflix[edit]
- Riverflix (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, not sources, orphan. Heywoodg 20:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: an online film streaming company that offers on-demand video streaming over the internet, though their offering does sound interesting (Riverflix streams only African films.) Google News finds that a number of other local film festivals have apparently used the name "Riverflix", but I find no coverage about this website. Launched in 2010, it hasn't had much time to make history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Deal. The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Largest and smallest won amounts (Deal or No Deal UK)[edit]
- Largest and smallest won amounts (Deal or No Deal UK) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure trivia. Unverifiable outside citing the episodes in question. Currently unsourced. tl;dr: Fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as effectively unsourced. This article appears to have been spun out of Deal or No Deal (UK game show); to the extent that it can be sourced, it ought to be spun back into that article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this is an indiscriminate list of trivia. Reyk YO! 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm almost speechless. How can anybody consider this to be an encyclopaedic topic? The mind boggles. --Mais oui! (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pretty trivial, although some of the content (i.e. largest winner) could be on the main UK series article, unless it already is. Bob talk 16:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps rename it an episode list. Nothing much happened in each episode other than who won and how much. Dream Focus 01:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete pure trivia no encyclopedic value, why would anyone want to find out smallest amounts won? I'd like to see the inclusionists argue for this one. LibStar (talk) 04:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, it's no less trivial then say an article listing video game characters, and they're apparently acceptable. Should keep and simply build on the missing sources to bring it to a higher quality. Robo37 (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International Software Engineering[edit]
- International Software Engineering (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 proposed deletion, not mine. This is an essay of original synthesis, a non-notable neologism, and a content fork. Nothing here really makes a case that "International Software Engineering" differs appreciably from software engineering, and issues of translation of software interfaces are dealt with where you'd expect them to be, at internationalization and localization. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - software engineering covers what needs to be said, pace Smerdis of Tlön. Nothing notable here, content fork. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, weakly referenced essay/content fork of software engineering.Dialectric (talk) 08:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn, no other argument advanced for deletion. Non-admin closure — frankie (talk) 04:34, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How It Feels to Be Run Over[edit]
- How It Feels to Be Run Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The film fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. The article is currently unsourced and I was unable to find any reliable sources on the film. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Given its great age I guess it could be claimed that all such surviving films are notable. That said, we need some proof of this. Put a couple of solid references on it and I'll switch to keep. If not, maybe an article about the studio would make more sense. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I an happy to call it a keep now. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This film is described in a surprisingly (to me, at least) large number of books about film history and related topics. [2] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – notable as very early film, as evidenced by non-trivial coverage in several independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 22:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and Close. With respects to the nominator, 1) we do not expect a 111-year-old film from the very inception of the film industry to have the coverage we might expect from a modern day blockbuster, and 2) your google-foo is (I apologize) woefully lacking, as it was not the least bit difficult to find sources which cover this film directly and in detail in Goggle Scholar Google books and even through a general search These multiple sources, many offering historical and contextual evalauation of the film, can be used to further expand and source this aeticle film. This is a stub that can grow. And while quite decent of User:Lambiam to add a couple of the MANY sources available that the nominator could not find, notability is not dependent upon sources being IN the article, only that they be availabe. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt; a search engine test in print sources (via Google Books Search and Google Scholar Search) shows plenty of results. Significant coverage does exist from reliable sources. Erik (talk | contribs) 02:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per MichaelQSchmidt; no good comes to the encyclopedia from deleting verifiable historical information like this.--Arxiloxos (talk) 04:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As evidenced above, significant coverage for this film exists in multiple reliable sources. Subject meets WP:GNG and WP:NF. Gongshow Talk 15:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zane Taylor (American football)[edit]
- Zane Taylor (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT having never played professionally. PROD was contested by page creator, who left no explanation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the article focuses on his NFL career, Taylor appears to have achieved greater notability for his collegiate career. Also, the article was just created today and is a work in progress. College football players who have received significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media may qualify under WP:GNG. Offensive linemen like Taylor rarely receive much in the way of news coverage, but this guy is an exception to the rule. Upon a quick search, I found quite a few feature stories about him. They consist of stories in which Taylor is the main subject of the coverage, rather than passing references in game coverage. Examples include: (1) "Utes' Taylor at center of news in Moab," The Salt Lake Tribune, August 23, 2010, (2) "Taylor destined to be a Ute," The Salt Lake Tribune, November 22, 2009, (3) "Taylor happy back in the center," The Deseret News, August 9, 2009, (4) "Utes feel they have found a center in Taylor," The Deseret News, August 14, 2008, (5) "Taylor's sacrifice pays off as he moves to front of line," The Deseret News, April 4, 2008, (6) "Zane Taylor: Grand star best known for leading Red Devils to first football title," The Salt Lake Tribune, July 2, 2006, (7) "Zane Taylor among candidates for award," The Deseret News, August 24, 2010, (8) "Taylor ready for pro day," The Salt Lake Tribune, March 28, 2011, (9) "Former GCHS football star preps for NFL scouting combine and draft," The Times-Independent (Moab, Utah), January 2011, (10) Taylor receives All MWC second team honors," The Times-Independent, December 10, 2009, (11) "Former GCHS football star on watchlist for Outland Trophy," The Times-Independent, June 24, 2010, (12) "Publishers Perspective" (article about his father written by Zane Taylor), The Times-Independent, November 18, 2010, (13) "Zane Taylor signs with NFL’s New York Jets," The Times-Independent, August 11, 2011, (14) "Ute center to face off against Alabama giant," The Salt Lake Tribune, December 25, 2008, (15) "'Renaissance Man' in pads," The Salt Lake Tribune, August 8, 2004. Time permitting, I'll try to add some of this to the article. Cbl62 (talk) 22:51, 29 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 00:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voss Foundation[edit]
- Voss Foundation (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 independent coverage apparent on Google whatsoever (article itself cites only Foundation's own website, press releases, etc.) Don't confuse this with the "Bobby Nick Voss Foundation" or the "Matthew Voss Foundation". EEng (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd, here are a few that I just found that seem genuine enough:
- 1. GMF Africa's press release (not Voss's): http://www.gmfafrica.org/wp-content/uploads/press/ADUNAGOW%20Magazine%20-%2001-09-10.pdf
- 2. 3rd party partner (at least): http://www.virginunite.com/News/UK/Give-A-Drop/Project-Clean-Water-partners-with-the-Voss-Foundation/
- 3. Adunagow magazine: http://www.adunagow.net/2009/?p=1335
- 4. Milgis Trust Kenya: http://www.milgistrustkenya.com/water.html
- 5. BusinessWire (Berkshire Hathaway): http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100622005054/en/Voss-Foundation-Helps-CHF-International-Provide-Clean Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's odd, here are a few that I just found that seem genuine enough:
Guess that means I'm a Keep. (see below) Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've numbered the items in your list:
- 1. The entire mention of Voss Foundation reads: The Voss Foundation has sponsored a well, built by Solutions for Africa, which is a vital part of the GMF school. Thanks to Voss, there is no need for girls to walk for hours to get fresh water, allowing them more time for education and increasing their safety.
- 2. This is a press release by Voss and its "partner". Your phrase 3rd party partner makes no sense -- a partner is by definition not a 3rd party (but rather a 2nd party, so to speak).
- 3. Exact copy of (1) word for word.
- 4. Webpage by a recipient of a Voss grant: The Voss Foundation is a 'water angel' for the Milgis Trust's communities bringing safe, clean and desperatly needed drinking water to the women, children and tribes of the Samburu, Rendille and Turkana people. The Milgis Trust has been incredibly lucky to have the support of the Voss Foundation for three wonderful projects so far in the remote villages of Latakwen, Swari and Ndonyo Nasipa. These water projects improve health, hygiene and living standards for all the communtiy especially the women and their families. With such support the Milgis Trust can install access to clean water at schools, medical clinics, and water kiosks within the communities. With the Voss Foundation the Milgis Trust's ground team along with the community dig deep kisimas (hand dug water wells) in the seasonal rivers, then install a solar pump and piping to transport the water to spigots in the village's infirmary, school, and a centrally-located kiosk. To implement the project and oversee its success, the Trust in partnership with the community elects an elder and maintenance committee to oversee the well, pump, and pipeline to ensure ongoing sustainability. The Voss Foundation is dedicated to providing access to pure, clean drinking water to Sub-Saharan African communities. They help meet these needs through a unique approach, which ensures local ownership and long-term sustainability. The Milgis Trust is pleased to announce that with Voss Foundation's support another water project is to be commenced in 2011 with the support of the 'Just Around the Corner' Art Auction which was held in May 2011 in Oslo. This is the art world's contribution to fighting the water challenge in Kenya.
- 5. Press release by Voss.
None of these is a reliable source independent of the subject (WP:N). EEng (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Well, we probably agree these sources are not themselves VF, but independently-existing trusts which in the cases listed explicitly state they are dependent on VF for some of their funding. Does that not in itself serve as evidence that VF has, in fact, acted as it claims by supporting them? I suppose if we're really being careful we'd also verify that Milgis Trust (etc) exists (e.g. http://www.justgiving.com/hillside-appeal).
- 2) Let's see if we can find anything else ---
- FindTheBest gives a bare-bones LISTING of Voss Foundation Inc, which at least shows that VF exists as a charity. non-profit-organizations.findthebest.com/detail/218102/Voss-Foundation-Inc
- " HorseWeb is a DONOR to VF, so certainly not a dependent. http://www.horseweb.com/articles/horsenews/2011/classic_oldsalemfarmspringhorseshow_0614_patriciagriffith.htm (Old Salem Farm Foundation is another horsey donor, don't ask me why).
- I agree this isn't much to go on - the web is full of blogs on VF, VF publicity, and VF recipients (not to mention different Voss foundations). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 2) Let's see if we can find anything else ---
You seem to misunderstand the concepts of notable and independent as they're used on Wikipedia. I have no reason to doubt that VF exists and does fine work, but notability is not merely existence, and independence is not merely financial independence. Please read WP:N (and maybe WP:ITEXISTS and its siblings) and review the sources in that light. In the meantime, I reviewed VF's own "press coverage" list [3], which has scores of "articles" -- mostly press releases, blogposts, thanks from grant recipients, and statements of worthiness by donors -- but I could find just one or two that could be called independent, and in aggregate nothing even nearly significant (again, see WP:N for what that means). This is the best confirmation of the absence of significant, independent coverage one could ask for: presumably if it existed it would be listed here. But maybe I missed something. If you can find in that list (or anywhere else) sources satisfying WP:N, please list it here. EEng (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Since I haven't asserted any of the things you suggest, I believe we are pretty much in agreement. To sum up: VF is a registered charitable foundation, and does a fine charitable job. Its recipient charities confirm they are getting funding and using it to provide water. A very small number of donors mention the name VF. VF is mentioned very rarely in the press, but extensively in VF publicity. Both its notability and its verifiability are at best borderline.
- Guess that makes me a borderline Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent coverage of significance to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:GNG. [4] is the thing that looks like independent third party coverage, but it has similar phrasing to some of the other stuff, making me think it's not. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Dot World[edit]
- Blue Dot World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable company/website, mentioned in one short article on another website, which may save it from speedy deletion but which doesn't pass WP:ORG. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find much in the way of sources, and it is already mentioned on the page of Chris Ward (Social Entrepreneur), who I am not sure is really notable either... Heywoodg 17:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Do Not Delete* Blue Dot World is going to get some major press coverage over the next few weeks, and these sources will be duly added to the page as they are released. This is a company that has attracted substantial support from the government and celebrities, and is helping thousands of charitable causes. As for the notoriety of Chris Ward, if raising hundreds of millions for charity does not earn you notoriety, what does that say for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicebonasio (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another social media website: a company that developed a social currency (Blue Dots) which encourages people to support charitable causes. At minimum, a website must already have attracted significant coverage in independent reliable sources to be the subject of a standalone article. The author seems to acknowledge that this has not happened yet. Since a website is almost trivially easy to set up, I generally want to see evidence of significant effects on history, culture, or technology. Since this has only launched this month, it hasn't had time to make history yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage about this now. Promises of future covverage doesn't meet our inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Raju surnames[edit]
- Raju surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research, some of the content on the lede is not even peripherally linked to the topic. No RS sources for the finding either. The references used are an encyclopedia hosted on blogspot, a facebook page and an internet discussion forum. The one book that's used certifies that there was a king of the name Pasupati (but it doesn't say that the name was a "Raju surname"). Delete —SpacemanSpiff 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ICarly (iOMG story arc)[edit]
- ICarly (iOMG story arc) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is redundant and mostly an unattributed copy of content from iCarly (season 4) and iCarly (season 5). Does not meet WP:GNG as the only references are ratings data and there is no "Significant coverage" "Independent of the subject" in WP:reliable sources (not fansites). References also copied from the source articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufferable fancruft featuring a range of episodes defining a show ship that hasn't been sourced to the network or showrunners themselves as canon, and only "sourced" to ratings press releases that don't care if Carly was paired with Charles Manson and just report the numbers, and the usual cadre of bad fan recaps and fanblogs. Leave this stuff to the iCarly fan forums, please. Nate • (chatter) 06:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability. See: Seddie. --Confession0791 talk 03:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seddie Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is currently no consensus on the name, so that can be worked out on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
International Coffee Day[edit]
- International Coffee Day (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 support the claim that a day by this name exists. Swayback Maru Mufka's alternate account (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reliable sources (including the Christian Science Monitor) show that Nov. 29 is National Coffee Day in the USA, but not that there is an International Coffee Day. Perhaps someone got too excited. :-) BigJim707 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but move to National Coffee Day. It's getting enough press coverage to meet the GNG, although it really should be celebrated on Shannon Wheeler's birthday. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move I've been running into press coverage of this all day, but they all call it National Coffee Day. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 23:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as-is... I think some editors here get too trigger happy with editing and deleting things. Yes, this holiday is certainly referred to as 'National Coffee Day' in the United States... as well as Japan and a dozen other countries. And it has also been referred to as Coffee Day... And yes, there is also reference to this day as being called 'International Coffee Day', in the media, online, and by coffee companies preparing their coffee celebrations. This exact phrase can also be found simply by using Google to search for International Coffee Day... I can list at least 10 sources for that phrase (including national and international media), and perhaps more if I was diligent. The term national refers to something centered on one nation only. The term international refers to something that crosses borders. Therefore, this article is correctly labeled as International Coffee Day. Furthermore, the mass of details which were removed by Swayback Maru, with the reason (rm content not relevant to the topic. rm pov)doesn't make much sense, as the details removed revolved around the coffee culture, how people celebrate, and why coffee is so important as to warrant its own holiday... Editors on Wikipedia articles need to do less deleting and more editing IMHO. Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- References to International Coffee Day ALL of the resources below make a direct reference to September 29th as being International Coffee Day, some in the title, and some in the article... A few are media, a few are company websites, and a few are blogs, but this should show that the status quo says this day IS an international celebration, and IS referenced as being called that in many, maybe hundreds of locations... ((oops, not sure how to get them to display the title))
"international coffee day". Ann Arbor. Retrieved 30 September 2011. "Mokko's Little Moment of Win". International Coffee Day. CheezBurger. Retrieved 30 September 2011. "Starbucks Ignores National Coffee Day". MyFox. Retrieved 30 September 2011. "National Coffee Day: Celebrate with a free cup of joe". Washington Post. Retrieved 30 September 2011. "Today is International Coffee Day". International Coffee Day. Peoria.com. "National Coffee Day : Celebrate We Will". International Coffee Day. DearCoffeeILoveYou.com. "International Coffee Day at Main Street Bagels". International Coffee Day. Main Street Bagels. "Happy International Coffee Day". International Coffee Day. IAdoreFood.com. "Around the World Cup by Cup: Celebrating International Coffee Day". International Coffee Day. TravellingWithTheJones. "Freebie: Krispy Kreme Coffee for International Coffee Day". International Coffee Day. GetItFree.us. "International Coffee Day September 29th". International Coffee Day. CheezBurger.com. "When is international coffee day?". International Coffee Day. Wiki Answers. Retrieved 30 September 2011. Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At a glance, none of the above are reliable sources and contrary to the statement above, they do not all mention "International Coffee Day". -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon closer inspection, you will find that they do ALL refer to September 29 as International Coffee Day. Out of curiosity, how many sources mentioning the same thing is considered enough to be seen as status quo, and a view accepted by most? And how many reliable sources are needed to establish the 'official' name of this event? If a local village in India celebrates Christmas, and they think its only a local celebration, so they call it as such, it doesn't change the fact that Christmas is widely accepted and known to be an international holiday... Yes, I know this is a little different as we are talking about whether this article should be called National Coffee Day (with International Coffee Day pointing to that article), or International Coffee Day (with National Coffee Day pointed to it)... The existence of this holiday is clear, and it is also clear that it is celebrated around the world... So what kind of source is needed (or how many) to satisfy this? To me personally, it is obvious that its an international holiday... AND it has been called both in the media ("Happy International Coffee Day". Komo News. Retrieved 30 September 2011.) That reference is in the media, and written by one of their in-house reporters... But for it to comply with the rules here, what is needed? Is status quo not enough? I will try to research it and find something that meets the criteria. Note: I am not taking offence at the request to change the name, but I am seeing it as what it is... world-wide... international... Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not sure about the name though. They call it International Coffee Day, even though only one nation seems to celebrate it during this particulate day, which is the same as the National Coffee Day of America. And while America certainly is the most important country in the world, we do sometimes remember that other nations do exist, and accept their right to have their own holidays(surprising fact, the 4th of July is only celebrated in America). Dream Focus 09:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing to consider is that the title of this article is not "International Coffee Day is on September 29"... But rather just International Coffee Day" so the point which we need "reliable sources" to back up is not the date, but only the name... If the article was called International Coffee Day, it could still list the date that each region celebrates it, or as someone has already added a section called National Coffee Days as part of the bigger article. Naming the article by this name does not deny that some call it other names, such as: National Coffee Day, Coffee Day, Free Coffee Day, etc., but it actually calls attention to the variation in names. Please note that the variation in names is merely terms of localization, and not different concepts altogether. Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 15:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Global News is a Canadian news group, and mentions International Coffee Day as being September 29th. ("Ten things you didn't know about coffee". Global News. Retrieved 30 September 2011.) (Sorry, forgot to sign at time of edit...) Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus reached? It Seems to me that the consensus is to keep the page, but possibly merge or move it to a different heading. So can this now be moved off of the Articles for deletion, and the nomination for deletion removed from the top of the page? The discussion about the title of the article, and the content/ verifyability of details can continue in the page's discussion section... What is the proper way to do this? Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NotEarly, "The majority of AfD discussions are expected to run for at least seven days." - David Biddulph (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. This question was answered for me by Mufka, on another talk page. I'm so glad there are patient and kind editors on here that will help point newcomers to the relevant guidelines... That may sound sarcastic, but I don't mean it as such. Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus reached? It Seems to me that the consensus is to keep the page, but possibly merge or move it to a different heading. So can this now be moved off of the Articles for deletion, and the nomination for deletion removed from the top of the page? The discussion about the title of the article, and the content/ verifyability of details can continue in the page's discussion section... What is the proper way to do this? Alayna the Extravagant (talk) 07:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename - The first three references currently in the article establish topic notability. Rename the article to National Coffee Day. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP, This could be expanded on, I like it – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surprisingly keep but move - I wasn't expecting this to be notable, but it is. Let's not split hairs about the title, though - just follow the sources instead of philosophizing about why they might use "national" or "international." Oh, and I like coffee too, but that's not relevant to this discussion.--~TPW 11:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:26, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Brother E[edit]
- Brother E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nelly's seventh album[edit]
- Nelly's seventh album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violation of WP:SPECULATION. Lacks any reliable sources - information is based on pure speculation and original interpretation of first-party information sourced from Twitter and YouTube. Lacks any meaningful information about the album apart from a very vague implication of an album being planned. The page does not qualify for CSD and the original creator has removed the WP:PROD template. The Fifth Horseman (talk) 13:32, 29 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) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I feel the hammer coming down on this one. Only source is an obvious statement made by the artist while pitching his DVD (you really think when asked if he'll make another album that he's going to say 'I'm done with music?'). Nate • (chatter) 06:42, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No confirmed title, release or track listing at this time, and I'm not finding any significant coverage for an upcoming release in independent, reliable sources. This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. m.o.p 12:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Skillball[edit]
- Skillball (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 game, fails WP:NSPORT, no reliable independent references, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some students invented a game to play with a tennis ball, a basketball net, and a local tree. Good for them for making a game with the material at hand. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, yet another game we made up one day. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NawlinWiki Little Professor (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above, obviously not notable at all outside a small circle of friends -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - really obvious one. Can be done on snowball I'd say. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a spirited game that is being played all over the county of Norfolk with around 17 schools playing now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcitfc (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hudson Valley[edit]
- Hudson Valley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of sources cited. Content within is not cited in accordance with Wikipedia standards. Far too many statements, figures and paragraphs are uncited and, thus, completely unverifiable. Refimprove tag has been in place since 2008 with no visible improvement in the amount of sources and citations added since then. Consider merging this article or deleting. Other NY state related articles are in much better shape than this one. Usnetizen (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Usnetizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Whilst some parts of the article are still unsourced, the sources that are present serve to affirm notability. Deleting the entire article would be overkill. I'll have a rummage around tomorrow and see if I can dig up some citations for the rest of it. Yunshui (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Consider merging with another NY related article with properly cited information. A lot of the information in this article is highly speculative without sources cited. There are far too many areas that require citation to just add "some" more to it. It needs to be revamped or merged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usnetizen (talk • contribs) 13:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Usnetizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you want to merge the article, please unlist it from Articles for deletion and start a discussion at Proposed mergers instead. This is the wrong forum to discuss a merge. Yunshui (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (Checks calendar. No, it isn't April yet. Damn. Going to have to endure Exmas again this year. Was hoping I had slept through it.) At any rate, the Hudson Valley is a well known geographic feature and informally defined region in New York State. Remove unsourced statements, but here are some sources to get started. May try to improve it myself after I do some reading, but this is a clear case not of lack of sources, but of mere lack of interest. And that does not justify deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Be bold, remove each and every uncited statement if you like, but the subject will still be notable.--~TPW 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MergeWill gladly remove all uncited items in the article, but what would be left would barely be a stub, not suitable for a full article regardless of notability. If the Hudson Valley is really such a notable place in NY worthy of standalone, unverifiable article content, why the lack of attention and interest in updating it?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Usnetizen (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC) — Usnetizen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This is the first nomination. The previous "Hudson Valley" nom was for Hudson Valley English. - The Bushranger One ping only
- Keep with a side of Facepalm. Will Grand Canyon be next? Seriously, though: a lack of sources in an article, and even the lack of people not adding them after long-term tagging, does not indicate a lack of notability. It can (and often does) simply mean that a well-established, historically relevant, and well-known geographical feature is, unfortunately, less popular than (for instance) the latest version of Pokémon. If the article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, fix it, instead of potentially having it deleted and giving the nattering nabobs of negativism yet another reason to laugh at Wikipedia. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The request to update and "fix" the article has been in place since 2008, with no updates made to the sources. There are numerous other articles on NY state with far better and more verifiable content this could be folded into. The information in here would barely be a stub if the uncited material was removed Usnetizen (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And...so? The fact that an article is a stub is no reason to delete or merge. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The request to update and "fix" the article has been in place since 2008, with no updates made to the sources. There are numerous other articles on NY state with far better and more verifiable content this could be folded into. The information in here would barely be a stub if the uncited material was removed Usnetizen (talk) 20:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup. Powers T 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bushranger, LtPowers, and True Pagan Warrior. Called in WP:RESCUE. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep per the above. De728631 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted all uncited material and thus will remove from list of recommended deletions for the article in current form.Usnetizen (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're withdrawing the AfD, then? - The Bushranger One ping only 20:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, this is the article's first AfD, not the second. It should be moved and renamed. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is generally unacceptable to go simply through an article and simply remove all uncited material, especially when it is not controversial and not an attack. The Hudson Valley has been written about since the early days of European exploration of North America, and there is clearly sufficient reliably sourced material for a high quality article. [[Roar, Lion, Roar|(Roar, Lion, Roar, and wake the echoes of the Hudson Valley!) Edison (talk) 20:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Keep. Sometimes a new editor takes WP:BOLD to a new level. Clearly meets GNG, even without half of its text. BusterD (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've restored most of the history section with reliable references and it's really easy to find sources. Apart from that many facts may also be cited on another level when there's a wikilink to a related topic. We don't need inline citations for each and every sentence. De728631 (talk) 21:38, 29 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 00:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Iota Nu Delta[edit]
- Iota Nu Delta (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 independently notable fraternity.Off2riorob (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some historic is that the article was used to attack a person attached to the fraternity - there was a BLP noticeboard report about that - this was dealt with and removed by editors. As a result of this and associated investigations I suggested the fraternity was not actually independently notable and boldly redirected the fraternity - to the North-American Interfraternity Conference that they attended/are affiliated to - after a couple of weeks an IP address in a single edit reverted my redirect stating, "Nu Delta is an incorporated Fraternity, if you wanted to redirect all fraternity/Sororities, do so. but don't single ones out" - none of which asserted any additional notability. - Fraternities are not automatically notable and the mention of other stuff exists is no reason to keep an article about this, imo from investigations, not independently notable student association - so I have nominated it for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ORG: no evidence of notability is available. The links in the article do not help, and many of the articles listed at "Full lettered chapters" do not mention the group (those that do, merely include the name in a list). Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Fails WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause; for a local student organization, notability requires showing more than local coverage, see WP:UNIGUIDE#Student life, and I have not found any.— 152.20.181.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U2BB[edit]
- U2BB (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 appears to be a proprietary term for one manufacturers product, with no notability. The article gives no sources, and searches have failed to produce any substantial independent coverage in reliable sources. (Note: PROD was removed by a single purpose account with no edits other than to this article, without any reason being given.) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Watson is doing better than I am in identifying a particular product, about the only thing saving this from being speedied as a G11. I note that other than his tagging, the article has been edited only by three brand new SPAs; one has to suspect a common employer if not a common hand. I see no evidence that this is a term-of-art, and in addition the article says next to nothing about what characterizes the supposed new technology. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with salt? first I thought it qualified for speedy as made up, or perhaps a joke. There does seem one or two mentions of the term "Ubiquitous ultra-broadband" from Huawei but here it uses the U2Net acronym instead of U2BB. It all seems like just a collection of buzzwords, no real content. As mentione above, single-purpose accounts that create uncited articles like this on their first edit are hard to assume as being good faith. W Nowicki (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elfquest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Soul name[edit]
- Soul name (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:NN neologism applicable within a fictional context Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Elfquest; this seems a minor facet of the world. Mangoe (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The subject of the article does not meet the general notability guideline and the content is a plot-only description of a fictional work. As the content has no references and appears to be original research by synthesis, I believe there is no justified reason to keep any part of the article. Jfgslo (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Second Merge. Relevant to Elfquest universe, not to knowledge in general, therefore should not be deleted outright but kept within the context of the Elfquest article. Lee M (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no significant coverage, fancruft. --Simone (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Elfquest per the above. Fictional element essentially unique (within my knowledge, anyways) to a particular work, would make a fine search term. Delete voters do not address WP:ATD such as this. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, though functionally this would pretty much be a merge. The caveat here, as noted above, is that there is hardly any cited piece of information - just the definition. So make sure that any description of what a Soul name is gets cited to the source, redirect this title, and call it a day. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as fancruft. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Greenfinder[edit]
- Greenfinder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company/website. No reliable third party references given. Everything points to this being a one-man-band and not something notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia Biker Biker (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The "sources" are the company's website, an article that doesn't mention the company, and a business directory listing. Fails to establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I had a look too for sources and couldn't find anything. The author has put some time into writing a decent article but without if no sources of notability can be found, it shouldn't be here. Heywoodg 12:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete I have found three third-party sources relating to Greenfinder and there will be more. TheHungryCapitalist (talk) 00:17, 30 September 2011 (AEST)
- Franchise Business, AussieWeb, EcoExpo, Organic Expo and PRWeb are all credible secondary sources that refer to Greenfinder. Please do not delete this article. TheHungryCapitalist (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2011 (AEST)
- PRWeb will print any company's press release. That doesn't establish notability only that the company exists - and WP:ITEXISTS shows that is not a valid argument to keep an article. Similarly Franchise Business and AussieWeb are just listings sites like Greenfinder itself which again show that the site exists, but do not establish notability. What is needed is reliable third party sources - detailed press articles, for example, talking about the site and the contribution it is making to the green / eco movement in Australia. Even the "Sites we like" link, which is a good reference, is far from enough to establish notability. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The ecoexpo and organicexpo refs 4 & 5 seem to be the same webpage. Again, it's just listing. And there would be no point including more sites who have published the greenfinder press release (I found a couple on google quite easily) More of the same is not going to save this. Quality not quantity needed. Good luck (genuinely)Tigerboy1966 (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Completely and utterly non-notable company with only it's own website as the only source. Article reads like an advertisement in some sense. --NINTENDUDE64 23:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that there are not sufficient notable resources on the page but I fail to see how it is an advertisement. TheHungryCapitalist (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2011 (AEST)
- Delete - There is very litle I can add to the rationale by Tigerboy1966. It's not an advert but clearly reads like a promotional piece or press release material for directory site inclusion. There are no independent, dedicated articles in the established press that indicate that this company has significantly contributed to society or Australia's economy or ecology. Fails to meet criteria at WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per just about everybody above: another Internet business directory that advertises companies and products that are environmentally friendly.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clear advert that fails WP:CORP due to lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Blower[edit]
- Neil Blower (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 author, fails WP:AUTHOR, no independent references that indicate notability, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Neil Blower's writing has been compared to other war novelists such as Ernest Hemmingway, Pat Barker and British poets such as Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen. This is due to his ability to convey both moving and accurate portrayals of the consequences of war." Pretty damn good for a writer whose first novel has not, according to the article, yet been released! Clear promotional material for a first-time writer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Book publication suspiciously coincides with creation of this article. About as blatantly promotional as you can get. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacking good secondary references in article. Refs in article are spammy and I could not locate reliable sources covering this author in any significance and why he would be considered prominent. Wikipedia is not a catalog of people. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:50, 30 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 snow keep; there is absolutely no prospect of this article being deleted on the grounds of non-notability, and absolutely nothing to be gained by keeping this discussion open any longer. So I withdraw this nomination as there is no prospect of the article been erased (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)) (Non-Admin Closure)[reply]
Frances Bean Cobain[edit]
- Frances Bean Cobain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable. Only notable for being the daughter of Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love; in which case, violates WP:NOTABLE, which states that relationships do not transfer notability. I suggest redirect to Kurt Cobain. Ruth-2013 (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Speedy Keep for exactly the same reasons as the other three times it has been nominated.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Perhaps with speed. The nominator should try to follow WP:BEFORE in the future, there are plenty of articles establishing her notability, such as this and this, for example. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per previous AfDs and extensive sourcing already present in article. Lots of articles in Wikipedia are appropriate for AfD review; this isn't one of them.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In spite of the occasional contrary decision, like on the Marcus Bachmann article which had a lot of politics involved, we generally recognize that while someone may receive coverage for being related to a notable person, it's still coverage that satisfies GNG/BIO. NOTINHERITED means that someone isn't notable just for being related to someone else, not that we second-guess reliable sources and decide that they were wrong to cover someone. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. No, she wouldn't have become notable if she weren't her parent's child. That doesn't change the fact that there's more than enough coverage centered on her to meet the GNG's requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. This is getting ridiculous. Binarybits (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - to Kurt Cobain. She is talked about because of her famous parents, nothing more. Every scrip and scrap of coverage of her is because she has famous parents, there is not a single thing on her own merit that is independently notable. Magazine internships, an art show under a pseudonym and a modeling gig don't cut it. Compare to Al Gore III' much news coverage for otherwise minor incidents, magnified by the fact of her last name. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Ditto with above points. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Completly notable in her own right. Lugnuts (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She is NOT notable and ALL PRESS COVERAGE comes from association of her to her mam and dad. By the logic thats been displayed here in that case it looks like we need an article for Kurt Cobain's mam,dad,aunts,uncles,any brothers or sisters, and grandperants. If people come notable by association that is. She is clearly not notable and not accomplished anything in HER OWN RIGHT YET(Ruth-2013 (talk) 07:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I can understand your feelings Ruth. My gut feeling was the same, but regardless of where the coverage comes from, she has received significant attention in her own right. WP has to reflect the world, even when the world chooses to lavish attention on individuals who would have been ignored but for their family origins. Prince Harry, anyone?Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:53, 30 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. Moving can be WP:BOLDly discussed on the article talk page; personally, I think Censorship in Libya under Muammar Gaddafi would be a good fit, but that might be just me. The Bushranger One ping only 00:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Free speech in the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war[edit]
- Free speech in the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war (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 WP:SYNTH; the stitching together of multiple individual events (most of them unreferenced) in the pursuit of an overarching theme. It is vitally important that we have coverage of the media's work during the Civil War; it is also vitally important that this coverage be neutral in nature and fully referenced, which this is not. Ironholds (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Jeff Ogden (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it would be better to improve this article than to delete it. Jeff Ogden (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with you. See WP:INC#Arguments against article deletion. Also you said, "It is vitally important that we have coverage of the media's work during the Civil War", and then you said, "the sources and content do not indicate that the underlying subject can have an article that is not synthetic". And, if it is essential that we have a good article on this subject, it is really too bad that one can't be created by improving the existing article. I think we should try, although I'm holding off on doing any work until this deletion discussion is over. Jeff Ogden (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any evidence that a non-synthetic article is possible? Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide evidence that it can't? It isn't really my job to give evidence here. And I'm not even sure that the current article is a "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". But in any case, I'm willing to add references and do other work to improve it, if the outcome of this discussion is to keep the article. I can imagine that an improved article might be quite different from the current article and that we might even want to change the name of the article as part of improving it, perhaps to something like "The role of the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war" or "Censorship in Libya during the 2011 civil war" or "Censorship of the media during the 2011 Libyan civil war". We should discuss the shortcomings of the current article and gather suggestions for improving it on the article's talk page. It would have been better to do that before the proposal to delete the article was made. You and I can keep going back and forth here, but to advance this discussion what we really need to do is to get some other editors to review the article and express their views. Jeff Ogden (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I know I said I was going to wait until this deletion discussion was finished before trying to improve the article, but I jumped the gun and made a number of what I hope are improvements. I've added references, expanded sections, added new sections and renamed others. I'd welcome feedback on the article's Talk page. I'd also welcome assistance from other editors. Jeff Ogden (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide any evidence that a non-synthetic article is possible? Ironholds (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't miss your point, I just don't agree with you. See WP:INC#Arguments against article deletion. Also you said, "It is vitally important that we have coverage of the media's work during the Civil War", and then you said, "the sources and content do not indicate that the underlying subject can have an article that is not synthetic". And, if it is essential that we have a good article on this subject, it is really too bad that one can't be created by improving the existing article. I think we should try, although I'm holding off on doing any work until this deletion discussion is over. Jeff Ogden (talk) 19:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Read the article, and I don't see a problem here. I think a better name would be Censorship during the 2011 Libyan civil war. This is quite encyclopedic, it showing how a notable aspect of this historic rebellion/war took place. There is significant coverage in reliable sources of times when the news media was censored. Dream Focus 02:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Very Much more can be added to this articval, I might have something to contribute to it, but I need to verify first. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Censorship in Libya under Muammar Gaddafi (named to match History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi), purge of unreferenced sections and expand to cover the entire period of his rule. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Incident, Culfest of NITK Surathkal[edit]
- Incident, Culfest of NITK Surathkal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
prod was declined by another user. looks like a whole bit of original research with no sources to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's very badly written and full of peacock terms but the sources (just added?)are there and do establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. hey, the cited sources are well established Media houses in India. The weasel words and peacock words ( i like this term :P ) need to be toned down, I agree. but AfD is a bit too harsh a tag for this.
The reason I restored the article to this version was because the content was totally removed, and possible vandalism attempt was there. Logik 13:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've tagged the article as an advert because that is what makes up the bulk of the text. The article title also needs some fixing which can be done later if the article is kept. The article references two articles from the Hindu which establish this as a notable student cultural festival. If this article is kept, I'll be back to take a chainsaw to the advertising text. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My Name is on the Bills[edit]
- My Name is on the Bills (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 A9 speedy candidate, but I'm being generous by going to AFD instead. I am struggling to find evidence of notability of either the band or the album. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable album by non-notable band -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NALBUMS. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 12:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:02, 29 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) 21:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not notable. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with your Delete, in the future, try to avoid saying things are just not notable. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 13:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - A9. I'm not seeing any indication of importance/significance in the article for this album, and no article exists for the band. Gongshow Talk 21:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diametric analysis[edit]
- Diametric analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prior Prod, recreated... still non-notable, non-referenced, admitted original research Skier Dude (talk) 06:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR, and fairly meaningless OR at that. Yunshui (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as patent nonsense. Is this supposed to mean something? Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: a formula to understand one polar position and refract that understanding to better understand its opposing polar. An example of this could be how gravitation governs the motion of inertial objects in our solar system and then using this model to reason other solar systems. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete: The gravitation in other solar systems works in an opposing polar way than that in our solar system? SD this per G1. Patent nonsense, please.--Ben Ben (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete – incoherent gibberish with no meaningful content. --Lambiam 20:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete—it seems that the term is actually used in various scientific fields, but this isn't how it's used, and it doesn't seem to actually be discussed by any of the sources which use it, hence probably not notable even if the article were to be blanked and rewritten to be about whatever diametric analysis really is (it seems to be many things, depending on field).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, it means analysis, mostly statistical analysis, of the diameters of whatever is being studied (trees, collagen fibrils, droplets, gas bubbles, anything with roughly circular cross sections), with all the inherent ambiguity of the word analysis – not a specific topic one could write a coherent article about. --Lambiam 05:47, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for clarifying! why are these "analysts" limiting themselves to things with roughly circular cross sections, do you suppose, when any subset of a metric space has a diameter which is potentially amenable to analysis, whether statistical or otherwise?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 07:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete— I agree with Mangoe; it certainly fits the parameters for patent nonsense. --Matt Westwood 22:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't normally nitpick, but since it's been cited three times in this discussion - WP:G1 is not suitable for articles like this; in fact it specifically excludes "implausible theories". If the page said "Diametric analysis widdle waddle pling plong fshhhh", that would be G1-able, but this, although nonsense, is not techinically nonsense. Make of that what you will, I need to go to bed. Yunshui (talk) 23:13, 30 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 00:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quan Liu[edit]
- Quan Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to meet notability requirements; article was created by subject Jweiss11 (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any evidence that this passes WP:PROF. Yunshui (talk) 07:20, 29 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) 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Very difficult to find citations in GS with such a common name. The best I can do is find an h-index of 11: too little for a bio-med field. On this basis too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 29 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vimal Bafana[edit]
- Vimal Bafana (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 author, fails all criteria at WP:AUTHOR, no independent sources confirm notability. WWGB (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only published work fails WP:NBOOK, the publisher (New Bharatiya Book Corporation) is exceedingly minor even in India, and as far as I can tell has only ever published one other title. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. Yunshui (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Vimal Bafana is quite a notable person in the university of Pune. Besides holding a doctorate for work in prakrit, she has been helping and teaching students of American institute who come to india for there research on Sanskrit and Prakrit. Since Prakrit is not a very well known language as yet and the litrature is only limited to those of Jaina's it is difficult for Ms Vimal Bafna or her book has much of references. Again it depends upon your policies... (comment moved from talkpage on behalf of User:121.245.137.250 by Yunshui (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
— 121.245.137.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient evidence of notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Critical Study of Akhyanakamanikosa[edit]
- A Critical Study of Akhyanakamanikosa (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 book, fails all criteria at WP:NBOOK, no independent sources confirm notability, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete my findings are the same as WWGB's. Yunshui (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. This is an easy one.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Vimal Bafana is quite a notable person in the university of Pune. Besides holding a doctorate for work in prakrit, she has been helping and teaching students of American institute who come to india for there research on Sanskrit and Prakrit. Since Prakrit is not a very well known language as yet and the litrature is only limited to those of Jaina's it is difficult for Ms Vimal Bafna or her book has much of references. This work is very important from a point of view that the world is gearing interest in Prakrit and from that perpective its becomes quite a notable work for people who are interested Either in Prakrit or prehistoric Culture of Indus valley civilisation. I would sugggest let this article be here for a while and see how it comes along as it seems it can be improvised a lot from what it currently is. (copied from talkpage on behalf of User:121.245.137.250 ) by Yunshui (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]
— 121.245.137.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment being "quite a notable person at the university of Pune" doesn't cut it. Especially when the claim is not substantiated.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Prakrit's study is in a very niche form now, request to keep to increase it's knowledge base on the net and motivate other contributors as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.129.109 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— 121.245.129.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment looks like someone is voting twice. Naughty.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's avoid systemic bias if we can, please. And Tigerboy1996, this is not a vote. Given the differences between fiction and non-fiction books as stated at Wikipedia:NB#Academic_and_technical_books I say weak keep. This is never going to number 1 on the Sunday Times Bestsellers list; does it reach #4 on the Specialist Indian Philology list? . Tonywalton Talk 23:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I was being inappropriate. I do sometimes make rather flippant comments and I need to be more sensitiveTigerboy1966 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New Bharatiya Book Corporation (note spelling) appears to be an academic publisher based in Delhi [5] specialising in Religious Studies. Not much detail on the company, so I can't assess how important they are. Google books reveals no hits for the title or the author, so the book does not appear to be influential, even within its field see Wikipedia:NB#Academic_and_technical_books. I suppose that a book like this might need time to make at impact, but at the moment the evidence of notability isn't there.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are few other citations and references which are a part of Abstract in this book. Unfortunately they are not online and hence cannot be added. The book in question is a study of a book Akhyanakamanikosha, which is written by Nemichadrasuriji in 1073 A.D. The author has tried to translate and critic on the work. This is first of its kind work and hence hardly any references around. I am not sure of Wiki policies in such cases, however even article on Prakrit has similar issues. Though I would like to have this article here, I also understand procedural issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jainranjeet (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if I was being inappropriate. I do sometimes make rather flippant comments and I need to be more sensitiveTigerboy1966 (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here She Is... (Heidi Montag EP)[edit]
- Here She Is... (Heidi Montag EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable EP that did not chart. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:34, 29 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) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this EP in reliable sources; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 21:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wherever I Am (Heidi Montag EP)[edit]
- Wherever I Am (Heidi Montag EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable EP that did not chart. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:30, 29 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) 20:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this EP in reliable sources; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 21:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD G7. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heuristic Military Augmentation Program[edit]
- Heuristic Military Augmentation Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rather unsourced. Cited references don't support this article. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nothing in gnews. 1 hit in gbooks which is LLC Books which uses WP as a source. LibStar (talk) 08:30, 29 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 00:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SteffComedy[edit]
- SteffComedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Internet personality. Seems very self-promotional. Alex (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; per nom. Lots of promotion and non-notable. 11coolguy12 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Obvious promotion of a YouTube user page. The creator, L8erAlig8rX, seems to have created their account solely to create the page, and nothing more, and DrHaha created their account to make edits to the page, and nothing more. DrHaha is either a sock of the original account, or otherwise somehow related. Though, that is neither here nor there at this point. The article is still a definite delete. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 06:23, 29 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) 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Teen Depression: Signs and Symptoms[edit]
- Teen Depression: Signs and Symptoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.. deprod'd CutOffTies (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 05:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. - Bkid Talk/Contribs 07:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's nothing in this entry that isn't already said in the depression entries already. While an entry on here also isn't any information here that would make this unique to teenagers and there's already an entry about child depression (although that entry isn't the spiffiest at the moment, I must say). The article is also not written in encyclopedic style. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete original research. Yunshui (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 11coolguy12 (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 29 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 00:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Berger (mathematician)[edit]
- Robert Berger (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically a pure WP:BIO1E case. A mathematician who published exactly 1 paper (his PhD thesis) and then appears to have left mathematics. All the relevant info about the result of Berger is already contained in the aperiodic tiling article. There is no more bio info to add to this unsourced WP:BLP and there is not enough verifiable data here for a stand-along biographical article, and not enough to pass WP:PROF. I originally redirected the page to aperiodic tiling but the redirect was reversed by User:Lunch. Therefore I am bringing it to the AfD now for deletion. Nsk92 (talk) 00:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Redirect to domino problem or aperiodic tiling, which have overlapping content. I could, and otherwise would argue notability under WP:PROF#1, the thesis/book is cited by 600 academic sources as per GScholar and the "aperiodic tiling" has a significant range of coverage in lay mathematical sources as well, e.g., [6] If we didn't have the other articles, I'd be arguing keep. However, two things make me think the best way to deal with this is different. First the "1E" argument. Second, just thinking about what happens for the reader--a reader who gets redirected to domino problem gets what we know about Berger *and* more about his mathematical work. Without the redirect, the reader doesn't get the latter. For these articles, I believe the reader is happier in the former case. Barring additional non-trivial and sourced biographical information about Berger, I lean towards redirect rather than keep. --joe deckertalk to me 01:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as argued above. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. For starters, that "one paper" was a significant result: the demonstration that there are indeed aperiodic tilings -- such tilings were previously unknown (and unanticipated) in the history of mathematics. WP:BIO1E reads in part, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Further, this is "one paper" is a highly cited article; since someone took the time to look at MathSciNet, surely they know this. Last, Wikipedia is not paper. This isn't blog-like or self-promotional; it isn't an entry in a directory; it is a stub that merits further expansion. Lunch (talk) 01:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per well-argued nom. --Crusio (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's two significant things he did: 1) proved the domino problem was undecidable, and 2) was the first to create an aperiodic tiling. Both are fairly significant. The fact that the aperiodic tiling has been greatly improved upon does not detract from the fact that he was The First. If we do decide to redirect, then (at least) one of these two results will be less well served. --Matt Westwood 23:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a reason for having an article about Berger's tiling - but not a biographical article about him. There is simply too little information available about him personally, and that is not likely to change. Nothing verifiable about where he is from, when he was born, where he got his undergraduate degree, what happened to him after he finished his PhD and left math, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Be a shame to lose this page, but the information has been kept alive in ProofWiki:Mathematicians/Robert Berger. Yes I know that's not Wikipedia, it's not supposed to be. --Matt Westwood 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That may be a reason for having an article about Berger's tiling - but not a biographical article about him. There is simply too little information available about him personally, and that is not likely to change. Nothing verifiable about where he is from, when he was born, where he got his undergraduate degree, what happened to him after he finished his PhD and left math, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep,
merge, or redirect—i cleaned up the article and added a little material in preparation for arguing a keep, but after reading the article, the article on the domino problem, and the arguments above, i've become solidly undecided (apropos under the circumstances), except that i am strongly opposed to deletion. i think it's correct that berger passes prof#1 merely for this result, which makes me want to keep. on the other hand, Joe Decker's argument for a redirect is quite convincing (to me, if not strongly to Joe Becker). on the other other hand, the reader who does not get redirected could choose to click on the link to the domino problem article, so i don't actually think much harm will be done by favoring keep over redirect. also, i don't want my own brilliant sentence to be lost, thus the value of a merge (i'm (mostly) kidding).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s.—the level of biographical detail in this article doesn't seem out of line with a lot of people who are notable under wp:prof#1, as can be seen from some of the other mathematician bios linked to in the very article, e.g. like Julius Richard Büchi. just a thought.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, for academics qualifying under WP:PROF#C1 there is more information available about their academic careers and there is usually a greater publication track record than a sigle publication, even a well cited one. Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- perhaps, but i will go to the wall to argue that this guy meets prof#1 on the basis of this result, regardless of whether he'd never published another thing. the number of publications has got to be irrelevant, given the impact that even a page of mathematics can have on the world, if it's the right page. is irrelevant, though, as a redirect or merge would be fine with me in this case, but because of the lack of biographical data, not in any way because of the one publication. otherwise you'll find yourself arguing that Galois's got to go.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, for academics qualifying under WP:PROF#C1 there is more information available about their academic careers and there is usually a greater publication track record than a sigle publication, even a well cited one. Nsk92 (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s.—the level of biographical detail in this article doesn't seem out of line with a lot of people who are notable under wp:prof#1, as can be seen from some of the other mathematician bios linked to in the very article, e.g. like Julius Richard Büchi. just a thought.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found an author biography on a 1989 publication that shares enough detail to connect the Berger of this article (the inventor of the first aperiodic tiling) with a Robert Berger who has been working on integrated circuits at the Lincoln Laboratory for many years, and added some detail from it and from some related searches to the article. Despite a couple of minor awards I don't think the new material adds any real notability (that still rests on the tiling discoveries) but it at least counters the argument that we can't say anything about him beyond the tilings. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment—David Eppstein's new information tips me to the keep side, since that material doesn't belong in any of the suggested redirect targets. i still don't think that notability should be an issue due to the importance of the one result.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It was a good call to bring this to AfD, and it is great that improvements have been made to the article as a result. It is no longer in question to me that we can have an article on Berger: his results on the Domino problem and aperiodic tilings make him sufficiently notable. The question is whether we should. In this respect, the additional biographical material makes the article much more informative and interesting than a redirect or merge could be. In particular, it is useful encyclopedic information to know that after his seminal work in mathematics, he went on to do other things. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shikayat Mujhe Bhi Hai[edit]
- Shikayat Mujhe Bhi Hai (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 for the book, and it appears to fail WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not mean WP:NBOOK, cannot find any sources. Author has an article but is also of questionable notability Jebus989✰ 20:33, 15 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 19:27, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Morphew[edit]
- Jason Morphew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
User:Fantasticalisland has been trying to tag this for deletion in various ways. It's not suitable for some of them and there's also WP:COI issues ("I'm Jason Mophew and would like to delete this page. I created the page a few years ago and now would like to delete it." was edit-summary of one of the declined del-taggings). Bringing it to AFD on that editor's behalf (note that that account does not appear to be the one who created the page). I have no idea the merits of the topic. Talkpage suggests that there was some imminent notability that didn't pan out. DMacks (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't appear notable per WP:MUSIC. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 23 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Day in the Life (TV series)[edit]
- A Day in the Life (TV series) (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 remained unreferenced for more than four years, and a search for sources revealed no significant coverage of this series. All the online mentions led to amateur-produced videos, sites with user-supplied content, and mirrors of this article. ShelfSkewed Talk 17:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems unsupportable by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I can't even confirm that this is an actually broadcast TV series, as opposed to a series of videos designed for language instruction. Deor (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. These events may be as people assert, quite notable in the field of kick-boxing, however, our core inclusion policy is verifiability, not truth. That is, we need proof of the notability of the topic. Assertions and arguments are not enough. The bulk of these articles are not reliably sourced, though one article - K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Seoul Final 16 - has one source that may be considered WP:ROUTINE or may possibly be acceptable. As the rest are not suitably sourced they will be deleted; the consensus regarding K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Seoul Final 16 is unclear, so that will kept as no-consensus. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 Fighting Network KHAN 2007[edit]
- K-1 Fighting Network KHAN 2007 (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 2007 in Hong Kong
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Las Vegas
- K-1 Fighting Network Hungary 2007
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Seoul Final 16
here we go again, with a useless sprawling series of kickboxing results that fail WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 07:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All - Here we go again with LibStar nominating fight articles that pass WP:EVENT. K-1 is a prominent kickboxing organization with world-ranked fighters. The result of these events determine champions and ranks for contenders. --NINTENDUDE64 02:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- where is the significant coverage in third party sources to demonstrate notability? LibStar (talk) 02:55, 22 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) 14:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @LibStar If you must know, I am interested in making the best Wikipedia possible. Here is English language coverage of the K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Seoul Final 16 by the Korea Times. I will look for more coverage, however, I reckon that much of the coverage is in the language of where the event took place. --Ryan.germany (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- that's one source not significant coverage. also it is a news report that happened at the time, where is the long term notability of this event? no evidence of meeting WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Topic apparently actually passes WP:EVENT. Please refer to news sources provided above by user Ryan.germany, specifically "Techno Goliath Seeks Revenge" from the Korea Times. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- that's just one source not significant coverage. also it is a news report that happened at the time, where is the long term notability of this years after the event? no evidence of meeting WP:PERSISTENCE. how about the other events listed in this AfD. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All. Topics fail WP:SPORTSEVENT. These preliminary events are not inherently notable as sports events, and received only a small amount of WP:ROUTINE news coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except K-1 World Grand Prix 2007 in Seoul Final 16 The other articles lack independent sources and are about events that are qualifying events, at best. The Seoul event is the round of 16 for the 2007 K-1 championship and has an independent source. It could use more, but it may be improveable. This is the event the "Techno Goliath" article was about, not the Khan event. Also, there's no deletion tag on the Final 16 article. Papaursa (talk) 17:25, 25 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) 11:15, 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) 12:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- apples and oranges. A combative sport cannot be compared with a non-combative sport. Furthermore, your link regarding WP:MUSTBESOURCES is not applicable. Please reread what I wrote. I wrote "may" not "must". There is a difference. --Ryan.germany (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A combative sport cannot be compared with a non-combative sport" so a combative sport is more notable? English Premier League matches easily get more coverage and contain all notable participants compared to these series of results that don't determine rankings or champions. also you are yet to provide evidence of significant coverage to meet WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EVENT. still waiting. LibStar (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @LibStar "so a combative sport is more notable?" How you reach your conclusions bewilders me. Furthermore, as I have written before, my goal is to contribute any way I can to make the best online encyclopedia. That means sometimes tagging and improving. That is what needs to happen here. As to finding more sources, I am way too busy on other articles right now, but I will get to these sometime. --Ryan.germany (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all but the Seoul Final 16 event None of the other events have independent sources or determined a champion. Neither did the Seoul event, but at least it was the final 16 of the tournament and has an independent source. Astudent0 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But it's a single, lonely source that in no way meets "substantial coverage". See WP:ROUTINE. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding "substantial coverage" see WP:BURO--Ryan.germany (talk) 09:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Even if these events aren't as popular to English speaking people as other sports, they are still surely covered in the areas of the world they are held at. Google news archive and book search isn't all knowing, nor anywhere near complete, they stopping that project earlier this year, so no new entries are added. You thus have to use common sense, and assume that this sport is covered in all the nations participating, showing how well their champion did at the very least. Dream Focus 11:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- where is the significant coverage in third party sources to demonstrate notability, you have provided no evidence. In all this discussion, only 1 keep !voter has provided one source that merely was coverage at the same time the event occurred. No evidence of long standing notability nor even a shred of evidence of notability for the other events, only vague arguments that this coverage probably exists but I can't be bothered to prove it. LibStar (talk) 12:19, 28 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, TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all fail WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More Sources Here, Here, Here, and Here. A Google News search reveals 85 hits. --Ryan.germany (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Voting with the argument "fail WP:GNG" is not a strong argument. Please expound on the reasoning why something fails a certain policy WP:JUSTAPOLICY--Ryan.germany (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep These are some of the biggest and most historically significant events ever held in kickboxing. Many of them feature Grand Prixs which determine the best fighters in the region, and which allows them qualify for the World GP at the end of the year. - Minowafan (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yoga Siddhi Vinayagar Temple, Chennai[edit]
- Yoga Siddhi Vinayagar Temple, Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Firstly, the article has no references. And then, there is no indication of notability. There are thousands of Hindu temples in Chennai; there are even localities where there are one or two Hindu temples for every street. From the article itself, I can understand that this particular temple is not of any historical importance, whatsoever. So is there anything unique about this temple? If not, then why should this article not be deleted? The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 05:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Googling indicates that the temple is of some local importance, but doesn't help find any significant reliable sources. Maybe someone who knows Tamil can try finding non-English sources. I'd say merge the content to Porur, unless someone establishes importance. utcursch | talk 06:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books returns 0 hits. A search on the web returns unreliable links as Wikimapia and hindudharmaforums. I know of, atleast, one another Ganesa temple in Porur; I don't know how much exist in all. The article, itself, claims that it is just a small shrine erected by a minor local body. Many such small shrines exist, most of them, erected in the last 20 or 30 years by private individuals or associations.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 12:34, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - quite apart from the lack of refs, temple is entirely non-notable. I'm all for good coverage of major, notable temples. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:57, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sound of Music Studios[edit]
- Sound of Music Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, no demonstration of notability →Στc. 01:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will try to add some sources today. Notability is already there, as many of the bands listed are nationally known (look how many bands have wikipedia articles!). I have added some preliminary sources on the article's talk page if there was any doubt about WP:IS. MPS (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I fail to see notability on this 5 year old article. I also fail to see reliable primary sources and further, a cleanup in accordance to MOS is long overdue. Also, I'd consider nominating some of the related articles such as John Morand; many of the bands liked in that article; and even David Lowery. Many of these articles do not seem notable or encyclopedic. -- Loukinho (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All wet[edit]
- All wet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable slang word. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. Would it fit in Wiktionary? humblefool® 19:52, 16 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) 00:18, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just a dictionary definition of a phrase, which is already listed in Wiktionary anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Absolutely, it's purely a dictionary definition and in Wiktionary already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nominator. 11coolguy12 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Waterloo Road characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Max Tyler[edit]
- Max Tyler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After months of not getting involved, I've re-directed all the Waterloo Road character articles to List of Waterloo Road characters except this one. The reason is that, unlike the others, it is properly referenced and does not have a long-standing unreferenced/in-universe tag at the top. Notability, however, is questionable. So I thought this deletion discussion could decide whether decent articles on individual characters are necessary, or whether they should be redirected on sight. U-Mos (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. U-Mos (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop tirading you lunatic. It's properlly sourced and is notcable. Sso give it up looking for excuses to completly ruin something that doesn't need to be. However saything that, that is what your good at isn't it...shitting on stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.126.121 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would the IP editor 78 please assume good faith? Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said above, yes it is properly sourced. WP:NOTABLE on the other hand...? Personally I'm not sure, especially with the other character articles being totally iredeemable, which is why I have nominated for deletion to generate discussion rather than redirecting this article with the rest. U-Mos (talk) 22:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop tirading you lunatic. It's properlly sourced and is notcable. Sso give it up looking for excuses to completly ruin something that doesn't need to be. However saything that, that is what your good at isn't it...shitting on stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.126.121 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Waterloo Road characters - unless an editor provides significant coverage in reliable sources which could lead to this article being more than just plot-only coverage, there's little to save. --Simone (talk) 08:33, 16 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) 00:17, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as the nominator suggests. This really just expands on the plot summaries in the series article. The character itself hasn't become independently notable in the way that, say, The Doctor has. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep like other shows, they have character pages, why can't waterloo road characters have one? These pages also give more insight to the characters. Mm3 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect not all characters in fiction warrant an article and this one does not have sources to WP:verify notability in accordance with the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Creative Barcode[edit]
- Creative Barcode (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 real claims of notability. Google search on "Creative Barcode" nonprofit shows only 254 unique results, mostly primary sources, blogs, and social media. Google news search on the same terms show no results. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep GHits aren't evidence of notability or not, GHits for a deliberately made-obscure search term certainly aren't indications of non-notability. There are already refs on the article, although those working so hard to delete it are happy to describe even WIPO as "obscure" to try and discredit them. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 16 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) 00:17, 22 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:01, 29 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.