Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RelentENGINE[edit]
- RelentENGINE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability of this game engine is not established with inline citations, and I failed to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The PROD contested with no explanation or modification of article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - no 3rd party references to establish notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As everyone but the creator have mentioned, Wikipedia is not an art magazine, and, I might add not a webhost. There is no indication this issue (or even the magazine) meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23 Skidoo (magazine issue)[edit]
- 23 Skidoo (magazine issue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable issue of an unremarkable magazine. No indications of notability, no references. Contested prod (which had gained two prod-2 additions).MikeWazowski (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The magazine is not unremarkable. It has published 23 issues, and included many well-known artists as contributors.— Shoenoverns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - 23 issues is not much in the magazine world. Also, even if you had "well-known artists as contributors", notability is not inherited. You've failed to demonstrate notability for the magazine itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you an expert on the magazine world - and the history of the magazine world? La_Révolution_surréaliste ran for twelve issues. What are your criteria for assessing notability for magazines? --Shoenoverns (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012
- Comment - 23 issues is not much in the magazine world. Also, even if you had "well-known artists as contributors", notability is not inherited. You've failed to demonstrate notability for the magazine itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A7 really should cover this. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, we need an A7 category for this, but at this point, publications are not eligible. Looks to me like some art project (see also the garbled message on the article's talk page) and the issue seems to exist according to a Google search (otherwise I'd think this was some hoax), but that's about all I found: zero sources, no notability. Too bad it was dePRODded, this is a waste of editor time. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am the author of the page. I am also new to posting articles on Wikipedia, so I am not completely familiar with the process. One of the reasons why there are no sources available yet on this article is that it has not yet been published. This article IS in some ways an art project, and one of our concerns is the issue of notability, and who decides what is notable. I believe that the inclusion of this page in Wikipedia is defensible and would ask that people not be in a hurry to delete it. I note that the subjects of the issue are certainly notable (documenta 13 and tino sehgal) and the magazine is also notable (it has featured many very famous contemporary artists and art projects). Also, what is A7? (Shoen Overns) -- Shoenoverns talk 18:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read What Wikipedia is not. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I read it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Please see the garbled message on the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoenoverns (talk • contribs) 19:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A7 refers to one of the criteria for speedy deletion. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But I don't see what criteria are covering this article. I note that arguments based on what Wikipedia is not are not sufficient... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoenoverns (talk • contribs) 19:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are none, that's what Bushranger and I were alluding to, that we actually need an A7 criterion to deal with this kind of stuff. Please, in future refrain from trying to turn WP into your personal art project. It's easy enough to set up your own website, where you can play around as much as you want. Creating an article about a non-existing magazine issue comes perilously close to vandalism... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The quanty of available relialbe source material decides Wikipedia notability per WP:GNG. Is this some art project related to 23 skidoo (phrase)? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not correct, and your statement demonstrates to me an insensitivity and rigidity of thinking. As I understand it, Wikipedia is a collective project which is devoted to the spread of human knowledge. This is also our project. It is not my personal project, it is a collective project. I think that it is the same project. So why can't we contribute to it? I would suggest that the extremely rhetorical way that you are speaking (we collective versus you individual) it seems to me that your statements (and those of Mr. Bush Ranger) on this point are quite police-like in their overtones and their assumptions of authority. With all respect, I think that you are in a different place, and that you should also questions these assumptions. What I mean is, as regards this aforementioned human knowledge project, I would please invite you to consider that there is some irony in speaking of a non-existent magazine issue. --Shoenoverns (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, it doesn't seem to me that you're here to contribute to an encyclopedia, which is something very different from an art project. If you want to contribute, please read our policies and guidelines. Everybody can contribute and is certainly welcome to do so, but creating inappropriate pages as part of an "art project" is not a constructive contribution. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe that there is such a clear distinction between an encyclopedia and an art project. You state that it is different, but you do not give reasons why... same with the remainder of your statement... inappropriate, not constructive... I would certainly be interested in hearing your reasons, but at the moment I feel that you are not arguing with reasons, but from authority. Please tell me where, within your policies and guidelines, there is a breach of ethics or of spirit? I don't think one has been demonstrated.--Shoenoverns (talk) 13:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An art project is supposed to be something original and unique. The artist creates something that didn't exist before. Here we create, too, but in a different sense: we only write things that are based on reliable secondary sources. In contrast with an artist, we don't create content out of nothing (even though I fully well understand that an artist does not operate in a vacuum and can be inspired/influenced by earlier artists). There's a huge difference. Hope this explains. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know if I share your views on the uniqueness and originality of art. Actually, this is a relatively recent (and actually somewhat unfashionable) definition of what art is, and how artists should operate. The more contemporary idea is that artist should contribute to society and knowledge. I will tell you also that what's interesting to me is the extent to which the separation between art and scholarship (for example) is upheld on the basis of a number of metaphysical assumptions and theories (like the problem of creation ex nihilo, which you are currently citing. I take from this strange fact the understanding that it is necessary to question all assumptions as regards strict demarcations, and especially so when it comes to topics like notability, which is a highly metaphysical idea, and extremely difficult to establish as a concept. You will notice that every attempt to do falls back on mysterious criteria: there appear to be authorities of notability, but from where does their authority - ultimately - derive? --Shoenoverns (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I add that the fact that many well-known artists have contributed to the magazine precisely demonstrates it's notability - the fact that it has had notable contributors indicates that it has status in the world which it inhabits, just as a scientific journal that has had many well-known, say, noble prize winners writing for it would be considered notable by virtue of the fact of their participation.--Shoenoverns (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC) -- Shoenoverns (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The spread of human knowledge by Wikipedia is limited, per WP:GNG, to that human knowledge contained in reliable sources that are independent of the subject being spread via Wikipedia. The knowledge that many well-known artists contribute to the magazine is not from a Wikipedia reliable sources, so that knowledge does not belong in the Wikipedia article. Also, their contributions to the magazine are not independent of the magazine. Shoenoverns, if the article is deleted as a result of this articles for deletion (AfD) discussion, you can post a request at WP:DRV that the AfD deletion decision be reviewed using one or more of the reasons listed at WP:DRVPURPOSE. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If I understand correctly, this is actually a single issue of a magazine that is the topic of this article. I see no coverage in independent reliable sources that would indicate that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are met. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tell me what independent reliable sources would be required to indicate this, and I will see if I can find them for you. You can say this is the single issue of magazine, but it is possible that it is actually something stranger and more notable than that, which merely has taken this form. What I am trying to say is that the principles at stake here are more important and more interesting then perhaps they seem. Another point which I would like to make is that I believe the magazine itself, which does at the moment have a Wikipedia page, would qualify would for one based on the Wikipedia standards of notability. But I think the more important problem is to understand the hierarchy of the criteria, and which criteria are ultimately fundamental in deciding whether something can be included, or must be excluded. To be sure, Wikipedia has rules and guidelines. But from where do these guidelines come from? I think that they come from a certain ethics of knowledge, and I believe that on these terms, this article should not be deleted, at least, until we have satisfactorily concluded this discussion. -- Shoenoverns (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Reliable sources can be magazines, newspapers etc. -- Whpq (talk) 00:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the subject does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia, that is, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per the general notability guidelines. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The 23 Skidoo (magazine issue) topic lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the 23 Skidoo (magazine issue) subject for a stand-alone article as required per Wikipedia notability. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While not all of the sources provided by Uzma Gamal seem to meet WP:RS, some of them do. Since the concern of the nominator has been met, the article will be kept. However, I strongly request that either Milowent or Uzma Gamal actually add those sources to the article--they don't do anyone any good here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Davao Light & Power Co., Inc.[edit]
- Davao Light & Power Co., Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company and the article provides little material appropriate for an encyclopedia. Search engine results provided little coverage aside from this link that featured an establishment date, this advert-like and unreliable link containing company information and this Supreme Court file claim. Google News results provided a small mention here and another small mention here. Chances are that either there isn't any sufficient news coverage or sufficient news coverage may not be English but rather Tagalog or other Filipino languages. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a couple mentions in reliable sources but none significant enough to warrant that the subject meets WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It appears to be a notable company, serving over 290,000 customers.[1]. Need to improve article is not a good reason for deletion here. Also seems to have a long history, founded in 1929 and acquired in 1940s by Aboitiz Group.[2]--Milowent • hasspoken 04:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:GNG. It's the second biggest power utility in the Philippines. There's about 20 news articles with Davao Light in the title of the news article, [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], etc., and 400+ more news articles mentioning Davao Light[22]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus is that while sources could be found, they either don't meet WP:RS or are no more than passing mentions, and thus are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Urania Trust[edit]
- Urania Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP by lacking significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Current sourcing is all in-universe by fringe publications/publishers. Google news archives give only a single passing mention. SÆdontalk 20:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Beyond the above source, the only other I could fine was [23]. I'm surprised this non-notable topic doesn't even have passing mentions. Totally non-notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; lacks substantial coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I could find no independent sources to establish notability, only scant tangential mentions. The subject is notable only within a fringe walled garden, and the sourcing is entirely in-universe and unreliable. There is nothing of encyclopedic value to keep or merge. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 20:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A diverse variety of mentions (not merely passing mentions) on independent astrology-related websites, plus UK charities registration, and backlinks from other Wikipedia articles (when I Googled this organization's name, I found that it appears in a number of Wikipedia articles, only some of which had backlinks to this article; I have started to add more) convince me that this organization is notable within the astrology arena. Without looking at the article to see what sources it cited, I compiled a list of some of what I found about this organization. Only one of these weblinks cited and only one of the two books that I highlighted is currently mentioned in the article:
- Fairly substantial coverage of the Urania Trust in an article, on some unrelated astrology website, about the Trust's role in a campaign to establish a chair in astrology at a British university. (I would imagine that this campaign has received mainstream attention over the years.)
- Obituary for an astrologer, in a newsletter on an astrology site apparently unaffiliated with Urania Trust, that lauds his work with the Urania Trust. Also see [24] -- page on another astrology website mentioning this man's role in the Urania Trust.
- Announcement of Urania Trust grant programs, in a 2005 newsletter of another astrology organization
- Charity registration info and financial data for Urania Trust
- Page 811 of a compendious book about astrology is a list of magazines and periodicals about astrology that is indicated to have been developed by the Urania Trust.
- One of many links lists on other astrology websites that includes a link to the Urania Trust. This one describes it as a "respected source". Here's another link to Urania that describes it is a registered charity and tells when it was established.
- The Urania Trust seems to have published a bunch of books, such as this one and this other one (both of these books are available from both Google Books and Amazon) - One of these books is listed in the Wikipedia article right now.
- Another obituary for an astrologer that mentions the role that Urania Trust played in her activities.
- There's more than enough here to substantiate that this organization is notable within the field of astrology. The fact that I think astrology is claptrap does not change the fact that astrology is a notable topic; accordingly, people and organizations deemed notable within the field are worthy of coverage in this encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have taken a look in these sources:
- Your first source is a trivial mention, where most of the article is about The Sophia Centre, for which we have an article.
- The obituary of an astrologer. According to the first source that astrologer was the chairman of Urania Trust, so it's kind of normal to see it mentioned in his obituary. That doesn't make this organization notable.
- Announcements of grants, registration as a charity, and being mentioned in lists of links. That does also not qualify for notability either.
- Having published books is also not sufficient. Not every organization (or author) that has published some books is notable for a WP article.
- Another obituary is also offering only a passing mention (which is not even easy to find in the article).
- So, none of these sources meet wp standards. They merely confirm that Urania Trust "exists" indeed. But better sources, with in depth coverage about Urania Trust, will be needed to establish notability for this organization. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I have taken a look in these sources:
- The requirement is significant coverage, not just a passing mention. These sources just give passing mentions. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:CORP: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. [...] Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Based on the sources presented above, we are still lacking depth of coverage. Further, using fringe sources to determine that a fringe subject is notable is nonsense. If no one outside of the fringe group is paying attention then we shouldn't be paying attention. SÆdontalk 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trivial or incidental coverage" would mean items along the lines of "the bride is employed as a editor for Urania Trust", not items like the sources I cited above, which deal with this organization's activities in its main area of interest. If any one of these individual items was the only coverage we had found for this organization, it would not suffice to demonstrate notability, but the collective and cumulative effect of the various items does show notability. It seems to me that the repeated assertions that astrology is a "fringe subject" are thinly disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements -- that's not a valid reason for deleting an article. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IDLI is not a valid reason, correct, but since that in no way was my argument it's not relevant. It's a straw man that misrepresents my position. Astrology is in fact a fringe subject and fringe subjects should only have articles if they can be substantiated by non-fringe sourcing. Astrology, for instance, uses mainstream sources to substantiate notability and is therefore deserving of an article, but notability is not inherited and so the fact that an organization is astrological in nature does not mean that it is de facto notable. Your line of reasoning would work fine at astrowiki, but it doesn't work for a general purpose encyclopedia. The only nonfringe sources that discuss it do so in a trivial manner. SÆdontalk 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trivial or incidental coverage" would mean items along the lines of "the bride is employed as a editor for Urania Trust", not items like the sources I cited above, which deal with this organization's activities in its main area of interest. If any one of these individual items was the only coverage we had found for this organization, it would not suffice to demonstrate notability, but the collective and cumulative effect of the various items does show notability. It seems to me that the repeated assertions that astrology is a "fringe subject" are thinly disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT statements -- that's not a valid reason for deleting an article. --Orlady (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting WP:CORP: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. [...] Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Based on the sources presented above, we are still lacking depth of coverage. Further, using fringe sources to determine that a fringe subject is notable is nonsense. If no one outside of the fringe group is paying attention then we shouldn't be paying attention. SÆdontalk 23:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By Orlady's research and through references currently provided by the article (I don't know when these were added) I find it convincingly evidenced that this organization falls within Wikipedia's notability requirements. __meco (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've reviewed the sources found by Orlady and have to agree with MakeSense, IRWolfie and Saedon that they are all either unreliable, trivial or tangential, and none of them contribute any notability to the subject, even when taken together. I've searched long and hard, as the topic interests me, but have still not found anything substantial in reliable sources, and even in the in-universe fringe sources, coverage is surprisingly scant. Still think the article should be deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the sources in the article and provided in this discussion art insufficient for a separate article, however, I think the bulk of this content -say the History and Charitable Aim sections, could be incorporated in the article for its founder, and for 12 years its chairman, John Addey. I would therefore merge then redirect this to its own section in his article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's a few mentions in reliable sources:
- in a footnote
"He joined the Astrological Association of Great Britain in 1963 and had as his mentor the late John M Addey, whom he succeeded as chairman of the association and latterly patron. In 1966 he obtained the Diploma of the Faculty of Astrological Studies and later was appointed its vice-president. He pioneered the comprehensive training of faculty students and led the development of the Urania Trust, an educational charity which until last year ran the Astrological Study Centre in London. He also played a prominent role in the Jungian-based Centre for Psychological Studies."[25]
- Maggie Hyde, Globe and Mail, Charles Harvey Promoted astrology as serious discipline, Page R12, (March 3, 2000) ("In 1998, a benefactor enabled him to initiate the Sophia Project, under the aegis of the astrological charity Urania Trust. The project aims to advance the study of "real astrology in higher education," and is finding small niches for serious astrology within academia.")
- However, it's not enought for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ädelost[edit]
- Ädelost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The Swedish term "Ädelost" simply means "Blue Cheese". It is not a specific type or brand of blue cheese, and hence has no place in an encyclopedia. OpenFuture (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The word means noble cheese not blue cheese (which would be blåost). The type of cheese is notable, see World Cheese Book, for example. Warden (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the literal translation is "noble cheese", yes, but it means blue cheese. Nobody says "blåost", that word doesn't exist in Swedish, it's called "ädelost" or "grönmögelost" (green mold cheese). As the source you refer to has no preview I can't verify what it says. That it uses the word "Ädelost" isn't proof of notability, as many Swedish blue cheese uses that word in it's name. It still doesn't make it a type of cheese. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found one reliable source in the form of a 2009 book on cheeses of the world, which I've added to the article. Part of the problem is that many sources are in Swedish, but with this solid one, I think that should be enough to let this cheese stand alongside Stinking Bishop, even if it's not mentioned in an animated movie. Geoff Who, me? 00:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't see that quote, could you quote it? Still with this there is only one source as it's the same as above. --OpenFuture (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In my experience, this term is used colloquially to mean "blue cheese" in general, of whatever brand or regional origin, in accordance with what OpenFuture states above. However, when I look it up in Nationalencyklopedin, it is actually more precisely defined as a Swedish variant of Roquefort cheese made from cow's milk and using the green mold Penicillium roqueforti (the original Roquefort cheese is made from sheep's milk). --Hegvald (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. Then we at least have one verifiable source on the topic. That's an improvement. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is interesting. My first impulse was to say "Delete" based on my own usage of the word to mean blue cheese in general. But according to NE, the general term is "mögelost" while "ädelost" is a specific type of blue cheese. This feels wrong to me (I'd use the two terms interchangeably, and am pretty sure they also do that in grocery shops) but after all we do rely on sources and not on our own intuition. So I guess that it will have to be a weak keep, but more sources would of course be nice. --bonadea contributions talk 14:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A variety of blue cheese specific to Sweden. Appears to meet WP:GNG per:
- The World Cheese Book
- Heinrich Mair-Waldburg (1974), Handbuch der Käse: Käse der Welt von A-Z : eine Enzyklopädie, Volkswirtschaftlicher Verlag, p. 269
- There's also these mentions:
- It's also quite possible that reliable Swedish-language sources exist for this topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still appreciate actual quotes from these books. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just open the hyperlinks. For the unlinked source, please keep in mind that per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, sources are not required to be available online. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The hyperlinks contain no quotes for me. This is probably because of geography. Sources are not required to be able online, but sources are actually required to support what is said. I'd like to verify that, and hence I would like quotes. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to consider not nominating articles for deletion that have received coverage which exists on servers that you cannot access, for whatever reasons. Part of the reason why is that this is very likely to lead to malformed and/or incorrect nominations to remove information from the encyclopedia. People are unlikely to want to provide verbatim quotes for each source in AfD discussions, because it's time consuming and amounts to doing a bunch of work for one person, rather than for the entire encyclopedia. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can access the servers. They show no quotes. And coverage do not exist on "servers". Reliable sources can indeed be servers, in the case of online magazines etc, but for the most part reliable sources are books and articles. In this case they are books. I'v asked for quotes from the books, as a simple search on "Ädelost" might gve you hits that doesn't actually support the notability of the term. Your refusal to give the quotes is interesting. It should reasonably be a simple case of typing the quotes in, but somehow instead of doing that, you spend time avoiding it, thereby wasting everybodies time. I can only conclude that the quotes don't support a keep. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to consider not nominating articles for deletion that have received coverage which exists on servers that you cannot access, for whatever reasons. Part of the reason why is that this is very likely to lead to malformed and/or incorrect nominations to remove information from the encyclopedia. People are unlikely to want to provide verbatim quotes for each source in AfD discussions, because it's time consuming and amounts to doing a bunch of work for one person, rather than for the entire encyclopedia. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The hyperlinks contain no quotes for me. This is probably because of geography. Sources are not required to be able online, but sources are actually required to support what is said. I'd like to verify that, and hence I would like quotes. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just open the hyperlinks. For the unlinked source, please keep in mind that per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, sources are not required to be available online. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd still appreciate actual quotes from these books. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Whereas it is true that many Swedes use the word "ädelost" in a broader sense, it is, as the Nationalencyklopedin entry points out, actually a local kind of cheese. The fact that the noun can carry both these meanings in Swedish doesn't mean that we should delete the entry because one of said meanings wouldn't merit an article with the Swedish name here. /Julle (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted under CSD G11 by DGG. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CacheBox[edit]
- CacheBox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I couldn't find any sources about this software. It looks like it fails the general notability guideline. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Reyka[edit]
- Chris Reyka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very sad, but not notable and WP:MEMORIAL also applies....William 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)</small[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included n the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William 16:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:VICTIM. Though his death was a tragedy for his family and colleagues, it was a common sort of crime. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete. Probably more deserving than many people who pass WP:N, but I simply can't see where this one passes. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Montréal Québec Temple[edit]
- Montréal Québec Temple (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Not a listed building, not architecturally significant either. Only "sources" are LDS-related, which isn't independent enough of the topic. A Google Search turned up sites that were either unreliable blogs or LDS-related. Should be deleted outright, or merged to List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which already contains what little encyclopedic information there is about this building. pbp 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following additional temples for deletion. A google search has been conducted for each; each has turned up nothing notable:
pbp 15:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm wary of suggesting that every LDS temple is automatically notable, but this deletion would make these three the only temples without standalone articles, as far as I can see. Temples are a fairly big deal in the LDS church; they're much more like cathedrals than average church buildings. Ogden Stake Tabernacle was probably a fair deletion, but temples are a different ballgame. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to go ahead and notify WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement about this entry. I'm not trying to canvass or anything; I just can't think of any other relevant WikiProject. Perhaps they can help with sourcing. (WikiProject Atheism for balance?) I think the delsort is covering most other interested parties. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't an argument for keeping here, why these particular temples are notable has not been addressed or proven, and as such the "Keep" vote should be discounted. This amounts to an other stuff exists argument. Just because there are articles on temples doesn't make them all notable; some temples are more notable than others, and having similar articles exist doesn't make any of them notable. If all temples were notable, how come the majority of LDS temples have no reliable sources? (and mind you, there are many temples that could and should be deleted, some like Medford have already been merged and others will be deleted with future AfDs).
- Also, the "temples-are-like-cathedrals" analogy is faulty. I explained why in the RfC on the notability of LDS microtemples, but here it is again: A catholic cathedral typically serves well over 100,000 Catholics (L.A.'s cathedral is something on the order of 3-4 million). None of the temples nominated serve more than about 25-30 thousand Mormons; Montreal serves less than 20,000. Cathedrals are usually old and architecturally significant; all three of these temples are less than 15 years old and built from the same architectural plan. And even if any of this stuff wasn't true in the case of these three articles, the whole "LDS-temples-are-notable-because-Catholic-cathedrals-are-notable" argument is another one of those "other-stuff-exists" arguments
- Finally, it is canvassing to notify the LDS WikiProject. They are clearly a biased group pbp 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "L.A.'s cathedral", which I suppose you mean Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, does not serve 3-4 million people. It's simply the largest Catholic church in a city of 3-4 million people and in fact has a total capacity of 3,000, nothing near 3-4 million.--Oakshade (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As for PBP's canvassing charge just for notifying the relevant Wikiproject, from WP:AFD: "WikiProjects are groups of editors that are interested in a particular subject or type of editing. If the article is within the scope of one or more relevant WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD."
PBP, if you'd like to change WP:AFD to not encourage notifying Wikiprojects, you need to make your case at the talk page of WP:AFD, not invent your own rules in a specific AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Key word: neutral. Canvassing is when you notify a partisan audience (per WP:CANVASS), and I believe the LDS WikiProject to be such an audience. 'Nuff said pbp 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Key words: neutral note. ("If the article is within the scope of one or more relevant WikiProjects, they may welcome a brief, neutral note on their project's talk page(s) about the AfD." (italics mine)) BDD's note on the LDS Wikiproject page is simply a notification of this AfD [26] which is as neutral a note can get. Cherry picking a single word from a guideline to support a view that doesn't in fact match the policy is a classic example of gaming the system and specifically WP:GAMETYPE.--Oakshade (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Key word: neutral. Canvassing is when you notify a partisan audience (per WP:CANVASS), and I believe the LDS WikiProject to be such an audience. 'Nuff said pbp 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to go ahead and notify WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement about this entry. I'm not trying to canvass or anything; I just can't think of any other relevant WikiProject. Perhaps they can help with sourcing. (WikiProject Atheism for balance?) I think the delsort is covering most other interested parties. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As BDD stated above, these are the primary Latter-day Saints houses of worships in major cities or entire regions. The nom ordering the closing admin what to do is inappropriate. They can make their own decision. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Just because they're primary houses of worship doesn't make them notable. Sources make something notable, and only sources make something notable. None of the Keep votes have addressed the fact that sources that aren't LDS/Mormon/Deseret haven't been found, and therefore no keep votes as of yet have a valid reason for keeping pbp 13:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PBP, do you always get this upset when people vote against your AfDs? AADD is an essay, and just because someone's making an argument like one of the examples doesn't mean it's invalid and that you need to appeal to the closing admin to strike it. Consider (from Wikipedia:Other stuff exists itself) that we do have a concept of inherent notability, and if we're going to apply it to "any high school," I feel plenty comfortable assigning that to LDS temples (certainly not any LDS building, however). Finally, if you're so sure my WikiProject notification is canvassing, feel free to notify another group. You say bias, I say expertise. --BDD (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get upset when people make really bad arguments that fly in the face of policy, which yours and Oakshade's "Keep" arguments do. If you were to say, "this is notable because of non-LDS-related Sources X, Y, and Z", you'd have a valid argument. High schools and LDS temples are apples and oranges; there has been enough consensuses as a result of many discussions and RFCs to enshrine "all high schools are notable" into a specific notability guideline. Discussions that claim all temples or cathedrals are notable have resulted in a consensus against all of them being notable, and therefore no specific guideline exists for religious buildings. In the absence of a specific notability guideline, what you do is fall back on the general notability guideline, which states that notability is determined by having reliable, third-party sources on the topic. There are no reliable sources in the article, my BEFORE search didn't turn up any, and you two haven't found any other sources. Therefore, according to the general notability guideline, these aren't notable. In essence, you and Oakshade are ignoring the GNG, which is why your arguments are invalid pbp 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting myself from my talk page, "How do you think policies like inherent notability get applied to subjects? Do you think it applies to high schools because they all have oodles of sources, so obviously ever high school meets GNG? That's at least as silly as my argument. It's about deletion outcomes. If enough people agree with me (probably over multiple nominations), we'll call it inherent notability. If they don't, I'll just look like a fool." --BDD (talk) 23:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @PBP, Forgive my ignorance, but what's the problem with "LDS-related" sources? I don't remember reading anything in WP:RS, WP:V, or WP:N about unilaterally rejecting reputable news outlets based solely on who owns them. The material being cited to these news outlets is non-controversial (dates, locations, square-footage, etc.) so COI doesn't apply. Are you suggesting that outlets like Deseret News LDS Newsroom cannot be used as sources for anything Mormon-related, or is your argument limited to Mormon temples? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used the argument with tabernacles in the past, and with temples now. It all goes back to the idea that they have to be third-party sources to establish notability, and IMO, the official newspaper of the Mormon church (which is what Deseret News is) isn't third-party enough, just as you'd have to use something other than the Monitor for info on the Christian Science Church. But Deseret News isn't particularly germane, as the "sources" in the article are ripped from LDS-related websites. The general jist is you need something non-LDS to establish notability; sourcing of specific pieces of information is a little more lenient pbp 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. It looks like the articles are mainly sourced to the newsroom at http://www.ldschurchnews.com, which is an official publication/news outlet of the church. My understanding of third-party was that it applied more to people publishing about themselves than newspapers publishing about topics related to the organization that owns the newspaper. In fact, if you take the essay WP:Third-party sources, it says, "A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." and " A third-party source is independent and unaffiliated with the subject, thus excluding sources such as self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and promotional materials." As far as I know, the reporters who work for the LDS newsroom are not involved with the temples except in their capacity as reporters, and they are not writing autobiographies about themselves or promotional material. They're reporting dates, facts, figures, and quotes to a group of interested people, and that's what's being cited. I'll understand though if you disagree with me on the third-party bit.
- On a different track, in my experience Mormon temples generate a lot of media attention when they're announced and built, especially in the locality where they're being built. (See, for instance this AP article highlighting 5 announced temples, and these many articles about the temple recently built in Kansas City. On the Canadian side of things, this 2006 article from a major Canadian newspaper is talking about the building of an LDS meetinghouse next to the Quebec temple.) After they're finished, there's the open house, which is also advertised, and can also generate media attention. The problem with looking for sources with a Google search is that the Quebec temple was completed in 2000, and most of the newspapers Google is looking at don't make their archives available that far back. So you're doing a news search of articles that go back to 2008 for something whose notability was primarily in 2000. (Remember that notability is not tempoarary.) If you look for more recent temples, you get all kinds of hits, so it's not a problem of there not being any sources, it's just a problem that most of them aren't showing up in your Google search. (I won't go into the problem of most of the Quebec papers being in French and the Mexican newspapers being in Spanish, which will also throw off your search.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've used the argument with tabernacles in the past, and with temples now. It all goes back to the idea that they have to be third-party sources to establish notability, and IMO, the official newspaper of the Mormon church (which is what Deseret News is) isn't third-party enough, just as you'd have to use something other than the Monitor for info on the Christian Science Church. But Deseret News isn't particularly germane, as the "sources" in the article are ripped from LDS-related websites. The general jist is you need something non-LDS to establish notability; sourcing of specific pieces of information is a little more lenient pbp 01:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I get upset when people make really bad arguments that fly in the face of policy, which yours and Oakshade's "Keep" arguments do. If you were to say, "this is notable because of non-LDS-related Sources X, Y, and Z", you'd have a valid argument. High schools and LDS temples are apples and oranges; there has been enough consensuses as a result of many discussions and RFCs to enshrine "all high schools are notable" into a specific notability guideline. Discussions that claim all temples or cathedrals are notable have resulted in a consensus against all of them being notable, and therefore no specific guideline exists for religious buildings. In the absence of a specific notability guideline, what you do is fall back on the general notability guideline, which states that notability is determined by having reliable, third-party sources on the topic. There are no reliable sources in the article, my BEFORE search didn't turn up any, and you two haven't found any other sources. Therefore, according to the general notability guideline, these aren't notable. In essence, you and Oakshade are ignoring the GNG, which is why your arguments are invalid pbp 23:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Even if you exclude LDS related sources, which is inappropriate in my opinion, it take only a few second to find a non-mormon source mentioning these two temples. [27] and [28], and I didn't look that hard. LDS temples are notable. As Adjwilley points out "Mormon temples generate a lot of media attention when they're announced and built, especially in the locality where they're being built." and notability is not tempoarary. --ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 21:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I find it hard to believe that you can't find any reliable sources for almost any LDS temple. Claims to the contrary are largely not looking, or in the case of the temples in Mexico claimed above are likely in Spanish and may not be necessarily on the internet. Simply saying that somebody can't find a reliable source with a Google search from English language sources is hardly a fair standard to be applied here. Mostly, I echo ARTEST4ECHO here in that even with "non-LDS sources" you can find plenty of references... certainly more than the requisite 2-3 significant 3rd party sources needed to establish notability per WP:NOTE. I'd dare say you didn't even try if you can't find them. I would even dare challenge the original nomination claim that these buildings are not architecturally significant, as many have received awards and recognition in various ways for their architecture style or in other forums where such things are recognized. Again, it is a lack of even trying to search that such a claim may even be made and sounds more WP:OR to even make such a statement. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rudi Vansnick[edit]
- Rudi Vansnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography, repost, notability not demonstrated Ymblanter (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the consensus at this AfD from four years prior, as I am not convinced that there has been sufficient change since then for there to be any newly established assertions of notability. If this is essentially a recreation of the deleted content from that time, I would actually support speedy deletion per G4. Kurtis (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Failed to find enough reliable sources. If confirmed to be a re-post, then speedy delete as G4. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in my judgement there is enough additional material compared with the version deleted in 2008 to avoid a G4 speedy deletion, and this should be considered on its merits. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 20:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rtmpdump[edit]
- Rtmpdump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not a notable program or code by any sense of the word. —Ryulong (琉竜) 09:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very, very weak keep — Tough call. The article is obviously poorly written and ought to be revamped by someone with expertise in the field of computer sciences (or who is otherwise familiar with that application), but a single Google search shows several independent sources that demonstrate the moderately widespread use of this peripheral. I'm open to reconsidering this position if someone with more knowledge relating to the subject asserts otherwise. Kurtis (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's highly prevalent in Google, but are any of those sources reliable? I am fairly certain that is a no.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found and added three sources, PCLinuxOS, with a decent tutorial and review of the software package, and two academic research paper (use case mentions), and rewrote the lead para. Domain experts can be considered reliable. Based on this, source-ability has been shown. Since WP:BEFORE suggests not AfD'ing if sources can reasonably be found, or can reasonably be expected to be findable, I feel comfortable keeping. I'm checking out some blogs and Usenet postings (Google groups) for domain expertise. If it's deleted, please userfy under my userpage. --Lexein (talk) 10:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: I suppose it squeeks by WP:NSOFT. But in truth I could just as easily live with a merge to RTMP. -- BenTels (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with RTMP. Mythpage88 (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources in the article, combined with unambiguous notability claim from Adobe and technical significance notion of WP:NSOFT. I'm not opposed to merging it to RTMP outcome, as there isn't much to discuss in the article though. I only prefer keeping it separate because building a collection of software in the article about protocol isn't particularly bright idea IMO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorporated the above ChillingEffects source. Also added German PC Magazine about the removal from Sourceforge. And added the mplayerhq.hu announcement (per WP:SELFPUB) about hosting. --Lexein (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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_All_My_Children_characters#M. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 13:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Travis Montgomery[edit]
- Travis Montgomery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seriously if his brother Jackson does not deserve a standalone article on wiki then why does travis? Furthermore the article is either unsourced or poorly sourced. Wlmg (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of All My Children characters (under section "M"), as was done with Sean Montgomery. Also, after the article has been redirected, someone will need to place a {{db-f5}} template on this image, which is licensed as fair use and only used on that article (although, I suspect there's probably a bot programmed to automatically add that tag to orphaned non-free images, but I could be mistaken).
- In any case, this article does not satisfy our threshold for inclusion. Per WP:FICT (specifically this subsection):
- ...Fictional elements are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element; when a fictional element is presumed notable, a separate article to cover that element is usually acceptable.
- In other words, it's basically an extension of our general notability guideline. I cannot find any significant coverage of this particular fictional character that would establish him as notable enough to have his own article. I actually have half a mind to redirect the article myself (and have partially merged the content of the article into the aforementioned list of characters), but I'll wait until the AfD has run its course, assuming nobody else has done anything about it by that point. Kurtis (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 19:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. 19:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge with List of All My Children characters, as per Kurtis . Cavarrone (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
French Horse Racing Hall of Fame[edit]
- French Horse Racing Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I and other members of Project:Horse Racing have been able to find no evidence for this institution's existence. The website of France Galop used to have a page called "Hall of Fame", but this was removed some time ago. All other on-line mentions appear to be WP mirrors. Tigerboy1966 09:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — By the looks of things, this article fails the general notability guideline. A Google search turns up no significant coverage from secondary sources, and even the text found on the relevant results was just copied from this article. I also note that there is a category that corresponds with this article; would anyone object to it being listed at CfD? Kurtis (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No objections from me. Well-spotted. Tigerboy1966 11:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — Associated category listed at CfD here. Kurtis (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I ran the dead link through Wayback and it goes to a 2007 France Galop page that looks like it is an informal "Hall of Fame" page with no official claims (ran it through Google Translate) [29]. When France Galop restructured the site in 2008, they neglected to re-add the info so I think this can go. The "burned down in 1914" claim looks to be a possible IP vandalism entry that was uncaught for five years [30] as the same IP user added this little interesting bit on the same day [31]. Froggerlaura ribbit 15:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. 19:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nominator withdraws with no other users advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shivanand[edit]
- Shivanand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsourced доктор прагматик 08:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i my self found and added reliable sources, hence need withdraw. thanks -- доктор прагматик 08:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G4. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rajshree Nath[edit]
- Rajshree Nath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biographical article of a non-notable person. Not even a single reliable source mentions the subject's name, substantial coverage is out of the question. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The arguments in the April 2012 nomination appear still to stand; suggest this can go as a CSD G4? AllyD (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was checking the backlog of unpatrolled pages and found this. If I had known of second nomination, then I would have tagged it for CSD G4. Well, I have done it now. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by Y (talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Roberson[edit]
- Peter Roberson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable science teacher, gets the briefest of mentions on the school's website ([32]) and nothing in secondary sources. DoctorKubla (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. 19:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 19:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established. See my comment on the talk page wrt authorship claim. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
International Wrestling Enterprise[edit]
- International Wrestling Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. No evidence of notability of this organisation at reliable, independent sources. Most of the references I can find are about Masahiko Kimura's "International Pro Westling Force", I can't find anything about this promotion at suitable sources - the provided sources do not meet the criteria for reliable sources, as they appear to be wrestling-fan-created websites. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It might help to use Google to search for info on IWE, as I did. Besides Puroresu.com, there are other articles that mention the promotion (including this article, which gives some detail on IWE events that took place), as well as YouTube videos featuring matches that took place in IWE (including some of the first Japanese matches of André the Giant between 1969 and 1971). This shows that there is some degree of notability about IWE, and future edits that expand on the article and include references from those articles would be helpful. Creativity-II (talk) 10:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If might help if you assumed good faith on the part of other editors! I did do a Google Search - and indeed I found the WrestlingData website, as well as the YouTube videos. However, YouTube videos are not generally considered reliable sources, and the WrestlingData website (along with other, similar, websites which I found) also would not meet the reliability criteria for sources. I tried finding information about the publishers/writers of the website, and couldn't find anything. They could be wrestlers, promoters, fans... or they could be professional writers with a reputation for fact-finding and verification. I don't know, because although you can contact them (as a group and individually), there are no bios, either there or on their parent site Genickbruch.com. To quote from "what counts as a reliable source": Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - none of the sources, including the one you give here, meet that standard. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 06:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duane Jackson[edit]
- Duane Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an earlier article that was deleted. This person seems to fail WP:GNG with a lack of reliable sources for anything and seems, at most, to be a case of WP:BLP1E. BenTels (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one reliable source is not enough per WP:GNG. See also WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like a COI; only one reference. HueSatLum 21:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
B.C. Kochmit[edit]
- B.C. Kochmit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Man with a job, no proof of notability. The first "source" doesn't even mention him while the two other "sources" seem te be a weblog. Article earlier deleted in 2010 ([33]) The Banner talk 17:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article now has 3 references from Blabbermouth.net (considered a reliable source by Wikipedia) that state that Kochmit has been a member of 3 notable bands (one more than is required to have his own article).--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, this looks like a desperate attempt to save the template of Switched. And can you please give a link to the mandatory three bands to be notable? The Banner talk 17:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sw1tched currently has several articles that do not link to one another without the navbox, notwithstanding the ones that I was able to create.
- Sw1tched has had 3 (if not 4) notable members IMO. Ben Schigel has produced albums for many notable artists. Chad Szeliga (Breaking Benjamin, Black Label Society) and Corey Lowery (Stereomud, Stuck Mojo) have performed in Sw1tched. Will Hunt(Static-X, Evanescence, Black Label Society) and Clint Lowery (Sevendust, Korn) were in Dark New Day. Will Hunt (BLS and Evanescence) and Corey Lowery performed in Eye Empire. Kochmit has performed in Sw1tched, Dark New Day and Eye Empire. WP:MUSIC states that "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article" and "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" is a condition for being a notable band. Blabbermouth proves that this is indeed the case. The links you requested are as follows:
- darknewday.com
- eyeempire.com
- myspace.com/switched
- LOL, this looks like a desperate attempt to save the template of Switched. And can you please give a link to the mandatory three bands to be notable? The Banner talk 17:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I mean a link to a policy. And MySpace is not a reliable source... The Banner talk 22:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per your latest comment requesting "a link to a policy", please refer to my comment above where I stated that:
- "WP:MUSIC states that "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article"
- I am completely aware that MySpace is not a reliable source. Again,
- "Kochmit has performed in Sw1tched, Dark New Day and Eye Empire" AND
- "Blabbermouth proves that this is indeed the case".
- There are four articles from Blabbermouth.net used as references in the B.C. Kochmit article. Also, you didn't answer my question.
- If we were to redirect Kochmit's article, to which band article would it be redirected? If we redirect his article to one of the bands, why should we exclude the two others?--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Per your latest comment requesting "a link to a policy", please refer to my comment above where I stated that:
- Sorry, I mean a link to a policy. And MySpace is not a reliable source... The Banner talk 22:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 06:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Kochmit has been a member of 3 notable bands when only 2 are required for WP:MUSIC.
- Blabbermouth.net supports this
- Why wouldn't Kochmit's article be redirected instead of deleted?
- If we redirect Kochmit's article, to which band article would it be redirected?
- If we redirect his article to one of the bands, why should we exclude the two others?
There are less than 12 hours remaining until one week of discussion has taken place. I would like to know what other issues (if any) need to be addressed so that I may address them forthwith and in good order.
Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is still just one sentence, telling the world he had three jobs. If this article is supposed to be a BLP, it should be a bit more then that. Useless article by now. The Banner talk 11:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply -
- Per WP:TOOSHORT, "Wikipedia has many stubs. These should not be deleted for this reason, but should be marked as stubs." WP:SOFIXIT instead of bringing it to AfD.
- Why wouldn't Kochmit's article be redirected instead of deleted?
- If we redirect Kochmit's article, to which band article would it be redirected?
- If we redirect his article to one of the bands, why should we exclude the two others?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not cleaning up your mess. I have enough work on your shaky templates. The Banner talk 14:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The article now talks about when Kochmit joined EE and DND. The purpose of this page is to discuss Kochmit, not to insult other people's templates, and this is now the third time that my questions have been blatantly ignored.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From one sentence to two sentences. Great! And it is clear that this earlier removed article is just an attempt to save your Template:Switched because your created the article only after my nomination of the template. Creation: 9/8/2012 3:23. Nomination: 9/8/2012 1:53. Nice try. The Banner talk 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply
- If one or two sentences is insufficient for an article on English Wikipedia, why does WP:TOOSHORT say otherwise? WP:STUB states "While very short articles are likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written". Billy Graziadei and Danny Lamagna started off as one sentence articles, but expanded shortly thereafter.
- If there is a rule against creating a legitimate page about a musician who is a member of at least two notable bands, please show me where. I think that the date when I created B.C. Kochmit is irrelevant. Also, can you prove that this is the reason that I created B.C. Kochmit? If you can not, you are in violation of WP:AGF. Also, the template for Sw1tched now has 7 articles, and the article for Kochmit has 7 sentences. I will now turn to questions 3-5, which have now been blatantly ignored FOR THE FOURTH TIME.
- Why wouldn't Kochmit's article be redirected instead of deleted?
- If we redirect Kochmit's article, to which band article would it be redirected?
- If we redirect his article to one of the bands, why should we exclude the two others?
- If Dark New Day, Eye Empire and Sw1tched are notable, then so is Kochmit. If two of them are not notable, then AfDs should be filed against those two articles. If two of those articles are deleted, then Kochmit should be redirected to the third article. If all of the articles for which Kochmit is a member are deleted, then Kochmit should be deleted.
- I have done my very best to respond to all concerns here completely, forthwith, and in good order. If my questions are legitimate, then blatantly ignoring them is obstructing WP:CONSENSUS. If my questions are not legitimate at all, or are invasive, I have not been told why.
- I apologize for needing to repeat myself, but concerns that I believe are legitimate have not been answered. Any other points of debate requiring discussion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply
- From one sentence to two sentences. Great! And it is clear that this earlier removed article is just an attempt to save your Template:Switched because your created the article only after my nomination of the template. Creation: 9/8/2012 3:23. Nomination: 9/8/2012 1:53. Nice try. The Banner talk 20:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The article now talks about when Kochmit joined EE and DND. The purpose of this page is to discuss Kochmit, not to insult other people's templates, and this is now the third time that my questions have been blatantly ignored.--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply -
- Keep - Meets WP:BAND point 6. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed - Any other points of debate requiring discussion?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing that misses in this article is to tell who he is. It still is just a man with a job, nothing more. You can jump high and low about that, but there is nothing in the article about the man (assuming he is a man, the article fails to clarify even that), only about his jobs... The Banner talk 19:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for proof of policy requirement -
- If infomation about one's personal life is mandatory in a biography of a living person, please let me know which Wikipedia policy states this explicitly. I will now move to questions 2-8, some of which have now been ignored for the FIFTH TIME:
- If one or two sentences is insufficient for an article on English Wikipedia, why does WP:TOOSHORT say otherwise? WP:STUB states "While very short articles are likely to be stubs, there are some subjects about which very little can be written". Billy Graziadei and Danny Lamagna started off as one sentence articles without details of their personal lives, but expanded shortly thereafter.
- If there is a rule against creating a legitimate page about a musician who is a member of at least two notable bands, please show me where. I think that the date when I created B.C. Kochmit is irrelevant. Also, can you prove that this is the reason that I created B.C. Kochmit? If you can not, you are in violation of WP:AGF. Also, the template for Sw1tched now has 7 articles, and the article for Kochmit has 7 sentences. I will now turn to questions 3-5, which have now been blatantly ignored FOR THE FIFTH TIME.
- Why wouldn't Kochmit's article be redirected instead of deleted?
- If we redirect Kochmit's article, to which band article would it be redirected?
- If we redirect his article to one of the bands, why should we exclude the two others?
- If Dark New Day, Eye Empire and Sw1tched are notable, then so is Kochmit. If two of them are not notable, then AfDs should be filed against those two articles. If two of those articles are deleted, then Kochmit should be redirected to the third article. If all of the articles for which Kochmit is a member are deleted, then Kochmit should be deleted.
- I have done my very best to respond to all concerns here completely, forthwith, and in good order. If my questions are legitimate, then blatantly ignoring them is obstructing WP:CONSENSUS. If my questions are not legitimate at all, or are invasive, I have not been told why.
- This is now the fifth time that my questions have been ignored without either being answered, or being told why they will not be answered. If my questions are not either answered, nor is a satisfactory reason given for not answering them, then these open action items should likely lead to a "Keep" or "Keep No Consensus" closure.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wojciech Rodek[edit]
- Wojciech Rodek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doubtful notability. An AfD analysis is needed. Anbu121 (talk me) 18:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Rodek is one of two or three most talented conductors of the younger generation" said John Sek, chief executive of the PhilharmonicTetsuo (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC) On a more general note, I think it is a bad policy to routinely mark new articles for deletion on the basis of Doubtful notability or importance. This has discouraged me from bothering to start new articles and I'm sure it discourages other potential editors. I think the better policy would be to withhold judgement and wait to see whether others add to the article. I would cite as an example an article I started, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_Lens which was immediately marked for deletion as unimportant. The article has since been expanded by various editors and has flowered into a much more detailed article. I imagine it receives a significant number of visits from users. With respect to notability of people for biographical pages, there seems to be a bias at en.wikipedia.org in favor of pages pertaining to American or UK individuals. I feel it is important that we strive to broaden the coverage of persons from other parts of the world. Wojciech Rodek is a noteworthy conductor in Poland. If he were a conductor of similar stature in the UK or USA, there would already be a wikipedia page about him.Tetsuo (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can't easily see if the sources assert notability, not being Polish, but I agree that sending an article to AfD less than 15 minutes after it's been created, and is not an obvious speedy delete candidate or totally unreferenced is an excellent way to bite the newbies and should be avoided if possible. Another solution is to use Articles for Creation instead. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Bio in Polish. He seems to have directed music that got published as CDs; I don't pay that much attention to muscians notability, but having published CDs (albums) satisfied notability, I think. Being a director of a philharmonic may make one notable, too, it is a large and notable institution (pl:Filharmonia im. H. Wieniawskiego w Lublinie). That said, he is not the chief director, but the artistic director. He is also an academic, although not a professor, probably not enough to satisfy WP:PROF, but worth noting. He got a second place at some music tournament, but I have no clue how to judge the notability of such events and awards. As far as I can tell, notability is borderline; would like to hear from others. Oh, and there is no article on pl wiki on him yet. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've expanded the article with Discography and Cinema sections. (I found two professional recordings and two film credits (as conductor.) Both films have famous stars and are rated around 80% positive by professional film critics on rottentomatoes.com)Tetsuo (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 06:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment On a few args for notability:
- CDs. Anyone can self-publish a CD. Almost anyone who's any good can get someone else to publish their CD. That does not in any way satisfy notability.
- Is he the director of a philharmonic, or his he the artistic director? Is that the same thing?
- If he has great notability, why isn't there a Polish wikipedia article for him?
- None of these is likely to end the debate in and of itself, but they're definitely things to think over. In my mind, is he basically the director of the Polish Philadelphia Philharmonic? But even if that were so, is every director of the Philly Philharmonic automatically notable? Or is the article on the orchestra enough? I say weak delete. Jsharpminor (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply (to Jsharpminor)1. A person in music may be notable if he "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels..." WP:MUSBIO The first CD is certainly a mainstream commercial CD. Sinfonia Varsovia is a real symphony orchestra that I hear played on classical radio in North America from time to time. The cello soloist, Gavriel Lipkind, is certainly famous. The second CD features a new composer and may not receive much airplay or attention outside Spain. The movie credits are both for movies with Wikipedia articles and featuring very famous actors. Both movies were well-reviewed by professional critics. Every rock/pop/alternative artist/band on earth gets a Wikipedia article. Why do we shun classical artists? 2. I think the reason that there is no article on Polish Wikipedia is that Wikipedia is not yet all that popular in Poland. 3. He is the artistic director. Presumably someone else oversees the financial/executive responsibilities for the Philharmonic. Tetsuo (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge to Command & Conquer (2013 video game). Since is a merge discussion in progress, I will simply close this as merge. Since there was strong consensus for preserving a redirect after merging, normal editors tools are all that is needed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Command & Conquer: Generals 2[edit]
- Command & Conquer: Generals 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Game is no longer known as Generals 2; It has been completely redone and converted to a new title known as Command & Conquer to be released in 2013 as a free to play game. Bilbo571 (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the newest title. I think it somewhat reasonable that somebody would look for an article at the old title.--Rockfang (talk) 09:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Command & Conquer (2013 video game), as there's a decent amount of good content from the G2 page, and I'm sure Generals 2 will be a search term. —Torchiest talkedits 14:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. G2 ≠ C&C2013. They are not the same game with different names. C&C2013's content is more than G2. --Edo-biscuit (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect It would have been a lot simpler to just move Generals 2 to the new title rather than create a new article and take the old one to AfD. But it's too late now. --Mika1h (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect, to preserve the existing content in the Command & Conquer: Generals 2 article and integrate it under the heading 'Development' in Command & Conquer (2013 video game); a simple move would've been easier. Mephistophelian (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge and redirect per Mephistophelian's suggestions and rationale. Kuralyov (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. I'm not sure why discussions over deletion or merging have even been started. It should have been done automatically when they removed the "Generals 2" subtitle. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect It should have been moved, but it's too late about that now. Too much history in the G2 article for deletion since that info should be appearing in the 2013 vg article, but a history merge doesn't make a lot of sense here. And G2 is still a likely search term. --MASEM (t) 01:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 06:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PAAFTJ Television Awards[edit]
- PAAFTJ Television Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, only source is a single blog page and a couple of press releases. Possibly a hoax. Barsoomian (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Their home page is a Wordpress blog.
There are plenty of references in the news, all seem to source from two press releases sent out in June and July 2012 for the "1st PAAFTJ Television Awards" that was uncritically reprinted by some websites (though no "mainstream media" I can find). None of the supposed members seem to be notable, if they exist at all. Despite the winners being announced on July 8 2012, there is nothing about an award ceremony, or of anyone claiming or even acknowledging their awards. Even if it is a real organisation, its awards aren't notable, and should be removed from the dozens of articles that now list them. Barsoomian (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 19:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No indication that these awards are notable. There is no coverage about the awards in reliable sources. Even unreliable sources are rather sparse. I'll also note that I checked into coverage about the PAAFTJ itself and cannot establish that there is any notability for them either. -- Whpq (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, most of the article is a list of awards. HueSatLum 21:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Vox Media. (non-admin closure) Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Polygon (website)[edit]
- Polygon (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing but sourcing from the company owner (The Verge (website)) and a staff directory here: no proof of notability provided. Sources found through Gnews have something in common: The Verge. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Verge (website), and possibly add a subsection regarding Polygon once it is an established subsidiary of its parent site. From the lead section of the article (emphasis added to words denoting future tense):
- "Polygon is an upcoming American video game news and media network operated by Vox Media. The network will be managed by its editor in chief Christopher Grant and Vox Media's chief content officer Marty Moe. The publication will compete with similar video game news websites such as Joystiq, Kotaku, Destructoid, 1UP.com, and IGN."
- In other words, it has not yet launched. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. Kurtis (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to WP:CRYSTALBALL, an expected future event "should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Obviously, the launch of this website is almost certain to take place according to its creators. The real debate here, then, is one of notability. Is the website in its current iteration notable? That is debatable. Polygon has become a significant part of the video games journalism space--even though it has not yet launched--through the content it has published in partnership with The Verge. (In this respect, I believe Kurtis misunderstands Polygon′s intended future. It is not a subsidiary of The Verge; it is a subsidiary of Vox Media, which makes it a sibling of The Verge. It--if its creators' future plans come to fruition--will be its own, separate website at www.polygon.com.) When Polygon launches, will it be notable in its own regard? I, of course, cannot know that; however, since it will be a sibling of The Verge, I can guess that its notability will be comparable to that of The Verge, whose article (The Verge (website)) is detailed and extensive. Therefore, the real question becomes "Should we tear down this article now only to rebuild it sometime in the next four months (as the website is intended to launch in "2012")?" My answer would be "No." It is difficult for me to find any merit in destroying an article such as this--which, admittedly, could use a considerable deal of work--only to resurrect it later. DillonLarson (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After giving myself a moment to think this through more thoroughly, I believe my argument--while not incorrect or misled--was fueled by my passion for the subject, not my desire (which is very great) to maintain Wikipedia's standards of notability. I recognize that the integrity of the encyclopedia is more important than whatever goals I may personally have for its contents. Therefore, I believe the best road forward would be to redirect Polygon (website) to Vox Media. (I still disagree with Kurtis; information about Polygon should probably go on Vox Media, not The Verge (website).) DillonLarson (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Sweeney[edit]
- Daniel Sweeney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a minor Canadian political figure (directors of individual riding associations in individual electoral districts don't normally clear the bar), but who happened to score a single burst of WP:BLP1E coverage in 2010. Except for cursory mentions in two news articles from May of that year, every single reference cited here was published between September 25 and September 29, 2010 — and the majority of those, further, are the same article as published by several different Postmedia newspapers on the same day. Even if this were somehow to be kept, it's extremely poorly written and would require a major cleanup job — but more realistically, I just don't see a particularly compelling case for actual notability here. Google doesn't offer any viable new sources about him anywhere outside of that same four-day window in September 2010, and as far as I can tell this article is mostly just asserting that he's notable as a marginal player who happened to get mentioned in a news story that wasn't actually about him in any genuinely meaningful way. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BLP1E. Location (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As dreadful as saying "per nom" is, I can't add anything to teh reasoning outlined in the nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Reed (fighter)[edit]
- Paul Reed (fighter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier promotion. He fails WP:MMANOT and the article's sources are WP:ROUTINE. Papaursa (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 02:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He doesn't meet any notability criteria--either WP:MMANOT or WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- deleteWP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Later improvements to the article swayed the discussion towards keep (non-admin closure) —JmaJeremy✆✎ 05:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adolph Behrman[edit]
- Adolph Behrman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on an artist. Notability is not asserted in the article, and the only secondary source is a book from which it is difficult to determine whether Mr. Behrman received any notable coverage. Google search turns up some art sales records but that's it. Google Books turns up a few mentions, one in English and most in German, which appear to mention him only briefly. I don't feel he meets notability guidelines per WP:ARTIST. PROD was twice declined. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subjects obscurity in the record and in his works is explained by the fact that he was murdered in the holocaust.
An entire generation (or two) of European Jewish artists were swept away, much of their work, related records etc, destroyed; if they had not already recieved world -wide recognition by September 1939. This is no excuse for deleting the article. Indeed such a record needs to be started to be kept. Wiki is the ideal place. How well is pre-war European Jewish art represented on Wiki? The subject sounds like a notable example of a naturalistic modernistic Jewish artist who had notablity in the pre-war Jewish artistic community. The article should be allowed to live and grow. Irondome (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Irondome (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. GBooks has more sources under the spelling Adolf Behrman[34]. Here is a brief entry in a French-language encyclopedia.[35] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, it's still kind of slim. Note that not all of the hits are about this Adolph Behrman; a few are about a German printer who went by that name. And while I don't read Polish, it doesn't look like Behrman was the subject of secondary coverage; he's listed as a Jewish artist who was another victim of the Holocaust. I honestly wouldn't mind if he was listed in this fashion - an article on pre-WW2 Polish Jew artists could be very interesting. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though it can be appreciated that the notoriety of authors who create during a period of oppression do suffer, there is no reason to apply an exception to a lengthy human history of that very repeated pattern, and that just because one author loses notoriety while another does not falls distinctly under the "X vs Y" ideology of WP:WAX. As such, there are insuffient reasons to retain, and WP:BIG, WP:PLEASEDONT, and WP:IKNOWIT appear to be motivators. Without a greater cataloging and accounting of known and recognized works this author is WP:NN. Ren99 (talk) 06:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the above seem to really apply here. I cant think of another example of such a mass murder of artistic talent in modern European or indeed World history. By the above logic, all Jewish artistic or intellectual pre war work which attracted notoriety by an audience which itself was murdered should be excluded, because the record of that notability has been largely destroyed. Seems like a circular and slightly distasteful argument, in the context of this category of artist. I know its unintentional.
- I propose the following.There is a current list of Jewish artists. There is also a list of Polish artists. This short article could be added, to whatever list is more appropriate. It can then be worked on by those readers who have an expertise or interest. We should guard against any over-zealous deletion here.Irondome (talk) 23:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some potential sources use the name Abraham Behrman, which should be taken into account in any search, though I'm not not finding anything standing as a strong WP:RS yet. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I oppose the deletion on the grounds that as was eloquently stated above, this artist did exist, he used one N in his last name and was Polish by geography. Like over 100 other Jewish artists cut down in their prime during the Holocaust he is known as an Inter War artist. His work has been exhibited recently in the museum located in Kazimierz Dolny and here is a citation from an encyclopedia (online/and published) titled, Around Jewish Art: http://www.artcult.com/_Around+Jewish+Art/Catalogue/art-40-1305681.htm?Group=2&lang=EN&Artist=B%25
Please review and admit this article. My specialty is the Interwar period in the arts of Poland. As such I am preparing an article about this period and the artists who played a role in it and are remembered. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardFoster1 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That page on ArtCult is a one-line mention for a different Latvian artist, and mentions how he is sometimes confused with the artist the article is on. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The credibility of over 40 years of subject mater knowledge should amount to something. The Bherman listed in ArtCult is the same, but an error on Darmon's part. I have personal knowledge of this artist as does Dr. Waldemar Odorowski, the former director of the Nadwishlanskie Museum in Kazimierz Dolny.
- This article should stay. * http://jewishpaintings.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/abraham-adolf-behrman-1876-1943/ signed: Richard Foster1
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RichardFoster1 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RichardFoster, please understand that the suggestion to delete the article is not based on the suspicion that Adolph Behrman did not exist or was not an artist, but on the suspicion that he has not been the subject of multiple, reliable, independent sources. These might be non-vanity press books, magazines, notable art critics, newspapers, etc. Wordpress pages are effectively self-published and aren't generally considered reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Participants please respect all the format guidelines for deletion discussions at WP:AFDFORMAT. L2 headers are also not required, and comments should be signed. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails to meet WP:ARTIST. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Correct name is Adolf Behrman, and I am seeing a number of sources on GBooks as well as on the web. The article may be a bit of a mess, but the subject seems notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you cite some sources that are more than just a passion mention of his name, e.g. that meet the guidelines in WP:SOURCES? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Article bulking up nicely. More cites needed but a respectable stub and growing. I think the notabilty test is nearly passed, as subject was notable in the Polish-Jewish artistic community. If this doesnt pass then by the same logic any other minority artist etc on Wiki should be deleted, using the samr "notabilty" criteria. If they are notable in their ethnic context, that should suffice. Irondome (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2012 (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 04:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found several sources, including under the spelling Behrmann (it's him; same birth and death dates, plus the same titles of artwork), plus a memoir about the Jews who perished in a Polish ghetto by a man who knew Behrman. One of Behrman's paintings was used as the cover of the memoir, which is now cited in the article. The article has been improved. AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Close as keep. Proper sourcing in an ongoing problem with articles about foreign artists (especially from the non-English speaking countries) whose names have been anglicized in good faith (they scream and shout, this in an "English" Wikipedia) thus making them almost untracable at their places of origin. User:Piotrus was the first who noticed the problem with his given name, and than of course, there was a multitude of different spellings of his last name. In the end, without the knowledge of Polish, articles like this will always be difficult to defend. Sorry about that. Poeticbent talk 18:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The arguments for retaining this article are compelling. Behrman was a victim of the Holocaust but what he has left behind, produced in difficult circumstances, is a reminder of his notability which was not allowed to grow. The article should be allowed to grow here.--Zananiri (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally Random[edit]
- Totally Random (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a TV/online show that does not seem to meet WP:GNG at this time. Also, the article reads a bit like an advertisement for the show. BenTels (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 04:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 04:24, 5 August 2012 (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 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article just needs some improvement or clean-up. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the guideline: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable." Keφr (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on sources available to me now, weak delete. But I acknowledge I am not really an expert.Keφr (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2012 (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 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, there are actually several links already present in the external links section, including Mediacaster magazine and a segment on CTV Morning Live, which are valid reliable sources, and which would cumulatively demonstrate sufficient notability if they were actually being used as real content sources and not just piled up in an external linkfarm. Article definitely needs cleanup, but sufficient sources are already present to support a keep iffen someone actually fixes it so that they're actually being used as sources. Bearcat (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards speedy renomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maggie Mason[edit]
- Maggie Mason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable blogger. No coverage in independent sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I forgot to add that it's a contested prod.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 04:20, 5 August 2012 (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 02:08, 11 August 2012 (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 04:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A published author who easily meets WP:GNG. See, for example, cio.com.au, palestineherald.com, bonappetit.com, npr.org, nytimes.com (2004), and nytimes.com (2010). And that's what I found with just a couple of quick Google searches. Sure, the article could use some work, but that's not the point of AFD. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 05:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did see those sources but they didn't convince me that she meets either the GNG or WP:AUTHOR. cio.com.au quotes her and doesn't discuss her. The palestine herald source has a little more, but it's essentially reporting her views and not discussing her as a person. The bon appetit article is an interview by another blogger; it's not from the magazine. The NPR thing is also essentially a quote, not about her. The 2004 NYT article quotes her in passing. The 2010 NYT thing duplicates the NPR thing. These are not reviews of her work, they're not discussions of her blog, they're routine mentions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those were just a half-dozen easily-found examples. Here's some more: How about a book review in the Seattle PI? A mention on webpronews.com? Got Highbeam? There, I found a 2006 interview on NPR (not the same one as before), and mentions in the Boston Globe, the San José Mercury News, and the Washington Post. This Intel press release referred to her as an Intel advisor and industry influencer. Add that all up, and I think we've established notability. And btw, when a reliable source has a blog, that blog tends to be considered a reliable source as well—so I think that the interview with Bon Appetit is absolutely useful. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 21:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did see those sources but they didn't convince me that she meets either the GNG or WP:AUTHOR. cio.com.au quotes her and doesn't discuss her. The palestine herald source has a little more, but it's essentially reporting her views and not discussing her as a person. The bon appetit article is an interview by another blogger; it's not from the magazine. The NPR thing is also essentially a quote, not about her. The 2004 NYT article quotes her in passing. The 2010 NYT thing duplicates the NPR thing. These are not reviews of her work, they're not discussions of her blog, they're routine mentions.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Niko Puhakka[edit]
- Niko Puhakka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
MMA fighter who does not meet WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. Much of the coverage is from Youtube and other social media. There seems to be a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters and the only other coverage I found was a passing mention of him being a white supremecist who's sponsored by a clothing company with questionable viewpoints (my words). Astudent0 (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dawid Baziak[edit]
- Dawid Baziak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization, so he fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. Every reference is from sherdog, except for an outdated link to a German MMA website ranking. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 02:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He has not fought for a top level promotion, has no significant coverage, and currently seems to fight just once a year. Astudent0 (talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bellstar[edit]
- Bellstar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company and the article is obviously being heavily edited by users affiliated with the company. I can't find any reliable third-party sources to establish notability. The "references" cited at this article simply contain company links, one of them being a Bellstar property. Additionally, I found zero reliable sources with Google News. SwisterTwister talk 03:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Plenty about the properties, some of it reliable, but nearly nothing about the holding company that is the subject of this AfD. I can find no suggestion that it meets WP:CORP. Ubelowme U Me 04:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was entirely rewritten to describe an apparently different topic beginning on August 18. The earlier comments are therefore inapplicable, and the (few) subsequent comments advocate keeping. That's without prejudice to a full AfD about the new topic. Sandstein 06:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Multiplicity (psychology)[edit]
- Multiplicity (psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a recognized psychiatric condition. This, like otherkin, is a fictional online trend popularized at sites like Tumblr. It literally did not exist a few years ago. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or fix, I read the page, the authors are still operating in a fringe area. As the page is, this is not a recognized psychiatric condition. All people have multiple states to their one personality, thus the term multiples. It's not unique. Anyone not understanding this needs to brush up on your psychology. Tanya~talk page 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google hits are not usually enough, but google scholar hits might be; there are scholarly discussions of healthy multiplicity, [36], as well as straight-up multiplicity [37], within the context of dissociative identity disorder. Truddi Chase has written a book (When Rabbit Howls) about her perceived experience with healthy multiplicity, and there are popular/personal pages as well [38]. A germ of a redirect page may exist if someone wants to write it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those Google Scholar hits have nothing to do with the subject of this article, or are talking about it in the context of dissociative identity disorder. Therefore, this is article is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 04:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google hits are not usually enough, but google scholar hits might be; there are scholarly discussions of healthy multiplicity, [36], as well as straight-up multiplicity [37], within the context of dissociative identity disorder. Truddi Chase has written a book (When Rabbit Howls) about her perceived experience with healthy multiplicity, and there are popular/personal pages as well [38]. A germ of a redirect page may exist if someone wants to write it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 04:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The idea that having multiple personalities may be healthy rather than pathological is notable, being documented in detail in works such as The Cambridge Companion to Jung; Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self; and The Plural Self: Multiplicity in Everyday Life. Wikipedia is not the DSMMD. Warden (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to remember that ALL people have multiple parts to the personality, not just those with dissociative disorders. If I were looking for a page titled multiples or multiplicity, I would expect to find a page on aspects of the normal and multiple parts of the personality. Perhaps a better title will serve this cause. Tanya~talk page 21:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that is the case, I see no reason to include this topic in Wikipedia. The existence of a few fringe sources is insufficient due to the fact that the mainstream psychiatric profession has yet to recognize this as a legitimate condition (apart from, say, Munchausen by Internet). That would make this original research. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me get this straight, so I don't misunderstand. Are you saying that DID is fringe or that the term multiplicity is fringe? DID is in the DSM IV and soon to be released DSM 5. As for fringe topics, I hate that they make their way to WP! Tanya~talk page 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My answer is this: DID ≠ Multiplicity. At least not in the way I have seen the terms used (again, on shitty LOOK AT ME blogging sites such as Tumblr). Redirect this page to Dissociative Identity Disorder if you must, but keep this sort of crap out of Wikipedia. What's next, are we going to have entries on "trans-ethnic" people, which is the newest made-up-but-oppressed identity making its rounds on the internet? --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me get this straight, so I don't misunderstand. Are you saying that DID is fringe or that the term multiplicity is fringe? DID is in the DSM IV and soon to be released DSM 5. As for fringe topics, I hate that they make their way to WP! Tanya~talk page 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if that is the case, I see no reason to include this topic in Wikipedia. The existence of a few fringe sources is insufficient due to the fact that the mainstream psychiatric profession has yet to recognize this as a legitimate condition (apart from, say, Munchausen by Internet). That would make this original research. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a recognized term in psychology. Needs reliable sources which doesn't have. Because some autobiographical writers or laymen have used the word doesn't make it a legitimate psychological term. Agree with nominator. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. Note that the first edit summary from the creation of the article was "the information is suppressed by the psychiatric community" — basically someone is trying to push their fringe views here. Like editor Eastlaw, I'm familiar with the online communities that are trying to make "multiplicity" a thing, but fact is that it's not a thing, not yet. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why is the mainstream psychiatric community and the DSM even relevant? This isn't a psychological issue so much as a cultural/spiritual one. How about we just change the title of this article to Multiplicity(cultural) or something similar? The fact that the psychiatric community does not acknowledge the claims of a community does not alter the fact that the community exists. I happen to know a dozen or so multiples. All the arguments I'm seeing could be applied to the articles on Wicca, Witchcraft, Otherkin, and a broad range of other subjects. Just because you don't believe it doesn't change the fact that it's out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wrong Alice (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says that the community exists? You know it does and I know it does, but writing from what we know constitutes original research which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Reliable sources are needed, sources that actually describe "multiplicity" as you know it (people having "headmates" that are actually "individual persons"), not just some vague mentions about people using different personalities in their daily lives. If no such sources exist then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the topic, simple as that. You can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your cause, I'm sorry. (If you go and have a look at the Otherkin article, you'll see that it is well-sourced, so no, the same arguments couldn't be used against that.) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Multiplicity (human persona) or similar. The delete votes are solidly based on policy with respect to the orginal creation, but the good Colonel has transformed the article so its now about multiple persona as they are used by regular people. The article now boasts sources from Kent State UP and Cambridge University Press. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A far more common name in psychology would be Multiple Personality Disorder, but if you click on that, you get redirected to dissociative identity disorder. Wouldn't it be better to merge the content of this article to the other one, and to rename it as "Multiple Personality Disorder"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Because Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is the diagnosis per the DSM which defines the criteria for diagnosing mental disorders, like Major depressive disorder for example. DSM no long uses the diagnosis Multiple personality disorder (which is why that link is a redirect to DID). For material to be added to the DID article it must follow the guidelines in reliable sources for medical articles. So unless you can provide sources that follow this guideline, the material in Multiplicity (psychology) cannot be added to the DID article. Jung, for example, is not considered a reliable source for the current status of DID diagnosis. Nor are books that haven't been peer reviewed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or at least for the time being until reviewed by professionals in Project Psychology. It is not disruptive and it's not a disorder thus may not have notability as other well documented disorders. It is a stub as an alternative for the word Multiplicity. Wikipedia tries to retain as much knowledge as possible so review it before deletion. Let me ask the science reference desk and see if anyone works in the field has more to offer. I shall post this link in project psychology too. Please wait.
Watch responses from these two places:
Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Reference_Needed_for_Multiplicity_.28psychology.29
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Mutiplicity
-- RexRowan Talk 10:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood's double standard[edit]
- Hollywood's double standard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be pure original research and written without a neutral point of view. Article would have to be completely rewritten to cover this subject neutrally. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I used Twinkle to tag the article and it didn't notify me that a WP:PROD tag had been placed in the interim. Sorry about that. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete,Delete clearly original research, someone using wikipedia to blog their opinions. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy delete, I was the one who placed the original PROD tag. I think WP:SOAPBOX applies here. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The prod would have worked just fine but since the AfD is open: this is an essay (and not a particularly brilliant one) rather than an article. Detailing criticism of Hollywood is obviously not forbidden but articles have to stick to the NPOV policy and under the title "Hollywood's double standard", it's clearly impossible to ever write something that conforms to it. (extra note: I don't think this can be speedy deleted though) Pichpich (talk) 03:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Clearly an WP:OR and Wikipedia is not an essay. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is a personal essay, not an article. JIP | Talk 05:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SNOWBALL Delete for all the reasons listed above (though technically it does not satisfy speedy deletion criteria) Ipsign (talk) 09:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as the specific topic of "double standards" in Hollywood actually appears to meet WP:GNG,[39][40] and it should be possible to correct format and tone and source this article. If deleted (as seems likely), I would urge it be redirected toward double standard without prejudice toward a recreation of a properly sourced encyclopdic article on this topic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an original research essay. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In reviewing the available and unfortunately unused sources, it would appear that statements and conclusions offered in the article are sourcable. What if the article was fixed? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hirobo XRB Sky Robo[edit]
- Hirobo XRB Sky Robo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously nominated for deletion in February; was closed as no-consensus, but without any keep !votes - indeed the only non-delete !vote was a merge that stated there was "not enough information...to retain this product as an encyclopedia page", which remains the case. This is a non-notable model aircraft. As a toy, this does not fall under the 'presumed notability' that types of full-sized aircraft are usually considered to have, and it fails WP:GNG clearly. Only one gNews hit (from when it was released), only gBooks hits are Wikimirrors, further searching turns up no indications of notability at all. The Bushranger One ping only 01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 01:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:N. Ipsign (talk) 09:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable toy no different than many others of its type. MilborneOne (talk) 11:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn Go Phightins! (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Victor Poor[edit]
- Victor Poor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
seems to be written about oneself or close friend, doesn't establish notability or subject importance... Go Phightins! (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While this article is brief, as the reporter who wrote the article cited from Florida Today, a reputable Gannett daily newspaper, I can vouch for its accuracy. Victor Poor is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, as justified by his place in our newspaper, the oral history produced by the Computer History Museum, and an obituary planned by The New York Times. While the article should be edited and lengthened, deleting it would be a disservice to a man who made significant contributions to technology that made Wikipedia itself possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.109.4 (talk) 02:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably keep - seems to be able to verify this person's notability, although the actual article needs straightening out. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - re-written (one saved by HighBeam). I wonder if the nominator actually read the included references fully, or even did a quick check of the search engines before nominating? Fascinating and pioneering gentleman (in the full nature of the word), who easily passes WP:NOTABILITY. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 08:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - article now has references to show notability.--Racklever (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time when I nominated it, it was very mundane and it definitely has improved...it was nearly impossible to garner almost anything other than that, as was said, the nominator knew the person. I did, by the way google him, and there was the Florida Today article, which has been cited...apparently the author of that article also wrote this one according to his talk page, and there were a few more scattered articles from what I'm not sure I would consider reputable sites (e.g., www.winlink.org/node/1). Now that there is somewhat of a basis for keeping the article, I would withdraw my nomination, thanks to the work of Trident13. Go Phightins! (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep This is an unimpressive article. Creation immediately after his death feels too much like trying to do an end-run around BLP. Its accuracy is also questionable: his claimed involvement with the crucially important Intel 4004 matches no history of the 4004 that I've ever read. His involvement with Datapoint is though, and also at least some influence (if not involvement) on the equally important 8008 (that alone reaches WP:N).
- However this article has problems with some fairly big claims that it makes: If the 2200 depended on Poor's development of an 8008-based instruction set, then how did the first generation 2200s manage to use a TTL-based architecture instead, without the 8008 yet being available? The claim "Datapoint remained one generation ahead of Intel until the 80286." is just nonsense - Datapoint built terminals, Intel built chips, so they were never even in competition. Besides which, Datapoint were always (AFAIK) loyal to Intel as a CPU source. Nor did Intel gain any major advantage over any other architecture with their 80286 (as they could be said to with the 8086 or 80386). Likewise " after they had lost their technical microchip lead to IBM " Datapoint weren't chip designers and nor were IBM (in this field at least), both were riding upon the Intel architecture. Now IBM did manage to beat everyonewith the PC in the early '80s, but this was never because of the Intel 8088 chip chosen, which wasn't even seen as the best chip available at the time. This article also both describes Poor as working with an "amateur radio colleague" in the early days and also claims that he only took up amateur radio after semi-retirement to his boat. So which is it? This whole article feels as if it was written by someone not entirely familiar with either Poor, nor the technologies he worked upon.
- Work is seriously needed here, although I'm sure that newspaper and IEEE Spectrum obits will be forthcoming as useful sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - does this article now pass WP:NOTAB? Yes. But does it suffer from a series of conflicts associated with the current timeline of the development of microprocessor? Yes. In part that's because the associated articles and external references that we have access to claim that a series of people invented it: Ted Hoff and Stanley Mazor in 1969, to the major physical/chemical breakthrough of Federico Faggin in 1971. The only thing I can make out so far, is that in 1969 the Datapoint 3300 RTTY was blowing up TI chips every 30mins, to that in 1973+ the microprocessor was invented by a team mainly in Intel and the 2200 was reliable and selling like hot cakes. Should we be surprised by this confusion? No, like any invention if you tell the story from one person's perspective, then you'll get a different answer. When the underlying ref's disagree, I am not surprised by our current article confusion. But Poor does have a significant contribution in there, and as that's referenceable he passes WP:NOTAB and deserves an article. I'd suggest that a work group within a Project takes this problem away, and as their first task creates a consistent timeline. Until you have, you have conflict and confusion and nothing encyclopedic. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The man designed the instruction set that still lives on in most computers people use. He is the father of an HF-radio email system which is in current use by amateur radio operators and the military - for which he has won awards. There is no doubt that he has made significant and lasting contributions. Cmcguinness (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dipti[edit]
- Dipti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article reads like an advertisement rather than a Wikipedia article. I received nothing with search engine results and Google News. I should also mention that the author has started another advert-like article, Sabur Khan. Additionally, this article (Dipti) has been deleted as G11 as shown at the deletion log. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 12 August 2012 (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 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Both inline citations seem to be more about promotion than about the significance (notability) of the organisation. Given that the page creator (User:Alam5131) has put in a lot of effort, I would ask the closing admin (if the result is delete) to offer userfycation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Golden Eagle, Lincoln[edit]
- Golden Eagle, Lincoln (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An average public house. No indication of notability. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the non primary sources, the Lincoln CC link returns 404 and the Good Pub Guide link doesn't seem to return any information. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The city council has a page about Recent archaeological discoveries and activities which can replace the dead link, and the pub is also mentioned on the council's locally listed buildings page, but there appears to be no more information about it there. The Good Pub Guide page only has the address; old versions (2001 and 2007) have descriptions but the 2007 version is "not an inspected main entry" so probably not a reliable source. If significant coverage exists anywhere, it will probably be in local books and newspapers, although no evidence of this is provided in the article, and I looked on the Google Books site but didn't find anything useful. Peter James (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An article about a pub of this vintage in the U.S. would have a pretty fair chance of being kept. I recognize that it's different in England, and that despite its age, this pub may be just run-of-the-mill in Wikipedian terms. My searching turned up a few mentions here and there to suggest that this is a well-liked Lincolnshire local, but perhaps not well-covered enough to deserve an article per WP:LOCAL. I've left a notice with the IP proponent of this article and encouraged xim to identify reliable sources covering the pub; in the absence of same, I'm afraid notability will be difficult to establish.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the way you re talking it seems you have never been to the pub, how can you therefore understand its notability or importance, are you even based in England? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.222.91 (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not determined by visiting the site in question. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "An article about a pub of this vintage in the U.S. would have a pretty fair chance of being kept." On that basis, are we going to have an article on my house too? This is Lincoln - everything underfoot is either medieval or Roman. By local standards, this isn't a remarkable pub, either as a pub today, or for the history of the site. So delete Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that, despite the claims as to its age, it does not appear to be a listed building (I have searched the English Heritage database and found no mention of it), which suggests it is either not as old as claimed or has been rebuilt so much that it is not considered to be a particularly historic building. It does appear to be locally listed, as stated above, but since even nationally listed Grade II buildings are not always considered to be notable on Wikipedia, I don't think it can be considered notable for its architecture or historical interest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 7 August 2012 (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 01:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- If it really was a coaching inn, it might just about be notable. Towns commonly only had one or two inns from which coaches operated. The fact that it is "locally listed" indicates that it is considered significant, but NOT in the national list, run by English Heritage. That may be becasue parts of the present building are on the site of the inn, rather than the actual building. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic buildings belong in the encyclopedia. Is not currently well presented, with excessive focus on the current. I recommend consideration of merging all of Public houses in Lincolnshire. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment The problem is I know of barns of a similar age, should we include those too? Just because something is old doesn't make it worthy of an article. The majority of the 52000 or so pubs in the UK are at least a hundred years old, should every one of those have a Wikipedia entry? This is an encyclopaedia not a pub guide so there needs to be something which makes this pub stand out from all of the others, something like The Signal Box Inn which is a contender for the smallest pub in the world is a good example of this. Fraggle81 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is 280 years, with sourcing. No, they don't all get their own articles, and even for this one I suggest merging with other old pubs of the area. Anything old is more likely to have a place, but it is coverage of its beginning and its old history that's important. Old barns are fine too, if sourced with regard to their long histories, and most likely merged. Old barns that stand for hundreds of years are probably more architecturally interesting and of economic significance in their early days. A test I might suggest is that a building is interesting if you would still find it interesting if it was knocked down fifty years ago. For this pub, I see a little such interest, enough for a merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - apart from not being a listed building, all the sections after History look and soud like an WP:ADVERT: cosy, friendly, warm, etc. Even the designated driver friendly carpark gets a mention! Beyond being 280 years old, what's notable about it? Nowt! Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete insufficient evidence of notability. Without listed building status we need much more than provided here. I happen to live in another historic city where it is also unexceptional for a building to be old and on a site with more or less continuous occupation since the Roman period. Not all deserve a WP entry, and that seems to be true here as well. --AJHingston (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete owing to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per the General notability guideline. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Try as I might, I couldn't find any sources for this topic. The external links in the article are broken, so I could not confirm the validity of the Golden Eagle topic, the existence of the house, or its age. I keep thinking Golden Eagle public housing. If you are referring to the Golden Eagle pub in Lincoln's High Street, that's probably a notable topic. However, the present topic is not. Rather than relist the AfD, close the AfD and let editors create Golden Eagle pub if there is a desire (or move the article to Golden Eagle pub and relist a new at AfD so people know what the topic is. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No prejudice towards speedy renomination. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Riva[edit]
- Wendy Riva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable autobiography. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Originally BLP Prod, declined with IMDb ref (which is not a reliable source) and two other refs with trivial mentions. No GNews hits. No GBooks hits other than trivial mentions. No significant GHits that I could find. GregJackP Boomer! 19:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recently edited, more references, all verifiable. Jbashian (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC) — Jbashian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Verifiable =/= notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - first, I bolded your keep !vote, in accordance with normal AfD style, so the closing admin would not miss your position. Looking at the refs, I see the following problems:
- IMDb is not a reliable source and this has been long established on Wiki.
- Elle Decor is a trivial mention of Riva in a article on a boutique.
- International relations is a blog and not reliable.
- R&G Collective is a blog and not reliable.
- Daily Candy is a trivial mention of the store and of Riva.
- Los Angeles Times is a trivial mention of Riva in article on the store closing.
- LA in bloom is a blog and not reliable.
- Huffington is a trivial mention of Riva in a article on boutique.
- CBS Local returns a page not found.
- Stylebeat is a blog and not reliable.
- Whitehouse.gov is a primary source. Additional secondary sources on the position would be needed.
- New York Times does not mention Riva and notability is not inherited.
- Turner is a trivial mention and notability is not inherited.
There might be an argument for R&G Collective, though I doubt it, but Riva just doesn't have the sources to establish general notability, much less to meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. GregJackP Boomer! 21:36, 3 August 2012 (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 01:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will assist with a merge upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy Fleming (hotelier)[edit]
- Lucy Fleming (hotelier) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Difficult to assess relevance of ref. list as not inline but appears to be limited to mention of posts held, not notable in themselves, and quotes in her capacity as tourist spokesperson rather than indications of subject's notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but allow time for a Maybe Merge - I agree with the above and it there was an article on Belize Hotel Association or Belize Tourism Board and similar, then that is the best place for such information. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2012 (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 01:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Ranger Association[edit]
- English Ranger Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and I have found zero reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Additionally, the association seems to have zero news coverage per Google News. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 01:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 01:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a failed competitor to the Countryside Management Association (which would be worth an article, and was previously known as the Association of Countryside Rangers). The Wayback Machine has no archives of its website after the one of 5 Sept 2010, which stated, "there is currently no committee and therefore no active Association". Although notability is not temporary, it appears this didn't ever meet WP:Notability standards. Qwfp (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I note that the one external refernece is a deadlink. It would seem to be both NN and defunct. I would love to discover that I am wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Akira Kurosawa (book)[edit]
- Akira Kurosawa (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a book in Assamese, it is self-referenced only, and there is no establishment of notability of the book. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources have been provided other than the publisher's own web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 01:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. 01:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unnotable book. Secret of success (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not even worth suggesting a merge. Jun Kayama 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.