Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The consensus below is that there is insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to support an article at this time. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Walford Wilkie[edit]
- Walford Wilkie (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)
no indication of WP:Notability. Sources given are either not WP:reliable sources or trivial mentions. Article created by an editor with an apparent WP:conflict of interest. Google searches reveal nothing of significance to back up claims noq (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG The only sources I could find where [1] which isn't enough for significant coverage and another website which I can't link because of the spam filter which has a passing mention. Possibly a small mention here too [2] although it's behind a paywall. No mention in books, not even a passing mention (which is surprising). I could find nothing else about a company that is said to have existed for 25 years. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Copied from the talk page:
All the information on the article proposed for deletion is true and completely reliable. There is notability and clearly reliable sources which back up the information. Again, all the information is completely true and not in any way biased or influenced by opinion.
Walford Wilkie is a real company that advises companies on marketing, and it is true that they have successfully helped Red Bull, TAG Heuer and Veuve Clicquot. This information is testified in both the LinkedIn and IPA profiles in the external links. There is also a link to the official Orange National Business Awards proving that Walford Wilkie was a 2011 finalist.
I think this is sufficient evidence that the information is reliable and that there is no conflict of interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.27.132 (talk • contribs)
- CommentThe IPA and Linkedin references are like the companies own website, provided by the company and so are not independent WP:reliable sources. The other link just has one line naming the company, so not significant coverage. noq (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage about this company to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's a few hits: New store for Holts, Spectator boosts direct marketing, "The consultancy Walford Wilkie gained recognition for its work in helping Boodles evolve from provincial family jeweller to an internationally recognised brand,"Jenny Hirschkorn on measurable success stories across the sectors November 5, 2011. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:31, 27 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) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Lee Patrick Jr[edit]
- Kevin Lee Patrick Jr (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)
Perhaps failed GNG via WP:Politician? Article needs an obvious overhaul and better sources..but.. SarahStierch (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Running for office hardly provides Notability. I do not see any basis for article. Lacks GHITS and GNEWS of substance. reddogsix (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. No redirect target. Location (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:10, 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) 01:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antoni Chmielewski[edit]
- Antoni Chmielewski (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 MMA fighter. Has no fights for a top tier MMA organization thus failing WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 01:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 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, Electric Catfish 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep There is coverage of him from reliable sources. Also, WP: MMANOT is merely an essay, not a policy on notability. Electric Catfish 20:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts is the accepted standard for MMA fighter notability and WP:MMANOT agrees with it. I found nothing but routine sports coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:12, 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) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dominic Nuccio[edit]
- Dominic Nuccio (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)
Nuccio does not WP:CRIME. Vic49 (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CRIME. Not notable, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources. - DonCalo (talk) 01:37, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:CRIME and WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - There are a bunch (more than a page) of google books search results.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:20, 19 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, Electric Catfish 20:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:CRIME on both counts. #1: "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities". Not true. #2: "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event." Not true. The article's lone reference mentions him only in parentheses as an aside. Of the 12 GBook hits: #1, #7, #8, #10, and #12 are not the subject of this article; #2 and #6 only includes his name in a list of other names; #3, #4, #5, #9, and #11 are fleeting mentions in primary source material. Furthermore, the arrests, trials, and convictions of many people are reported in newspapers worldwide and the consensus of Wikipedians, through the development of WP:CRIME, is that they are not all deserving of articles. For that reason, WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWS trump WP:GNG. Location (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chicago Outfit, with no prejudice against a re-creation of an expanded and better referenced article. Cavarrone (talk) 12:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: General non-notablity. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:01, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OnGameStart[edit]
- OnGameStart (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 fail WP:GNG in English SarahStierch (talk) 20:35, 19 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) 01:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - reliable sources search turns up five total hits. One is a staff blog, one is a forum topic, two lead to the same article about WebGL/Team Fotress, and the final is merely a mention in a much larger article. --Teancum (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Very little WP:RS, and two of the refs are blogs. ZappaOMati 16:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Shame to delete a nicely formatted article (usefy?), but that conference has not even started yet. WP:CRYSTALBALL? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - The first edition was last year (2011), it's yearly event - [3]. Also - it's a conference, that's why most of the sources are blogs (not only private, also corporate ones). Most of the data is confirmed also in the movies form the event - [4] Joahim321 (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Would change to support if the article is built up and had professional sources. Hillabear10 (talk) 20:52, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oscar Laurent[edit]
- Oscar Laurent (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)
Clearly a hoax though perhaps not blatant enough to qualify for speedy deletion. None of the info provided checks out. Appeared in "La Star de l'Année"? nope. Signed to Sony Music? nope. To Epic Records? nope. Number one album in France? There's not even a trace of any album under that title. And so on... Pichpich (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; looks like a hoax. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. I could find absolutely no relevant sources. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 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. No prejudice towards a redirect. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mosque of al-Tekkiyeh Ariha[edit]
- Mosque of al-Tekkiyeh Ariha (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 individual building that is not notable. The fact it is damaged does not make it notable. JetBlast (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative redirect to Tekkiye Mosque, assuming confirmation that the name is just a differing transliteration/alternate version. I'm not terribly confident that they're the same, though: someone who is familiar with Damascus would be a help, as Tekkiyeh is not a unique term, it is specifically applied to Dervish-related sites. Acroterion (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect if Acroterion is correct. Obviously an historic builidng. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why is the topic non-notable? Was this nomination for deletion based upon the suggested source searching per section D of WP:BEFORE? Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its just a building at the end of the day. Do we create an article for every building that has been damaged in the world? --JetBlast (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an historic building. It's not the fact that it's been damaged that makes it notable, but the fact that it's an historic mosque, as stated in the referenced document. And yes, we do create articles for historic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A brief trivial mention in a single source does not give enough weight to warrant an article. The article fails WP:GNG. This article's AfD is identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosque al-Herak, so that's the one I'll be watching; no need to say the same comment and have the same discussion across multiple pages. - SudoGhost 16:21, 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, SarahStierch (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: General non-notablity. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:17, 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) 00:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jhallong river camp[edit]
- Jhallong river camp (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)
No indication of WP:notability. Unsourced. Reads more like a tripadvisor review than an encyclopaedia entry. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete: I'm almost inclined to support keeping this article as Wikipedia serves as a Gazetteer; however, I believe the nominator correctly identifies that this article has some major flaws. Not supported by reliable sources. Zujua (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep with rewrite Clearly the current form of the article is not acceptable, it reads like guidebook and lacks reliable source. Howeve with appropriate modification, and references, the article can be kept; it is a locality with significant tourism activity. Like many other South Asia related articles, it may be difficult to offer readily-available online references though.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:01, 13 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, SarahStierch (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; fails the GNG. No doubt it's possible to google a lot of passing mentions of a tourist attraction, but that isn't sufficient to make it notable. bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of online reliable sources and the impossibility of offline sources existing for the subject. Secret of success (talk) 12:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joakim Beaupré[edit]
- Joakim Beaupré (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 individual has no notability documented within the article or upon a brief search and thus WP:POLITICIAN suggests that this should be forwarded to the page for the next election in his riding -- which unfortunately has yet not been called. So this should be deleted until the election is called. has been called for September 4 2012, but to the best of my knowledge no one has created the relevant page for the election in the riding. Therefore I suggest this should be deleted. Ubelowme U Me 18:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, the relevant election does already have an article; it's at Quebec general election, 2012. This is a provincewide general election, not a one-riding by-election (although that still doesn't make individual unelected candidates notable.) Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a work in progress. There's no reason to delete this yet.Hathatehat (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Routine unelected candidate. My own preference might be for keeping all of these, but strong AfD consensus is for deletion. Carrite (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's quite rare that these articles are (or can be) properly sourced enough to warrant keeping them; they're almost always written as (or copied and pasted directly from) campaign brochures rather than real encyclopedia articles. That's one of the key problems. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unless notability can be established, which I doubt, this should be deleted like other candidate article. Bkissin (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 0 HighBeam hits and I very little info from Google. I believe that the article should be kept, but in the sandbox of the creator until which time notability can be established. There just are not enough independent reliable sources. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article should be redirected, per usual practice for candidates who have not actually held office or been notable for anything besides running. But I can't even tell what to redirect it to; the article doesn't say what office he is running for or when the election is, and I couldn't determine that from the links to websites. Here is the Canadian electoral calendar, 2012; if anyone can figure out what he is running for he should be redirected to that; in the absence of such information, delete. --MelanieN (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The caquistes are a provincial-level party so this would be the September 4 general election, but I don't think anyone has made a page for that riding's election… I could be wrong. Thanks for adding the link to the electoral calendar, that made things easier. Ubelowme U Me 23:30, 19 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, SarahStierch (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tried to find sources for this, but I can only find unreliable ones about a poker player. Also, he doesn't meet any notability guidelines, and since his election hasn't been called for yet, he doesn't meet WP: POLITICIAN. Electric Catfish 20:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability established or likely to be established. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I see no need for redirect at this time. Location (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After several searches, not finding coverage in reliable sources for this person at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: General non-notablity. --Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; unelected candidate in a pending election. If he wins the seat, then he can certainly have an article on the new basis that he'll be a sitting MNA — but until then, per WP:POLITICIAN he is not entitled to keep an unreferenced article just for being a candidate. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 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 delete. This nomination is about the notability of this organization, and the keep voters do not make a convincing argument or provide sources to sufficiently establish notability. -Scottywong| gab _ 21:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
International Resources for the Improvement of Sight[edit]
- International Resources for the Improvement of Sight (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 charity. None of the independent references in the article actually mention the charity. Nothing in google except for a few charities databases, which suggest that it's Cambodian focused, rather than the international focus of the article. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This one is tough because it's a small charity that operates in a somewhat rarefied world of anonymous high-end donors, but one can find evidence of notability. From the charity website:
- "In February, Roger Biggs, IRIS Director of Programs, was presented with an O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) by Prince Charles at an investiture held at Buckingham Palace. The award, announced in the Queen’s New Year’s Honours list, was in recognition of his services to eye health in South East Asia."
- The son of the President of India was also in attendance at one of the charities events in India. I realize these things are notability by association, but they do show the organization as being notable in the world of non-profits. It is a small charity operating with little fanfare in the press but quite well known to some of the world's top leaders. Unfortunately the entire article is a copyright violation of this page, so it would need to be rewritten (or permission secured for use, since the webpage says the content is Copyright). The French version has the same problem. There is also the good possibility sources exist in other languages, since the charity does work in foreign countries it would be notable in those places where people are being helped. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Biggs did not get an OBE for 'his services to eye health in South East Asia' he got them for 'For services to health in Asia' [5] which shows how much we can trust the IRIS website. Alas notability is not inherited. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Biggs known for other than eye care? Usually eye doctors are a specialty. I would think that description is generic by the nature of the document, the non profit website could be a clarification of the type and location of his work. Green Cardamom (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Biggs did not get an OBE for 'his services to eye health in South East Asia' he got them for 'For services to health in Asia' [5] which shows how much we can trust the IRIS website. Alas notability is not inherited. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There is no such thing as "notability by association". The subject's own website and/or publications cannot be used to support notability at all. Roger (talk) 09:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found two mentions in reliable sources: 1. The CEO received the Order of the British Empire,[6] and 2. International Resources for the Improvement of Sight helped out the Kandy Inner Wheel Club [7] That isn't enough source content from which to write a Wikipedia article that meets WP:GNG. The charity's news web page http://www.irisasia.org/news/ is self written news rather than In-the-News coverage by others. There could be reilable source information in Cambodian or Indian language newspapers, but I think we would first need to see some of that before we could give the topic the benefit of the doubt. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a great example of Wikipedia systemic bias (WP:BIAS, bullet points # 2-4) regarding third world places and the poor who are under-reported in general. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I happen to agree, which is why I only tagged it for notability and sources when I first came across it, rather than taking it straight to PROD. There are many solutions to WP:BIAS, but relaxing the sourcing requirements is not one of them. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep its backed by the World Health Organization and "restored the sight of 42,000 people". Fotaun (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have an independent reference that they're backed by the WHO and have "restored the sight of 42,000 people" I'm happy to withdraw the nomination, but currently there are no independent refs to support this. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:30, 27 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. -Scottywong| confabulate _ 21:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Loughan[edit]
- Rob Loughan (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 fail WP:GNG. All of the sources just mention him maybe once. SarahStierch (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually four out of the five don't appear to mention him at all. I left a note for the author. heather walls (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sourcing is extraordinarily thin. Fails WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Hi all. I am the author of this article - and I thought I was communicating properly with WIKI about it through Sarah's talk page. I'm still learning! As I mentioned on her page, I actually hadn't intended to publish the article, I just got messed up during the creation process in the sandbox. I have many more links about him and intend on spending some time this weekend improving it. Someone named Ryan has been helpful and I would be grateful for input. Perhaps someone could show me how to put it back in my sandbox and I can finish it up properly? I really try to be a good contributor here and I find people who inspire me to work on. One of my teachers turned me on to Rob Loughan' story and in my research I find him to be a very interesting and inspiring person. Please help me so I can be a welcomed author here! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesleChien (talk • contribs) 01:13, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK!! I just looked at the links I selected, and I see now what Heather is talking about with the links I posted for reference. Again, as I've asked, can someone please either guide me or tell me where I can find a way to put an article back into my sandbox so I can finish it properly? Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesleChien (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I wait for someone to respond, I put a few more links that clearly state Rob Loughan and his connection to Octane - which, again, is the story that I first heard about him that caught my attention as a person wanting to become like him in business. Again - please help me get this back to sand box and I'll make it perfect! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesleChien (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know if there are any full length articles talking about Mr. Loughan? Right now the article seems like one that should be notable, but I currently haven't found things that evidence it according to our criteria. It's a sad case where the media seems to have ignored someone who should really be notable. Ryan Vesey 01:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan! Great. Thank you for seeing what I see in this person. I should be able to get back to my research on him tomorrow. In the meantime, wouldn't it make more sense for me to somehow just un-publish this and work on it in my sandbox? Is that possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesleChien (talk • contribs) 02:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK!! I just looked at the links I selected, and I see now what Heather is talking about with the links I posted for reference. Again, as I've asked, can someone please either guide me or tell me where I can find a way to put an article back into my sandbox so I can finish it properly? Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesleChien (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see that I have a message that says I should be signing my comments here. Sorry for that. CharlesleChien (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would anyone be opposed to closing this AfD early and userfying this article while Charlie continues to improve it and finds more sources? Ryan Vesey 06:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There also is significant content from which to develop the article: Seattle Post-Intelligencer December 2, 2002, Seattle Times January 13, 2003, Dominion Post November 3, 2003, Newzealand Harold November 4, 2003, Seattle Times April 21, 2004, Seattle Times August 1, 2005. Given that he sold a company for 3.2 billion dollars, seems very likely that there are more reliable sources out there from which to expand the biography article. Comment - CharlesleChien, I suggest removing the information sourced to press releases (e.g., PA News, Daily Deal, PR Newswire, Business Wire, etc.) and websites and limit the article to content sourced to hard print newspapers, books, magazines. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the detective skills of Uzma Gamal. Ryan Vesey 15:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At first glance yeah you think non notable CEO, easy to see why Sarah nominated it, but looking in highbeam too here, definitely enough sources to pass notability, and if he is involved with 3.2 billion dollar deals not exactly low profile either.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:12, 27 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. This was a close debate. With two of the keep !voters acknowledging the sourcing is borderline there doesn't seem to be a level of consensus that would warrant a straight "keep" decision, but neither is there a consensus to merge or delete. I recommend that participants go ahead with the suggested merge from Protovis to D3.js (and also, unrelated to this close, I noticed a duplicate article at D3js that needs merging and/or redirecting). Feel free to renominate for deletion after three months or so. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
D3.js[edit]
- D3.js (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 don't see any indication of notability here. The two sources are the javascript library's own website and the Wikipedia article on Datavisualization. I couldn't find any references to it on Google. Seems like an insignificant script with no widespread usage. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep: Umh?? The exact "D3.js" name get 175 000 hits on google. The team of Protovis (article accepted) built D3.js as a Protovis 2.0. Notoriety + admissibility proved. Yug (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if someone could show some reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. The notability of Protovis seems questionable as well, but I'm not nominating it for AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 175.000 hits for the exact name "D3.js", its notability. Yug (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Number of hits are irrelevant to notability, please refer to WP:N and WP:GNUM. Ipsign (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a book on D3. Please close the AfD request so we stop to waste time. Yug (talk) 16:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not really convinced that it is notable based on one commercial book. Let the AfD run its course, and hopefully someone with more knowledge on the subject will be able to direct us to some reliable sources, or will be able to confirm that the subject is non-notable. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 14:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 175.000 hits for the exact name "D3.js", its notability. Yug (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS? One source is given, other sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if someone could show some reliable sources to establish notability and verifiability. The notability of Protovis seems questionable as well, but I'm not nominating it for AfD. —JmaJeremy✆✎ 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not established. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Protovis (it is an 'official successor' after all); as far as I'm concerned, resulting merged article may be either D3.js or Protovis. Ipsign (talk) 10:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging protovis into D3.js might make sense for the purpose of encyclopedic coverage, but it doesn't help with notability: even merged, these two remain separate subjects with separate notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is not appropriate in my opinion since it's a ERASE-REDO differently project. It's not like an evolution of Mediawiki, it's like a new wiki software by the same wikimedia team. Yug (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it makes any difference. FYI evolution of Mediawiki was also "ERASE-REDO" (see Phase II and Phase III, and then analyze the color of the PHP script link). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is not appropriate in my opinion since it's a ERASE-REDO differently project. It's not like an evolution of Mediawiki, it's like a new wiki software by the same wikimedia team. Yug (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging protovis into D3.js might make sense for the purpose of encyclopedic coverage, but it doesn't help with notability: even merged, these two remain separate subjects with separate notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Userfy: the coverage in multiple reliable sources is required for inclusion. I would note, that the project started on September 27, 2010, and given the recent book, this might be a WP:TOOSOON issue with possible boost of coverage in foreseeable future, so I would prefer userfication with specific requirement to use either WP:AFC or WP:RM to move the article back. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep: together the dedicated book and the SourceForge's (who doesn't host this project) news item warrant inclusion per WP:NSOFT and pass WP:GNG (though barely). As the project is new, there is a reasonable hope for future coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into JavaScript. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Or may be I should ask: why not to computer? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because JavaScript is itself a perfectly notable scripting language, and 3D.js has to do with JavaScript in particular. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as much as it has to do with web development and data visualization. Still, we don't normally merge the products into generic articles, as you may have noticed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because JavaScript is itself a perfectly notable scripting language, and 3D.js has to do with JavaScript in particular. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:09, 19 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepKeep, and merge Protovis into D3.js in history section per Quddity (below) - 3 sources added including a 2011 book mention while the product was still under development. Closer, please consider. --Lexein (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC). Updated at 08:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - but strongly consider merging Protovis into D3.js (it belongs as a "History" subsection"); separately they're both borderline, but together they reinforce the content & notability of each other. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:51, 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) 21:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link Alley Records[edit]
- Link Alley Records (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)
It seems too soon for this record label to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Googling for "Link Alley Records" on Google Books, News, and News archives turned up nothing. CtP (t • c) 22:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This page shouldn't be deleted. It's like stomping on a rose that sprouted from a crack in the concrete. Especially when you look at the enviroment it came from. I live in Belize and i've seen it's video on nationally broadcasted networks and heard their songs on the radio on numerous occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comptonknights (talk • contribs) 22:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Nothing in RS. Just a lot of stuff on YouTube. Could become notable later but this can not be assumed. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, I also came up empty in a search for reliable and independent sources. Clearly too soon. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 22:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators should really consider keeping this page up. reliable sources says that the label is currently being courted by Shyne, also currently in belize, who is interested in getting it signed to one of the majors if it won't sign to him. This group is highly regarded as a belizean artifact — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comptonknights (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources are those? Give us some links to show that this label been covered by reliable sources and we will consider them. If they are significant and they really do meet our WP:RS criteria then this could help save the article. Personally I don't think there is a realistic chance that the label can meet the level of notability required for an article at this stage in its existence but you are welcome to try to prove me wrong. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It :i heard about this label early this year, their executive producer was co hosting a radio segment on wave belize and was on a talk show the same day. They also fund a lot of local events like food drives and Help initiatives. These are the type of people the world should know about. Belize is a Developing country not too big on promoting their artist to a global audience so that explains the limited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belizeanlady (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh look. An obvious sockpuppet. That's really classy. (!Vote struck out as obviously invalid.)
- I said that we would listen if you had any serious claim of notability to make. Instead of trying to do that you go and pull a stupid stunt like this. You are not helping your case in the slightest. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just because belize is a small country and most belizean artist aren't mainstream their work should be alienated?? I happen to believe in the preservation of culture. There are so few hip hop record labels, in fact record labels period that soly aim on the proper uprising of today's youth and youth culture. I strongly believe this page should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comptonknights (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The best way to convince us that the article should be kept is to present some reliable sources that show that the label meets the general notability guideline. However, I am doubtful as to whether such sources exist, as is Daniel, and it may be genuinely too soon for this record label to have an article. The proper time to create this Wikipedia article is when Link Alley Records has already received independent, reliable coverage, not when it might in the future. CtP (t • c) 01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a couple reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comptonknights (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can that Newsday article be found online? I searched for it but can't seem to find it. Print sources are by all means acceptable, but it's best if everyone else can get a look at that article too. CtP (t • c) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After searching (see above), and taking into consideration that both Newsday and National Geographic are American publications and thus unlikely to take notice of the music scene in Belize, I am doubtful as to whether the cited articles from these publications actually exist. None of the other sources cited in the article give the kind of significant coverage needed (some not even mentioning Link Alley Records at all), so, despite Comptonknights's comment that reliable sources were added, the label still looks completely non-notable. CtP (t • c) 00:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not notable in context.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no census present below as to whether to keep or delete the article. In particular, opinions are divided as to whether the proffered sources are sufficient to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cam Archer[edit]
- Cam Archer (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)
BLP article does not meet WP:CREATIVE nor WP:BIO, and does not meet WP:GNG. Tgeairn (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Clicking on the Google News link above links to several articles comprised of significant coverage about this person, who therefore passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG.
- Source examples just from page 1 of the Google news link for this AfD discussion include: [9], [10], [11], [12] (in German), [13], [14] (subscription required).
- Please strongly consider performing the suggested source searching at WP:BEFORE, section D, prior to nominating clearly notable topics for deletion.
- —Thanks for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your review. In considering whether to propose this article, I reviewed the sources you provided (and several others). The result of my review was that the available sources are either reviews of a particular work (and not of the artist or his body of work), capsule reviews (which are specifically excluded for at Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Reliable_sources) or interviews which are WP:PRIMARY and not indicative of notability. Again I appreciate your message; but the end result is that we have a BLP which has been the subject of ongoing unsourced debate, and reliable sources have not been located to resolve the debate. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily meets the GNG. Here is a quote from the Santa Cruz Sentinel - "Cam Archer is a gifted and idiosyncratic filmmaker whose work has been shown at both Sundance and Cannes." - nuff said. The Steve 21:11, 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. -Scottywong| confer _ 21:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Masonville Place[edit]
- Masonville Place (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)
Does not meet WP:NCORP, WP:GNG, no third-party sources for notability. Tgeairn (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. 20:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, rather than whether or not sources are present in articles. Clicking on the Google News link above links to several articles, some of which are comprised of significant coverage about this topic, which therefore passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG.
- Source examples from the Google news link for this AfD discussion include: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (editorial), [20] (short article)
- Please strongly consider performing the suggested source searching at WP:BEFORE, section D, prior to nominating articles for deletion.
- — Northamerica1000(talk) 21:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, I disagree. Those sources are 1) a student newspaper about the local transit system, 2) an article stating that Apple might be opening a new store in a local newspaper (again, the article subject is not the mall), 3) an article about an auto museum that is no longer even in the mall (and again, not about the mall), 4) again about the auto museum, and 5) an article about local transportation and parking. None of these sources (nor any of the others I looked at) even approach being a reliable source for notability purposes about this mall. Thanks again for your message though. --Tgeairn (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Larger malls are generally considered to be notable (see WP:NPLACE), and in addition the mall is a hub for several city bus routes. PKT(alk) 15:15, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify, NPLACE is an essay about the common outcomes for places - not "Notability - Place(s)" as I believe it may have been at one time. WP:LOCAL is another essay that addresses malls. --Tgeairn (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per NorthAmerica1000. The Steve
- Weak keep - Larger malls impact a lot of peoples lives and take up lots of space in a community, so reliable sources tend to write about larger malls and events at large malls. An assumption that reliable sources tend to write about larger malls and events at large malls is why larger malls are generally considered to be notable. In this case, while there are a number of articles that mention Masonville Place, I didn't find any article that discussed Masonville Place itself in detail. Most of them are about events at Masonville Place, which usually are more newsy than encyclopedic. However, with enough coverage from such event articles, there usually is enought bits and piece of a topic (Masonville Place) from which to cobble together a Wikipedia article on Masonville Place from relaible sources. Some Wikipedian's don't think that is enought, particularly since WP:GNG specifically says "received significant coverage," so there's difference of opinions on this (hence my weak keep). I found only one article with Masonville Place in the title, but that was a press release and didn't really focus on Masonville Place itsef.[21] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:55, 27 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) 21:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Patients Not Patents[edit]
- Patients Not Patents (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)
Declined A7 prod. This organization's sole claim to notability is that it submitted an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case in 2005. It gets a sentence of mention in a 2006 Guardian article, but Google doesn't yield other coverage in reliable sources. Most of the results are entries in nonprofit listings; some are other cases where the phrase "patients, not patents" are used. There are no news results. All in all, that's less coverage than the recently deleted Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Also of note, it's been unreferenced and tagged for notability for a few years, and their official website seems to be dead. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BDD's thorough research and well-founded argument. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, essentially per nom: I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources either. Seems to be a non-notable organisation. Robofish (talk) 17:00, 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 Keep as rewritten. Eluchil404 (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Black Lake (Nova Scotia)[edit]
- Black Lake (Nova Scotia) (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 actually fails WP:CSD#A1 (insufficient context to identify the topic of the article), but since it's been around for a few years, I'm bringing it here. As one can see by going here and searching for the name "Black Lake" while restricting the search to Nova Scotia, there are 21 different Black Lakes in the province of Nova Scotia (thus rendering the article's title hopelessly ambiguous) and 5 such lakes in the Halifax Regional Municipality alone (thus rendering the article's one-sentence text ambiguous as well). With no specific referencing or information, the article is useless. It's possible that sourced articles on each of these lakes could be written; but as it stands, this is an article on none—or in some sense all—of them and thus provides no useful information to any user of the encyclopedia. Deor (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. 20:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a geodis page, with bluelinks to their counties. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. From the coordinates in the article, the lake appears to be this entry (CADZL), Black Lake near Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. I have not yet found any non-trivial reliable source coverage to distinguish this body of water. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As you can see from the history, I added the coordinates to the article myself, choosing at random among the five Black Lakes in the Halifax Regional Municipality. Then, when I noticed that the corresponding entry in List of lakes of Nova Scotia#Halifax Regional Municipality (which seems to have prompted the creation of this article) included the coordinates of a different one of the lakes, I changed them to match those in the list, so there would at least be agreement between the list and the article. Nevertheless, I stand by the rationale for deletion given in my nomination. Deor (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the excellent expansion work by Aymatth.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to DAB page - The article needs to be split out to separate articles on each lake, as each lake should be a separate topic. -- Whpq (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is now enough content to be useful. It is a sort of DAB page, but with counties & coordinates of all the lakes for comparison. A couple of the lakes may have enough content to justify stand-alone articles, and any editor who wants to do that can go ahead, but most have so little information they would end up in AfD again. This seems the most convenient format for the reader who wants to find out about Black Lake, Nova Scotia. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you'd like to take on the rest of Dr. Blofeld's Canadian-lake substubs, then? Another one, which I happened to notice this morning, is Diamond Lake (Ontario) (there are at least ten Diamond Lakes in Ontario). There may be scores of these "articles" that need attention, and I'm afraid that I'm not up to the task myself. Deor (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dislike stubs that provide no information. But if a title can easily be expanded to give information, it is more useful to readers and more efficient in terms of total editor time to do so than to nominate the article for deletion. Diamond Lake (Ontario) is useless as it stands, but a quick check shows that a meaningful article could easily be made for the Diamond Lake near Bancroft. And it would be very easy to use the Natural Resource Canada database to make a list of Diamond Lakes in Ontario like the list in this article. Either or both are better options than nominating for deletion. There is no great urgency with the lakes, which will still be there many years from now, I hope. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you'd like to take on the rest of Dr. Blofeld's Canadian-lake substubs, then? Another one, which I happened to notice this morning, is Diamond Lake (Ontario) (there are at least ten Diamond Lakes in Ontario). There may be scores of these "articles" that need attention, and I'm afraid that I'm not up to the task myself. Deor (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep &
Rename- This is similar to an earlier AFD discusiion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carpenters Bridge which was voted for Keep. While one is hardly notable, the collection together under the name Black Lake (Nova Scotia) is worth keeping. Rename Black Lake, Nova Scotia would be more accurate. A DAB page is probably not needed if a redirect is used for each lake.
Black Lake, Cumberland County, Nova Scotia
Black Lake, Halifax, Nova Scotia
Black Lake, Pictou County, Nova Scotia
Black Lake, Queens County, Nova Scotia
Black Lake, Victoria County, Nova Scotia
Jrcrin001 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Keep, article has been salvaged. I agree with comments by Jrcrin001, except that I strongly disagree with renaming the article. Naming convention (at least across Canada) for geographical features is to use parentheses (eg, Black Lake (Nova Scotia)) whereas "Black Lake, Nova Scotia" would indicate a village/town/municipality (eg, Bear River, Nova Scotia). PKT(alk) 14:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - PKT, okay with me. Jrcrin001 (talk) 21:19, 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 redirect to condominium (international law). more common spelling (non-admin closure) HueSatLum 16:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Co-dominion[edit]
- Co-dominion (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)
A neologism that is neither notable nor supported by any reliable source. Appears term is made up by original research or perhaps came from althistory.wikia.com. No sources cited and none were found in web search. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to condominium (international law), which is the more common spelling. Warden (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to condominium (international law) - I agree with Col. Warden. Otherwise I would have voted for straight delete. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:52, 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. WP:SNOW applies, obviously. Drmies (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brett Kimberlin[edit]
- Brett Kimberlin (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)
Brett Kimberlin-Request For Deletion
More than a year ago, a Brett Kimberlin Wikipedia page was deleted after Wikipedia determined that it was a smear job. In the spring of 2012, a group of right wing activists launched a campaign to reinstate the page. They did this, admittedly, as part of a campaign to harm Brett’s reputation, undermine funding for his non-profit organizations, harass him, defame him, and harm those around him.
As a result of this campaign, Brett, since March 2012, has received scores of death threats by phone, email, and other online means. His family, children, and mother have been threatened, including calls and posts to his pre-teen daughter. He has had to call the police several times because of stalkers outside his home. He has filed multiple peace orders against persons who harassed him, and criminal charges against others. His employer has been harassed, his business associates have been harassed, and his donors have been harassed. He has met with numerous state and federal law enforcement officials investigating these threats. Many of the threats against Brett and his family are posted in an article at http://www.breitbartunmasked.com/thugs/swat-swat-question/#more-514
A hive of right wing activists demanded that Wikipedia be pressured to allow a post about Brett. http://topsy.com/patterico.com/2012/05/27/brett-kimberlin-gets-his-wikipedia-entry-removed/ “Brett Kimberlin got his Wikipedia entry removed -- but we're fighting back!” Once the post was allowed, numerous right wing bloggers bragged about their “big” success in getting the Brett Kimberlin page reinstated on Wikipedia. https://twitter.com/Stranahan/statuses/219306487477059584 “One BIG victory we've all gotten - the Wikipedia Page for Brett Kimberlin still exists.” These bloggers used Wikipedia as part of their Everyone Blog Brett Kimberlin Day, which was a right wing campaign to Swift Boat Brett.
As outlined below, the Brett Kimberlin page should be deleted because it violates many of Wikipedia’s criteria for hosting a page. The Wikipedia text regarding deletions follows each request for deletion below.
First, the page was created in order to smear Brett, harm him and undermine his ability to earn a living. The page is an attack page “created to disparage” Brett. In fact, the right wing activists admitted this in their campaign to get the page reinstated, and have repeatedly tweeted and bragged about the huge propaganda coup they got by having the Wikipedia page reinstated. See e.g., https://twitter.com/Stranahan/status/207877839192727553 “Brett Kimberlin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - See that? That's a sign conservatives can win on Wikipedia, too” And they have used their attack Brett blogs to increase the rankings of the page on Google. See e.g., http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/05/28/brett-kimberlins-wikipedia-page-reappears/
- Attack pages
“Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once….”
Second, Brett is not notable under the definition set forth by Wikipedia. He is a living person who, for the past decade, has been the Director of a small non-profit organization, not seeking publicity for himself. His convictions 34 plus years ago were not national news but rather were local events. Brett is not a public figure but rather a private citizen who is working and contributing to his community. In fact, on February 9, 2012, a judge ruled that Brett is not a public figure. Montgomery County Maryland Circuit Court Case No. 339254V, Kimberlin . Allen, “ORDER OF COURT (QUIRK, J.) THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DECLARE BRETT KIMBERLIN AS A PUBLIC FIGURE RATHER THAT PRIVATE CITIZEN (D.E. #119) IS DENIED, ENTERED. He maintains a low profile by working behind the scenes, not blogging, not commenting, and not tweeting, He is entitled to privacy and respect. People who are relatively unknown “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there is additional protection for subjects who are not public figures.” Deletion of BLPs of relatively unknown subjects “Where the subject of a BLP has requested deletion, the deletion policy says: "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete. Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed."
Third, much of the information cited is not reliable, such as information attributed to Mark Singer who Brett sued for defamation and breach of contract, and who settled the case in a manner agreed to by Brett. Other information cited from the Indianapolis papers is not reliable because much of that information was determined by a judge to be unreliable and inadmissible in court. Information about the civil suit is unreliable because the judge in the case, Michael Dugan, solicited a bribe from Brett’s lawyer and was convicted of taking bribes and sent to prison for 18 years. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/18/460/531288/ Information from Brett’s trials is unreliable because it involved the use of hypnosis on six witnesses, which has since been banned in all criminal cases in the United States. The information about swatting is unreliable because Brett had nothing to do with any swatting, has cooperated fully with the FBI, and those false allegations were made only to smear Brett by pushing them into the mainstream media in order to get them placed in Wikipedia and elsewhere. Persons accused of crime “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.”
Fourth, right wing activists have used the information in the article for sensationalism and tabloid journalism. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and cannot be used as a vehicle to harm people. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, “and we are not in the business of "outing" people or publishing revelations about their private lives, whether such information is verifiable or not. As Wikipedia has a wider international readership than most individual newspapers, and since Wikipedia articles tend to be permanent, it is important to use sensitivity and good judgment in determining whether a piece of information should be recorded for posterity.”
Fifth, the page is not balanced at all by focusing on crimes, smears and scandal. Brett’s life is much more, yet reading the page makes it appears that he has led a life of crime. Brett has not been arrested for anything for more than 30 years, and he has been engaged in positive activities as well as being a husband, father, and upstanding member of the community. He has been victimized by these vicious right wing attacks, including by stalking and death threats. This Wikipedia page only adds to the victimization by providing a reputable source for stalkers and others to attack Brett. Avoid victimization “When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization.”
Sixth, there is guilt by association with regard to the swatting matter. No one has suggested that Brett did the swattings, but rather that someone associated with him did them, and therefore Brett is somehow guilty by association. But none of these allegations has been based on any evidence whatsoever, but rather only the conspiratorial coincidences as seen by people who want to harm Brett. The allegations about swatting are worse than gossip, because they are totally false and part of a campaign to smear and harm Brett, his family and his business. No information should be published regarding allegations of swatting. Swatting is a serious criminal offense and there is no evidence of Brett’s involvement in it, and certainly he has never been arrested or convicted of such an offense. Persons accused of crime “A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgments that do not override each other, refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information.”
- Avoid gossip and feedback loops
“Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.”
- Balance
“Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased or malicious content.”
Seventh, the use of a 1973 teenage juvenile mug shot of Brett is unbalanced, disparaging and presents him in a false light.
- Images
“Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots), or situations where the subject was not expecting to be photographed. Images of living persons that have been generated by Wikipedians and others may be used only if they have been released under a copyright licence that is compatible with Wikipedia:Image use policy.”
For all the above reasons, Wikipedia should delete the page about Brett Kimberlin. JusticeLeader (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is obviously notable and the current article is not an attack page. (BLPs with notability subject to WP:PERP are bound to contain some negative information. That's just how it is.) None of the other reasons given are valid criteria for deletion - indeed, parts of the nomination point to things that could be seen as bolstering the subject's notability. Editors should be mindful that the nomination is from an account that was clearly created for the express purpose of deleting the article. See: User talk:JusticeLeader. Also see previous Deletion Review discussion:Here. Belchfire-TALK 16:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh It does look like an attack article to me. I don't have any confidence in its neutrality. Yeah it has lots of footnotes, but sourcing is not magic fairy dust that turns partisan articles neutral. 66.127.54.117 (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the reasons given by Belchfire above. Notable individual, of course there will be negative info in the article based on the subject's criminal past. Kelly hi! 18:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When you have Salon and other news organizations reporting about you, you meet the notability requirements. Actually having had books by notable authors published about you/your famous crimes don't subtract from that score. It is clearly not an attack page. As relates to BLP issues, those should be addressed on the page as they occur. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This person is definitely notable for the Speedway Bombing in Indiana and has been listed in many newspapers [22] as well as a book written based on him as the requester pointed out. The claim that the Speedway Bombing was local news is absurd on its face because it has been discussed in many national newspapers regarding the Speedway Bombings. He even became notable when he claimed to have sold Dan Quayle marijuana which turned out to be a frivolous claim. Prior to all of this "right-wing conspiracy", TIME wrote an article on him [23]. I find it interesting that the user's name is newly registered & named JusticeLeader and Brett Kimberlin runs an organization called MusicForJustice. Honestly, this also reads like a request of a person requesting deletion of his own article because they don't like what they see. ViriiK (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I agree that we need an article on this person, the current version contains a number of violations of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Compliance with that is not optional. Everything sourced to primary sources (and particularly the stuff sourced to Court records) must be cut out.—S Marshall T/C 22:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Before anybody gets any ideas about removing material from the article based on this comment, it should be pointed out that WP:BLPPRIMARY says "Exercise caution in using primary sources." It doesn't say primary sources can't be used at all, and there are in fact circumstances where primary sources are appropriate. Belchfire-TALK 22:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What it says, specifically, is: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."—S Marshall T/C 23:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the citations for statements about convictions. I believe that clause is about using statements during a court case or in court documents- which are not necessarily true or otherwise citable. It cannot be read to disallow a statement of fact that a person was convicted or not. —apple4ever T 2:06, 2- August 2012 (UTC)
- It would be useful to go back to the main article, WP:PRIMARY which WP:BLPPRIMARY is only summarizing, and, at your timestamp, was summarizing badly. In the larger document, it's clear that a court record stating that Kimberlin was convicted is permissible to use to establish that he was convicted, though not interpretive facts beyond the basic fact of his conviction. TMLutas (talk)
- Keep: Although there may be problems in the article as noted above, the overall conclusion of this AFD should be keep. The subject is clearly notable for multiple events with multiple independent sources doing indepth coverage. Let's fix whatever problems can be found but keep the article. Sometimes infamy is the result of not wanting fame. WTucker (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable as established by the multitude of reliable sources. The Garbage Skow (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kimberlin meets notability guidelines and any bias issues can be fixed. This certainly isn't an attack article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Kimberlin is notable even if the ridiculous twitter/blogger wars about him of recent vintage may not be.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Kimberlin is notable for the Speedway Bombings alone, and I find nothing in the current page that looks like attacks. Even if there are bias' in the article, they should be fixed- the page should not be deleted. —apple4ever T 2:06, 2- August 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: Kimberlin has been at the center of several major controversies. As others have noted, bias in the article could be fixed if necessary. --Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject is clearly notable. It should be pointed out that he also has a history of pursuing litigious means to suppress his past notoriety. This request should be viewed in light of that history. Ronnotel (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but reluctantly. I hear "please don't throw me into the briar patch." I dislike giving the subject publicity but unquestionable notoriety. The article is not an attack page but does need work to get to just the facts supported by WP:RS. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 02:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject clearly has received significant coverage required by WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I remember the marijuana accusations as being politically significant (multiple news cycle relevance) and certainly the bombings and his prior career as a drug dealer before he morphed into leftwing political activist and organizer. The page is currently a piece of lace that has problems because the pro-kimberlin crowd is working hard to knock out as much as they can. We might want to take measures to stop that. TMLutas (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Trogloraptor. The overall opinion seems to be that Marchington the person is not quite notable enough for an article. I'm doing this as a straight redirect, keeping the history intact, so if someone thinks there's information not currently in the target that should be merged, feel free to do so in the course of normal editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neil Marchington[edit]
- Neil Marchington (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 - only secondary mention in a couple of references Widefox (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Slight modification - agree with Ryan Vesey, a redirect would be apropriate. Widefox (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment leaning keep I'll not be making a specific notability statement for a while, but I'll start collecting some references here to see what we have. I'm leaning towards keep just on the basis that the species was named after him. Wikipedia avoids determining notability, instead it bases notability on whether others have considered the subject notable. If the scientific community has named a species after him, I believe the scientific community has determined him to be notable. I also think he might satisfy criterion 1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) which states "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." in one of the explanations. This would be the significant discovery aspect; however, this is problematic because the discovery is so recent that journals won't be referring to it soon. The international sources might be enough to state that it was a significant discovery. I'll end this with the statement that straight deletion would be a mistake since this should be redirected if it is not kept. Here are some sources I've found. Ryan Vesey 14:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- New family of spiders found (Highbeam)
- Part of a cave group that received the State Land Board Partnership Award for mapping work (Highbeam)
- Being referenced internationally
- Comment species are sometimes named after organisations that donate money, children's cartoon characters, celebrities etc. I doubt that is a robust way of discerning notability per se. Out of the references so far, I don't see one with him as the subject, rather than the species. I refer you again to WP:ONEEVENT "major role in a minor event" - that of discovery of a specimen of a new species. Although yes if I'm wrong, this is a major event and there are bios of him and his role. Widefox (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I replied to WP:ONEEVENT on the article's talk page. The German-language source focuses on the name. Wakari07 (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He is the discoverer for which the species is named, by my reasoning this is WP:ONEEVENT but ok, we can differ... The German source doesn't give me anything more (either translated or in German - and the photo caption confuses the discover with the second expedition members which includes the scientific describer). But this source gives the etymology - "in gratitude for his help and kindness". That seems weak for a BLP. Another example of a similar weak BLP article would be "Christine" in a rat named after girlfriend. Widefox (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to reason per WP:VOTE? Widefox (talk) 10:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. His actions to help the discovery can be described in the article on Trogloraptor itself. The article on Marchington is certainly short enough for a merge to be possible (within reason of course). Having an organism named after you is not something that automatically makes you notable. I agree that there are interesting stories behind most scientific names of organisms but these ideally go under the Taxonomy or Etymology sections in their articles, not split off to a new article. Organisms being named after people, both famous and ordinary folk is a very common practice in biology, so Criteria 1 of WP:Notability (academics) does not apply. Zoology even goes further than that by quite frequently giving joke names to organisms. Notice, for example, how the scientists themselves aren't automatically notable just because they described a new species. How much more a layman? This !vote does not preclude recreation if/when any of these people achieve true notability in the future per our criteria. Nor am I saying that people can't achieve notability with only one event. But this, as it stands, is still a WP:ONEEVENT. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, anyone proposing that having a species being named after someone is a notability criterion per se should take that up at the relevant BLP notability criterion. I agree Criteria 1 of WP:Notability (academics) is not relevant as spelt out in the etymology source above - it is named not for his scientific work but for his "help and kindness". This seems in-line with not having BLPs in other unrelated discovery fields like the Staffordshire Hoard (although I tread carefully with WP:OTHERSTUFF!) Widefox (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although in this case, Marchington could be a borderline case, as he is an amateur biologist (which is more or less, equivalent to being a naturalist). But yes, though his contributions are significant, he did not formally take part in the description of the species and has published no academic work (yet?). Thus his notability must stand on other criteria. The discovery of the organism itself is highly notable, but notability is not inherited and the discovery can safely be described within the context of the organism's article. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, anyone proposing that having a species being named after someone is a notability criterion per se should take that up at the relevant BLP notability criterion. I agree Criteria 1 of WP:Notability (academics) is not relevant as spelt out in the etymology source above - it is named not for his scientific work but for his "help and kindness". This seems in-line with not having BLPs in other unrelated discovery fields like the Staffordshire Hoard (although I tread carefully with WP:OTHERSTUFF!) Widefox (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Trogloraptor - He's mentioned in [24] and then articles about the spider he discovered:[25], [26], etc. The coverage might be in a variety of countries, but its mostly from the days around August 17, 2012 and the articles mostly have similar content. There's not enough info per WP:GNG for a Wikipedia biographical article on Marchington, but there's enought for a redirect to the Trogloraptor marchingtoni article and mention of his efforts in that Trogloraptor article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 04:55, 27 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) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little Astrology Prince[edit]
- Little Astrology Prince (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)
No significant coverage in reliable sources for this BLP. Last AfD had low participation so I am renoming. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When I put this in AfD last year, there was only one Keep vote by an IP editor, and he didn't bring any policy based point on the table. So, it was rather puzzling to see it closed as no-consensus. MakeSense64 (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a page that exists to advertise the existence of some psychic hotline and nothing more. Sædontalk 23:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The only thing resembling a reliable source I found was an article in the "Life" section of the China Daily. Unfortunately, it looks like the writer worked from her desk and drew her information entirely from the subject's website or books, so it doesn't count as real reporting, all the more so as it was published in what is essentially a "human interest" section of the paper rather than the news section, and thus probably did not undergo rigorous fact checking by the writer or editor. Aside from that, I found absolutely nothing in reliable sources, so it appears that the subject is not notable enough to meet the requirements of any of our guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:35, 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 merge to University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike[edit]
- University of Miami 2006 custodial workers' strike (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:NOTNEWS, had no lasting effect. First afd was when this was in the news, second afd was a mess, and none of them really had policy based standards. Delete Secret account 08:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign also deals with this same strike. I haven't figured out why the two articles exist, but they need to be merged. --Orlady (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but combine (merge) it with University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign. I don't know which title should be retained, but I prefer this one as the more neutral title. This event seems worth of attention as a long and significant strike, it got significant nonlocal news attention (New York Times), and at this page, I find that a scholarly journal article about this strike [Jason Albright, “Contending Rationality, Leadership, and Collective Struggle: The 2006 Justice for Janitors Campaign at the University of Miami,” Vol. 33, No. 1 (March 2008), 00. 63-80.] won an award as "Best Labor Studies Journal Article published in 2006-2008". --Orlady (talk) 20:53, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge to University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign. In reviewing the overall sources in the University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign article and this one, this topic passes WP:GNG. Merge to University of Miami Justice for Janitors Campaign because this is generally part of the Justice for Janitors social movement. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:41, 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) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coco Simon[edit]
- Coco Simon (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 stumbled across this article through her book series Cupcake Diaries, which is also currently up for deletion. The issue with the book series is the same as the author: there are just little to no reliable sources out there to show that this author passes WP:AUTHOR. A search for the author brings up the typical junk hits, merchant sites, primary sites, and non-usable blog reviews and mentions. She's published a kid's series, but unfortunately just publishing (no matter how many books they might have done) does not in itself give notability. It just makes it more likely that reliable sources will be found, which I wasn't able to discover. Tokyogirl79 (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—There is little to no coverage of this author in RS. No reviews in notable publications, small holdings in libraries. This is almost certainly a case of not yet, but...not yet.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:18, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG 2602:306:39E1:C830:59AF:528A:3B0A:CE20 (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR in any evident way. Qworty (talk) 20:14, 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) 00:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Macbuntu[edit]
- Macbuntu (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)
Does not pass WP:GNG. Page has multiple issues. Also software is unmaintained and will not work on most current Linux distros. Zombifiertalk
03:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: though mentioned in several reputable blogs (which would be normally enough for weak keep !vote), this topic is excluded per WP:NOTDIR. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:36, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam/advert. This needs a complete rewrite in order to become an encyclopedic article. A few reviews in a blog isn't enough, not much in HighBeam or Google News. Could have been speedied as a G11. 2602:306:39E1:C830:59AF:528A:3B0A:CE20 (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, poorly written, no inline citations, the project is inactive, it currently looks like advertisement.--KDesk (talk) 03:28, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson[edit]
- Playlist: The Very Best of Jessica Simpson (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:NALBUMS. Neither the artist nor the label promoted this compilation. Ryoga Godai (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only coverage for this album I could find is the Allmusic review, which is already quoted in its entirety in the article. The lengthy "Writing and composition" section of the article offers song details that do not relate to this album; i.e., the references in that section make no mention of the album. The only other refs in the article that do mention the album are Amazon and Sony, neither of which offers independent significant coverage but merely demonstrate the album's existence. This release does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 16:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I concur with the above. Unless it actually charted etc.... these Playlist albums are created by Sony Music's legacy records division and are not marketed or promoted by the artist. Virtually every major artist on Sony Music has one and none receieve coverage as none have any new material, just a recycled track listing. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:05, 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. Unlike the other Lana Del Rey AfD I just closed, in this case, there does appear to be a consensus that this subject is not notable. While the criteria of standalone lists are different than those for articles, there still must be some evidence that the subject (here, "unreleased Lana Del Rey songs") is notable. No one has demonstrated that it is. Furthermore, it appears that many of the items on the list cannot even be verified (as a side note: linking to unofficial YouTube content is a form of copyright violation, and must always be removed immediately; the same would apply for any other uploading of the singer's material without her/her recording company's explicit approval). If there are any individual items on here that have been discussed in independent sources, information about those and only those could be added to some other page (assuming the information met WP:DUE). For clarification, the policies that apply here are WP:N (specificallly WP:LISTN), and various parts of WP:NOT. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs[edit]
- List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs (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 previous AFD on this list closed as no consensus. So I am revisiting this, as from the start I tried to get rid of this content, and only created the page to satisfy another user.
This list of every single song ever recorded or performed by Elizabeth Grant (currently performing under the name "Lana Del Rey") under her various stage names is massive and unwieldy. While it is meticulously sourced, almost none of the sources are considered reliable. Several dozen, in fact, are to postings of "leaked" demo tapes to websites such as YouTube, Vimeo, or Soundcloud, and I've seen several references that go to several Lana Del Rey fansites. The other major selection of references are to search results on the ASCAP database, which likely features every song ever written or recorded by members of ASCAP. These search results are no longer valid, as a log in is required, and the site simply shows that the songs exist in some form to be used by ASCAP members.
The previous AFD brought up that similar pages by other artists have also been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased songs by Nicole Scherzinger and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Rihanna songs due to similar poor sourcing issues. While List of unreleased Britney Spears songs and List of unreleased Madonna songs, I do not think that the coverage exhibited on this page satisfies keeping the content in any form, even if it is merged to a list created at the time of the previous discussion (which I have also listed for deletion). The other pages feature reliable sources beyond bootleg copies and a summary of the ASCAP database. —Ryulong (琉竜) 09:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I find it extremely ridiculous that you're nominating this after an obvious extensive previous nomination that happened within a month ago (not to mention you had one comment on and didn't respond to anything else). The page is far too long and detailed to be included on List of Lana Del Rey songs. If these lists are unacceptable then please give me a valid excuse as to why List of unreleased Britney Spears songs was a previous featured article. Lana Del Rey consists of multiple previous personas where she has hundreds of songs. Neither artist you mentioned have done anything like this. The ASCAP references WERE valid but obviously they EXPIRE and you have to replace them. It's simple as that. And they are 100% reliable. Also, if you go to my talk page you did not create this page to satisfy another user (me). --MrIndustry (talk) 09:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous nomination closed as "no consensus", which means that no proper conclusion came about and the status quo was kept on a technicality. That means I can properly open up a new AFD with better arguments so an actual conclusion can be met, regardless of the level of involvement I had in its previous form. And what I said to you in May has no bearing on my actual opinions on the page's content, which are free to change.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You also stated above that the two articles have reliable sources unlike List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs, which is actually incorrect. I'm also not sure if we're looking at the same Britney article because it's sources are BMI/ASCAP and a few indie music blogs which is exactly the same as Unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. As you stated ASCAP lists what exists, this proves my point of ASCAP being a reliable source. These are songs that EXIST. Leaked and UNLEAKED. You guys keep claiming no policy, no policy, but there is no policy so we'll keep arguing the same exact thing as before. The article is far too detailed and is more important than List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured article. Britney has no past personas and her unreleased songs are not notable, Lana's are, it made her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of unreleased Britney Spears songs is not a featured article. It is a featured list. And just because something exists, does not mean we need to cover it. Your arguments are still not supported by any policy or guideline of the English Wikipedia. This will be my last comment directed towards anyone in the debate, as I have a bad habit of turning things into massive threads of arguments that lead no where. (Several of MrIndustry's comments are to things I decided to remove in this edit.)—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake on the featured list. The article is a highly active article. This would be a different situation if no one used this and no one updated it. Why remove something that's obviously active and helpful? That's stupid.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of unreleased Britney Spears songs is not a featured article. It is a featured list. And just because something exists, does not mean we need to cover it. Your arguments are still not supported by any policy or guideline of the English Wikipedia. This will be my last comment directed towards anyone in the debate, as I have a bad habit of turning things into massive threads of arguments that lead no where. (Several of MrIndustry's comments are to things I decided to remove in this edit.)—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You also stated above that the two articles have reliable sources unlike List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs, which is actually incorrect. I'm also not sure if we're looking at the same Britney article because it's sources are BMI/ASCAP and a few indie music blogs which is exactly the same as Unreleased Lana Del Rey songs. As you stated ASCAP lists what exists, this proves my point of ASCAP being a reliable source. These are songs that EXIST. Leaked and UNLEAKED. You guys keep claiming no policy, no policy, but there is no policy so we'll keep arguing the same exact thing as before. The article is far too detailed and is more important than List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, which is a featured article. Britney has no past personas and her unreleased songs are not notable, Lana's are, it made her who she is.--MrIndustry (talk) 09:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous nomination closed as "no consensus", which means that no proper conclusion came about and the status quo was kept on a technicality. That means I can properly open up a new AFD with better arguments so an actual conclusion can be met, regardless of the level of involvement I had in its previous form. And what I said to you in May has no bearing on my actual opinions on the page's content, which are free to change.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The reason the last AfD was No consensus was because there was a three-way split between keep, delete and merge. I won't make that mistake again. "Unreleased" is rarely notable, irrespective of the name of the artist/s and this is no exception. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Seems obvious enough. Could use some better sources, in some cases, but otherwise notable enough. --Thevampireashlee (talk) 07:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Definitely keep. This article is highly notable. I don't think I know another artist who has had this many personas and unreleased songs as Del Rey does. I don't think a list of unreleased songs is notable for every artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. It is very active and is constantly being updated and used. teammathi 14:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC+7)
- An article cannot be "notable". The subject of an article is notable, but lists are held to different criteria. And as I said before, it does not matter how many "personas" this individual has. The nature of Ms. Grant's performance is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia's content policies. Same thing goes or the level of activity a page receives. Arguments for retention should be based on policy, which seems to be lacking, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lana Del Rey still performs some of these songs at concerts. These songs are who she is and what made her. No other mainstream artist has this many unreleased songs. --MrIndustry (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, Ryulong. I don't have any policies to back this up since this is an exception. As I have said, I don't think a List of unreleased songs is needed for any other artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. teammathi 8:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC+7)
- If some of the songs are performed at concerts, then that information can be kept in some form on Wikipedia. However, there is no reason anyone should be exempt from the rules. If reliable sources support the notability of these several dozen songs, then we have a reason to cover them. However, this is not the case when 100 sources point to social media and fan blogs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, Ryulong. I don't have any policies to back this up since this is an exception. As I have said, I don't think a List of unreleased songs is needed for any other artist but it definitely is for Del Rey. teammathi 8:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC+7)
- Lana Del Rey still performs some of these songs at concerts. These songs are who she is and what made her. No other mainstream artist has this many unreleased songs. --MrIndustry (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An article cannot be "notable". The subject of an article is notable, but lists are held to different criteria. And as I said before, it does not matter how many "personas" this individual has. The nature of Ms. Grant's performance is irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia's content policies. Same thing goes or the level of activity a page receives. Arguments for retention should be based on policy, which seems to be lacking, again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest possible delete— per previous nomination, the items on the list aren't notable. The arguments for keeping the article are ridiculously feeble. Till 09:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did the nominator may no mind to "No prejudice toward a future merge discussion"? That is what should be done here. A second deletion nomination is pointless. A deletion nomination is created with the objective of all the content in the article to be deleted. Statυs (talk) 12:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see the nominator also nominated List of Lana Del Rey songs for deletion, what this page should be merged with, claiming no other types of list exist. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole nomination is ridiculous.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter what the closing admin said after it was closed as "no consensus". This discussion is working to seek a consensus on whether or not this article should be kept in any form. Merging is out of the question due to the poor sources on this page, and the other page which I've listed for deletion is also entirely unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are not poor and eliminating a merge option because you don't agree with it is ridiculous. Although I don't agree with merging because it's too independent of a section. I'm going to add a few more sources right now.--MrIndustry (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter what the closing admin said after it was closed as "no consensus". This discussion is working to seek a consensus on whether or not this article should be kept in any form. Merging is out of the question due to the poor sources on this page, and the other page which I've listed for deletion is also entirely unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This whole nomination is ridiculous.--MrIndustry (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see the nominator also nominated List of Lana Del Rey songs for deletion, what this page should be merged with, claiming no other types of list exist. Statυs (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Concerns I have with this list: (1) It relies quite heavily on poor/unreliable sources, with little actual coverage on the topic. Compare the references to those in the aforementioned List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. (2) The Lana Del Ray A.K.A. Lizzy Grant album was released, so even though it was pulled after two months, its songs would not seem to qualify for this list. Gongshow Talk 16:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason it's on the list is because it was pulled from its entirety. You can't just not download it from Amazon anymore, its entire page was deleted as if it never existed. But I can see your point where it shouldn't be included on the list. The sources are the same as List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, so I'm confused. Can you please elaborate? --MrIndustry (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the album is no longer available on Amazon just means it's now more difficult to purchase. Albums can't really go from "never released" to "released" and then back to "never released". As for the sources, both Lana's and Britney's articles use lots of BMI and ASCAP refs. What I meant is that besides those, Britney's article - with few exceptions - mostly uses reliable sources such as MTV, USA Today, Billboard, New York magazine, People, Entertainment Weekly, and The Observer. Lana's article - with some exceptions - mostly uses sources like social networking sites (YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace, Tumblr, SoundCloud, last.fm, ReverbNation), fansites (lanadelreyonline.com, lanadelreyweb.com), and non-notable blogs (afistfulofculture.com, besteveralbums.com, hardcandymusic.com, WackyMusicCrazy.org, josepvinaixa.com, shyampareek.in, etc). Gongshow Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The album actually has been pulled and is no longer available for purchase anywhere. I'm honestly not clear on Wikipedia's terms of reliable sources, but if the link provides the material, it should be considered reliable... because it is the material? I do remember reading that the source is considered reliable if it is independent from the artist. Which would allow non-notable music blogs acceptable.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if independent of the artist, self-published blogs like the ones listed above are discouraged. WP:BLOGS states: "Anyone can create a personal web page or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." For example, media publishers like MTV, Billboard, and The New York Times are considered reliable, but not the blog my friend and I put together. Gongshow Talk 20:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The album actually has been pulled and is no longer available for purchase anywhere. I'm honestly not clear on Wikipedia's terms of reliable sources, but if the link provides the material, it should be considered reliable... because it is the material? I do remember reading that the source is considered reliable if it is independent from the artist. Which would allow non-notable music blogs acceptable.--MrIndustry (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the album is no longer available on Amazon just means it's now more difficult to purchase. Albums can't really go from "never released" to "released" and then back to "never released". As for the sources, both Lana's and Britney's articles use lots of BMI and ASCAP refs. What I meant is that besides those, Britney's article - with few exceptions - mostly uses reliable sources such as MTV, USA Today, Billboard, New York magazine, People, Entertainment Weekly, and The Observer. Lana's article - with some exceptions - mostly uses sources like social networking sites (YouTube, Vimeo, MySpace, Tumblr, SoundCloud, last.fm, ReverbNation), fansites (lanadelreyonline.com, lanadelreyweb.com), and non-notable blogs (afistfulofculture.com, besteveralbums.com, hardcandymusic.com, WackyMusicCrazy.org, josepvinaixa.com, shyampareek.in, etc). Gongshow Talk 19:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason it's on the list is because it was pulled from its entirety. You can't just not download it from Amazon anymore, its entire page was deleted as if it never existed. But I can see your point where it shouldn't be included on the list. The sources are the same as List of unreleased Britney Spears songs, so I'm confused. Can you please elaborate? --MrIndustry (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have added more reliable sources such as Entertainment Weekly and MTV.--MrIndustry (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: can the admin who closes this please analyse the discussion based on citing policy and guideline. The last Afd should have resulted in delete as none of the keep !voters linked to either, and this discussion looks like it's heading the same way. Till 02:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering we're giving valid reasons why it shouldn't be deleted and proving you guys wrong on countless occasions should deem this nomination a speedy keep and close. You guys claimed no notable sources and I give you MTV and EW and a few others. Britney Spears' unreleased songs are NOT notable whatsoever and Lana's are. Has Britney ever performed an unreleased song? Nope. Time to move on and leave this article alone. And can you please give me one GOOD/VALID EXCUSE as to why we should delete an article that is informative and helpful and ACTIVE and is NOWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET?--MrIndustry (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You and teammathi both have been suggesting that the article be kept for reasons that are not at all supported by Wikipedia's policies. An article being "active" really doesn't mean anything. This information being "nowhere else on the internet" also shows that no one in serious discussion has found a need to completely catalogue every single song written or performed by Elizabeth Grant under her various pseudonyms or bands, which means Wikipedia shouldn't likely either. And we didn't claim "no notable sources". We claimed "no reliable sources", as everything (including those Entertainment Weekly and MTV articles) is being sourced back to bootleg copies on YouTube. Those sites don't particularly state those songs are of critical note. They simply point out that recordings exist. Till, Richhoncho, and I are all providing reasons based on our knowledge on Wikipedia's content policies. You are acting as a rabid fan who wants to use this end of Wikipedia as a fansite dedicated to everything Lana Del Rey and are incensed that someone dare try to take down your pet project. Perusing your article edits, I'm finding that almost half of them are in regards to the list in its time on the discography page and in its current incarnation. You need to take a step back and look at things objectively, rather than through the lens of adoration of the subject. I like her music (under Lana Del Rey), but I do not find this massive page at all useful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think you're getting a little personal, Ryulong?
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Recordings says : "Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I do think that criterion has been met.
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Resources says: "To find ownership information on song texts copyrighted in the US, the ASCAP ACE Title Search and BMI Repertoire Search utilities are invaluable." 23 of the songs are registered on ASCAP, 12 songs are registered on BMI.
Wikipedia:Notability (music)#If the subject is not notable says: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves." The article is constantly being updated. teammathi 10:57, 21 August 2012 (CET)- It's not personal when I mention the only two editors who have been constantly updating the page and are vehemently opposing its removal from the site. You're ignoring the word "significant". Finding things under ASCAP or BMI does not denote notability, it's only useful for finding ownership. And just because an article is constantly being updated (in this case the discovery of more and more bootleg recordings of unreleased songs) does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. You are picking out phrases on the page to suit your side without acknowledging the full scope of the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're completely ignoring the fact that I said I sourced MTV and Entertainment Weekly and a few other reliable sources. Can you shut up with the notable because it obviously is..--MrIndustry (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not making critical commentary. Fine. You found two whole reliable sources to source the existence of only 4 songs out of the 50 or so on the page. The only one that's remotely notable for coverage out of them is Ghetto Baby, which doesn't even have its own article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two? Hello? Go look again and I had previous reliable sources such as Ryan Seacrest which you ignored. Some are critical, some are not. Either way she's still notable enough to have it written about.--MrIndustry (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not Elizabeth Grant as Lana Del Rey is notable for coverage has no bearing on whether or not her entire unreleased catalog should be discussed on Wikipedia. And this edit summary shows that you are no longer worth arguing with on this topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should any unreleased material list be on Wikipedia then? You're constantly changing why it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. You also claimed someone was condescending in the other Lana AFD when they weren't. You just made a condescending comment towards me. --MrIndustry (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not Elizabeth Grant as Lana Del Rey is notable for coverage has no bearing on whether or not her entire unreleased catalog should be discussed on Wikipedia. And this edit summary shows that you are no longer worth arguing with on this topic.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two? Hello? Go look again and I had previous reliable sources such as Ryan Seacrest which you ignored. Some are critical, some are not. Either way she's still notable enough to have it written about.--MrIndustry (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not making critical commentary. Fine. You found two whole reliable sources to source the existence of only 4 songs out of the 50 or so on the page. The only one that's remotely notable for coverage out of them is Ghetto Baby, which doesn't even have its own article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're completely ignoring the fact that I said I sourced MTV and Entertainment Weekly and a few other reliable sources. Can you shut up with the notable because it obviously is..--MrIndustry (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not personal when I mention the only two editors who have been constantly updating the page and are vehemently opposing its removal from the site. You're ignoring the word "significant". Finding things under ASCAP or BMI does not denote notability, it's only useful for finding ownership. And just because an article is constantly being updated (in this case the discovery of more and more bootleg recordings of unreleased songs) does not mean it's worthy of inclusion. You are picking out phrases on the page to suit your side without acknowledging the full scope of the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think you're getting a little personal, Ryulong?
- You and teammathi both have been suggesting that the article be kept for reasons that are not at all supported by Wikipedia's policies. An article being "active" really doesn't mean anything. This information being "nowhere else on the internet" also shows that no one in serious discussion has found a need to completely catalogue every single song written or performed by Elizabeth Grant under her various pseudonyms or bands, which means Wikipedia shouldn't likely either. And we didn't claim "no notable sources". We claimed "no reliable sources", as everything (including those Entertainment Weekly and MTV articles) is being sourced back to bootleg copies on YouTube. Those sites don't particularly state those songs are of critical note. They simply point out that recordings exist. Till, Richhoncho, and I are all providing reasons based on our knowledge on Wikipedia's content policies. You are acting as a rabid fan who wants to use this end of Wikipedia as a fansite dedicated to everything Lana Del Rey and are incensed that someone dare try to take down your pet project. Perusing your article edits, I'm finding that almost half of them are in regards to the list in its time on the discography page and in its current incarnation. You need to take a step back and look at things objectively, rather than through the lens of adoration of the subject. I like her music (under Lana Del Rey), but I do not find this massive page at all useful.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering we're giving valid reasons why it shouldn't be deleted and proving you guys wrong on countless occasions should deem this nomination a speedy keep and close. You guys claimed no notable sources and I give you MTV and EW and a few others. Britney Spears' unreleased songs are NOT notable whatsoever and Lana's are. Has Britney ever performed an unreleased song? Nope. Time to move on and leave this article alone. And can you please give me one GOOD/VALID EXCUSE as to why we should delete an article that is informative and helpful and ACTIVE and is NOWHERE ELSE ON THE INTERNET?--MrIndustry (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said in the other nomination, merge with List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey. Statυs (talk) 04:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that AFD is kept as keep, I would agree that any content from this article concerning songs that Ms. Grant performs at concerts under the name "Lana Del Rey", which are supported to be performed as "Lana Del Rey" by reliable sources, should probably move there. However, there is no way that the page as it stands should be kept, and I fear that a merge (just turning it into a redirect) will not be sufficient, as it will allow for the re-creation as it still exists in the page history.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This should be kept because this resource is a wealth of knowledge for those interested in Ms. Grant's discography. I think this list only adds value to the entry of Lana Del Rey as it shows her dedication to her songwriting.--DDrdashing (talk) DDRdashing (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — DDRdashing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - Notable list. Great sources for the list. I also have to say that I find the bickering above entertaining but totally ridiculous from both sides.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are 80 posts on YouTube, Soundcloud, and fansites "great sources"?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've solved this problem. Seriously, MrIndustry? You thought that directly linking to an MP3 hosted illegally on Tumblr was a good idea to use as a source? This whole page is garbage. I've only managed to leave links to the reliable source entertainment news sites, ASCAP, BMI, Harry Fox archives, and even then the news sites and BMI links are the only ones that are working.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the only one sourcing and I'd rather an admin make the decision if we should keep direct links to the piece. The source shows the item exists on YouTube. If they're worried about it, they'll contact YouTube to remove it. I'm not sure why you're so mad at Lana Del Rey.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to have an admin make a decision. YouTube and other social networking sites are not reliable sources, unless it is an official account owned by the subject. There is no reason for you to have reverted my removal of all those invalid sources and adding {{dead link}} to every dead link. And I am not mad at Lana Del Rey. I have previously said somewhere (in this debate or the other one) that I enjoy her music. It's just that this article is so incredibly poorly constructed that it should not be on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously user Ryulong your very confronting editing style is not appreciated from me. You need to relax and stop attacking people who simply do not agree with your perception of what is and what is not notable. And the fact that you started a edit-war on this article isnt exactly something I appreciate either to be perfectly honest. You need to relax. Just being real.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are not acceptable and I'm almost certain that they cannot be used per WP:BLP. More than half of the article is sourced to recordings posted on YouTube, Soundcloud, Vimeo, fan blogs on Tumblr, and other fansites. Those should not be used on any Wikipedia article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of you need to stop edit-warring now. It is starting to look ridiculous with both of you throwing accusations and claims against each other. Stop now before it gets completely out of hand. And let the AfDs run its courses. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I self reverted, but went back to remove links to blogs, add dead link templates to dead links, and then used reflinks to fill in the references properly (several URLs were put right up against the title of the page which made the links broken, and it also showed other deadlinks). There are still 50 external links on this article that should not be there.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:55, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of you need to stop edit-warring now. It is starting to look ridiculous with both of you throwing accusations and claims against each other. Stop now before it gets completely out of hand. And let the AfDs run its courses. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are not acceptable and I'm almost certain that they cannot be used per WP:BLP. More than half of the article is sourced to recordings posted on YouTube, Soundcloud, Vimeo, fan blogs on Tumblr, and other fansites. Those should not be used on any Wikipedia article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously user Ryulong your very confronting editing style is not appreciated from me. You need to relax and stop attacking people who simply do not agree with your perception of what is and what is not notable. And the fact that you started a edit-war on this article isnt exactly something I appreciate either to be perfectly honest. You need to relax. Just being real.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no reason to have an admin make a decision. YouTube and other social networking sites are not reliable sources, unless it is an official account owned by the subject. There is no reason for you to have reverted my removal of all those invalid sources and adding {{dead link}} to every dead link. And I am not mad at Lana Del Rey. I have previously said somewhere (in this debate or the other one) that I enjoy her music. It's just that this article is so incredibly poorly constructed that it should not be on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not the only one sourcing and I'd rather an admin make the decision if we should keep direct links to the piece. The source shows the item exists on YouTube. If they're worried about it, they'll contact YouTube to remove it. I'm not sure why you're so mad at Lana Del Rey.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with extreme prejudice - A large number of the refs are deal/rotten links, the youtube ones are utterly useless, since Youtube is not considered a reliable source, and with that many unusable links, the article violates BLP. This needs to either go, now, and quickly, or be userfied back to the contributors page so that they can repair it and fix the utterly devastating fall-apart that is the references section. FishBarking? 23:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Clearly a case of "needs improvements and not deletion". So not a reason for deletion if the article subject is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no improvement to make because the article is in no way salvagable. We can't use a fan's illegal upload as a reliable source, which is all there appears to be.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, BubbaQ, but I'm back Ryulong on this one. We cannot use material from Youtube, because it is user generated content, and most of the music videos uploaded are in direct violation of copyright - therefore, all the Youtube sources need to be removed from the article immediately, which reduces the references.
- Then we have the dead links, which are broken and go absolutely nowhere - so now we're down to a point that not everything in the article is referenced - which violates BLP - anything included in a BLP must be properly sourced and referenced, or it can be challenged and removed.
- So at this point, what we have is an article with a rapidly decreasing amount of references, which violates a strict site policy, it's in a condition which in medical terms I'd describe as "Critical". If it had a Do Not Resuscitate order on it, I'd obey it :P FishBarking? 23:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here. Clearly a case of "needs improvements and not deletion". So not a reason for deletion if the article subject is notable. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the main argument against this article seems to be that the subject isn't notable enough, or there aren't enough reliable sources. This is a fair argument but it seems to be one that is going nowhere. I'd say the notability of Lana Del Rey's unreleased discography is unclear, but that doesn't warrant deletion. ("For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort"). I think at this point deleting the article which is so detailed would be a waste, so at least merging the content here with something else, (I saw someone mention a list of Del Rey's songs) would really be the last resort. I genuinely feel deleting the article would remove good information because no one can be bothered to find the right sources. Why not preserve the article and fix the problem? 94.169.100.224 (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the sourcing is so poor that there is nothing to preserve. It's a list of any song that can be tenuously linked to having been performed or written at some time by Elizabeth Grant a.k.a. Lana Del Rey. They are not even all songs written or performed under the Lana Del Rey moniker. The level of detail is unimportant. You can create a massively detailed page about anything on Wikipedia, but that does not mean we need to cover it. Half of the article is sourced to YouTube or similar sites and the other half after that is sourced to a bunch of rotten links. This is not acceptable by any chance, and much of it appears to be based on assumptions (I've never seen mention of a rerelease of her major debut that includes some of the songs on the list).—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this IP's first ever edit was to the article in question, and now it suddenly returns after no edits in a month to this page, which is somewhat telling.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my last comment to your ridiculous claims, but assumption means they're assumptions. If a song has leaked, it's not an assumption. It has LEAKED. It's a FACT. The Born to Die: Paradise Edition has a few assumptions, but the songs still EXIST. Some of the sources for Paradise Edition include song titles. Now can we stop sounding like broken records and only respond when there's something NEW to talk about?--MrIndustry (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had promised myself to stay quiet, but copyright is quite a serious issue at WP. Mr. Industry, please be good enough to read WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. I'm out of here again. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get my point. You can remove the YouTube sources, but the songs still exist so saying a list is made up of assumptions is ridiculous. The songs have been leaked, they're fact, not assumptions. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but I do get it. I asked you to read a guideline without any comment whatsoever about notability, assumptions or anything else. I did not try to make any other point. I didn't even suggest that you would have to act on what you read. Did you bother to read the guideline? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I already spoke to an admin about it yesterday. I never spoke about keeping the YouTube links on there after that. I simply corrected his use of the word assumption.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the offending sources, again, in regards to WP:LINKVIO, which is a policy and not a guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I already spoke to an admin about it yesterday. I never spoke about keeping the YouTube links on there after that. I simply corrected his use of the word assumption.--MrIndustry (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, but I do get it. I asked you to read a guideline without any comment whatsoever about notability, assumptions or anything else. I did not try to make any other point. I didn't even suggest that you would have to act on what you read. Did you bother to read the guideline? --Richhoncho (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't get my point. You can remove the YouTube sources, but the songs still exist so saying a list is made up of assumptions is ridiculous. The songs have been leaked, they're fact, not assumptions. --MrIndustry (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I had promised myself to stay quiet, but copyright is quite a serious issue at WP. Mr. Industry, please be good enough to read WP:SONG#Lyrics and music videos. I'm out of here again. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is my last comment to your ridiculous claims, but assumption means they're assumptions. If a song has leaked, it's not an assumption. It has LEAKED. It's a FACT. The Born to Die: Paradise Edition has a few assumptions, but the songs still EXIST. Some of the sources for Paradise Edition include song titles. Now can we stop sounding like broken records and only respond when there's something NEW to talk about?--MrIndustry (talk) 19:54, 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 no consensus. It appears from the discussion that the real questions here need to be answered somewhere other than AfD. If the concern is that this is partially duplicated, I recommend a formal merge discussion. If the concern is that no articles of this type should exist, then we need a centralized discussion (on either a WikiProject or somewhere in the Village Pump). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey[edit]
- List of songs recorded by Lana Del Rey (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 just a list duplicating the content of the three articles on the album releases by Lana Del Rey. No other musician has a page that just lists the songs, and was solely created as a result of another AFD in an attempt to find a better place to move other content. —Ryulong (琉竜) 08:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom before we have a "list of songs" article for every artist who releases more than a solitary song. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Too late; see: Category:Songs by artist. RJH (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and close Did the nominator seriously just claim no other musician has a list of songs article? May I direct them to Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers? There's around 350 or so of the same type of lists. I know a lot of people say "lol" and they aren't actually laughing out loud, but I actually am right now. You got a better reason why the list should be deleted that is an actual reason an article should be deleted? Statυs (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete— an unremarkable list that duplicates items found in the album articles. Till 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the list is in bad shape doesn't mean it should be deleted. Statυs (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm laughing at this ridiculous nomination. Why exactly should this page be deleted? Category:Lists of songs by authors or performers--MrIndustry (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For an artist with only one major label release, this list is pretty much unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so now the list is "unnecessary"? I thought this was nominated for deletion because no such other article exists. Very strange. Statυs (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you stop being so condescending? I will accept that I was wrong that there are other articles of this type. However, as it stands, it is simply a duplication of the track lists on her two EPs and two LPs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ageed. Try to assume good faith first, being condescending rarely results in a satisfactory discussion. Till 02:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite frankly, you've given no valid reason for deletion, which is annoying. Statυs (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Condescending and telling you that you're completely wrong are two different things. You say one thing and change it when you know you're wrong. Can you please explain what "List of songs" is supposed to be? Since obviously it's not supposed to include songs that are on an album. This nomination needs to be closed asap.--MrIndustry (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite frankly, you've given no valid reason for deletion, which is annoying. Statυs (talk) 03:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ageed. Try to assume good faith first, being condescending rarely results in a satisfactory discussion. Till 02:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you stop being so condescending? I will accept that I was wrong that there are other articles of this type. However, as it stands, it is simply a duplication of the track lists on her two EPs and two LPs.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, so now the list is "unnecessary"? I thought this was nominated for deletion because no such other article exists. Very strange. Statυs (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For an artist with only one major label release, this list is pretty much unnecessary.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless the contents of List of unreleased Lana Del Rey songs are added in here (I assume that the songs in that list are actually "recorded," too.). Then this will become a useful reference for all LDR songs rather than splitting because some contributors are more interested in creating article space than worthwhile content. As creator of List of songs written by Bob Dylan I can assure you there are more unreleased songs in that list than songs LDR has recorded in toto and, probably one of those unreleased songs would get more Ghits that the whole of the unreleased LDR --Richhoncho (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I'd like to see happen, but voting delete unless is rather silly, in my opinion. What if they aren't added? What would be your reason to delete? Statυs (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for delete is as a list of (released) recorded songs is all rather pointless and unnecessary - there is nothing new or different included (hence my comment about article title -v- article content) that isn't included elsewhere. If the supporters of the unreleased article had noted what you and I suggested we would not be wasting time with this AfD --Richhoncho (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the songs on the unreleased page were not ever recorded. They were performed live.--MrIndustry (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unrecorded songs? How trivial!!! You should appreciate that we are supposed to be building an encyclopedia, not a fansite for every every song performed by this or any other artist. Your comment above should read as "delete with extreme prejudice" --Richhoncho (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the songs on the unreleased page were not ever recorded. They were performed live.--MrIndustry (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason for delete is as a list of (released) recorded songs is all rather pointless and unnecessary - there is nothing new or different included (hence my comment about article title -v- article content) that isn't included elsewhere. If the supporters of the unreleased article had noted what you and I suggested we would not be wasting time with this AfD --Richhoncho (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I'd like to see happen, but voting delete unless is rather silly, in my opinion. What if they aren't added? What would be your reason to delete? Statυs (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Richhoncho, you're in the wrong AFD. I asked why this list should be deleted. Statυs (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Status, I shall repeat, The reason for delete is as a list of (released) recorded songs (it) is all rather pointless and unnecessary - there is nothing new or different included that isn't included elsewhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I would second user Status arguments for Keep. By quoting Status, Did the nominator seriously just claim no other musician has a list of songs article? Yeah seriously?.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that there was a precedent for creating lists of songs, when discographies surely sufficed and when "lists of songs" usually just include songs written by the artist, rather than duplicating a discography listing, which is how the page appeared initially.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should NOT be nominating things you don't know about then.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy or guideline that states that. Just because I was not aware of the other articles before does not make this list any less useless on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been using Wikipedia that long and I still know that most artists have a list of songs. So I'm not sure why you're going around nominating articles and saying they don't exist when there's hundreds of them. You are targeting Lana Del Rey and I have no idea why.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not targetting Lana Del Rey. I'm only targetting these articles because they are not in line with the rest of the content of Wikipedia. Just because they both happen to be about Lana Del Rey is a coincidence.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so you're admitting that you only nominated these articles because they're not in good shape? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that's an appropriate reason to delete an article.MrIndustry (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an appropriate reason when they do not fit in with what is acceptable content on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please stop changing why you don't think this article is fit for wikipedia. Thank you.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The list of unreleased songs with more than half of the references pointing to bootlegs on YouTube and other websites? Not acceptable. The other quarter of the references pointing to search results in databases? Not acceptable. This list of songs that's just duplicating the very small released discography? Not acceptable. These two particular pages have no place on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate if you stopped using "lol" in your edit summaries because it shows that you are not here to work on a serious encyclopedia and you are only trying to make sure that Wikipedia keeps this massive walled garden of any song ever released by an artist that I've already told you at least 3 times now that I am a fan of, but not clearly as much of a fan as you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey guys, stop edit-warring on both the actual article and on the articles AfD now before you both get out of hand completely. It will only lead to misery for one or both of you. Just move on. This is starting to look ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stopped reverting because there was no point and it seems he's fixing some of the sources now.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey guys, stop edit-warring on both the actual article and on the articles AfD now before you both get out of hand completely. It will only lead to misery for one or both of you. Just move on. This is starting to look ridiculous. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. The list of unreleased songs with more than half of the references pointing to bootlegs on YouTube and other websites? Not acceptable. The other quarter of the references pointing to search results in databases? Not acceptable. This list of songs that's just duplicating the very small released discography? Not acceptable. These two particular pages have no place on Wikipedia, and I would appreciate if you stopped using "lol" in your edit summaries because it shows that you are not here to work on a serious encyclopedia and you are only trying to make sure that Wikipedia keeps this massive walled garden of any song ever released by an artist that I've already told you at least 3 times now that I am a fan of, but not clearly as much of a fan as you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please stop changing why you don't think this article is fit for wikipedia. Thank you.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an appropriate reason when they do not fit in with what is acceptable content on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, so you're admitting that you only nominated these articles because they're not in good shape? Correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think that's an appropriate reason to delete an article.MrIndustry (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not targetting Lana Del Rey. I'm only targetting these articles because they are not in line with the rest of the content of Wikipedia. Just because they both happen to be about Lana Del Rey is a coincidence.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't been using Wikipedia that long and I still know that most artists have a list of songs. So I'm not sure why you're going around nominating articles and saying they don't exist when there's hundreds of them. You are targeting Lana Del Rey and I have no idea why.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no policy or guideline that states that. Just because I was not aware of the other articles before does not make this list any less useless on Wikipedia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You should NOT be nominating things you don't know about then.--MrIndustry (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not aware that there was a precedent for creating lists of songs, when discographies surely sufficed and when "lists of songs" usually just include songs written by the artist, rather than duplicating a discography listing, which is how the page appeared initially.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:56, 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. No prejudice against creating List of Indian tennis players as a traditional list article. -Scottywong| comment _ 21:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indian tennis players[edit]
- Indian tennis players (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)
A baseless list. What are the criteria of inclusion and therefore exclusion? This is not a historical list like List of English cricket and football players or List of Israel international footballers. Wikipedia is not a directory. — Bill william comptonTalk 05:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename List of Indian tennis players and delete their performances and rankings. It's not Wikipedia's job to track them, as a group, in every non-major tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarityfiend (talk • contribs)
- Delete a bit of hodge podge of ideas would really be better starting again as a straight List of Indian tennis players. MilborneOne (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think this list serves no purpose whatsoever on Wikipedia.--Zananiri (talk) 10:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Some of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of professional tennis players from India (which resulted in delete on 7 April 2011) are applicable here: "While the topic is a legitimate one for a list, the article as currently written is poorly formatted and organized. ... -- Metropolitan90." We do have Category:Indian tennis players, but that doesn't list all indian tennis players in one location, so this topic may have some value in Wikipedia. I didn't find any other "nationality intersected with tennis" list articles deleted, but I don't know whether we have any nationality intersected with tennis list articles. For example, there's no List of Australian tennis players. Category:Lists of tennis players seems to be limited to players in specific tennis events. If a List of Indian tennis players list looked more like List of female tennis players but with references, I think it could be a keeper. However, like in the AfD for List of professional tennis players from India, I think the topic still needs to wait for someone who can format and organize. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 27 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) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Annus Horribilis Project[edit]
- The Annus Horribilis Project (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)
Apparently unremarkable arts project - aim is to compile a book based on public submissions with no publication date set yet (despite project starting in 2007). Mostly sourced to project's own publicity material. Would be likely candidate for speedy deletion except there is some press sourcing. TheGrappler (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search for any variation of the title doesn't bring up any signs of notability for this project, finished or not. This is ultimately an overly promotional page for a project that never seems to have gotten off the ground. There is zero notability here. I'd almost suggest a redirect to the artist's page, but it looks like he's having notability issues as well.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having checked author's contributions: turns out that this was originally made at Article for Creation, and declined as a potential speedy deletion candidate. I would have speedied except for the offline reference which I took as an assertion of notability (albeit one I disagree with). TheGrappler (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, only substantive edits are by a single editor who has contributed to no other articles. That may not be a formal cause for deletion, but it smacks of WP:PROMO and probably WP:COI. Dave.Dunford (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 20:24, 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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clixtr[edit]
- Clixtr (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. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - reliable sources here, here, here and here (just about) seem to assert notability. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As this article is an abomination of company and service, there are two subjects to discuss:
- Service: all the references I could find are clearly connected with the launch event of the service, which is what "multiple sources" was not supposed to mean. Given the content of these news items, I doubt if anyone could tell a difference between this particular service and, say, Flickr or Google Picasa, so the references are clearly lacking depth. I would add that I have no doubts that this coverage is paid promotion, which would invalidate it for the purposes of establishing notability.
- Company: absolutely nothing to suggest notability, just the startup announcement, which itself is covered not as such, but as an event during TechCrunch50.
- I would specifically note, that if this article survives AfD, it should be cleaned of the company-related information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The sources that are readily available all seem to cover just the launch announcement or basic existence, so that doesn't help with WP:ORG. The product/service offered may be significant enough to meet WP:NSOFT, but it is not evident at this time (right now it seems to be more in the order of WP:MILL). If someone can improve the article with more in-depth knowledge I am open to revise, but right now I don't see it. -- BenTels (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep –
The topic of this stub articleThis company meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG:
- Clixtr Wins Social Networking Category at Emerging Tech Awards - Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal article
- TechCrunch Clixtr Web Launch Announcement - Techcrunch article
- TechCrunch50 Launch Article - Techcrunch article
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 08:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of this article's topics do you refer to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Revised !vote above to clarify: This company meets WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of this article's topics do you refer to? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete for sheer low quality as an article.
- As that isn't strict policy though (I wish!), then it would appear to scrape basic notability on its 2009 award. That's a lifetime ago in dotcom years though, and if they haven't seen meteoric success since then, then are they at all relevant today? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please read WP:NTEMP in entirety. Also, topic notability is based upon sources, and not upon the state of Wikipedia articles. Period. Please consider reading WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Suggestions to remove articles from the encyclopedia that are not based upon Wikipedia deletion policy and notability guidelines are essentially invalid. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually WP:NTEMP suggests that coverage in relation to single event does not contribute to notability, which is Andy's point. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, please read WP:NTEMP in entirety. Also, topic notability is based upon sources, and not upon the state of Wikipedia articles. Period. Please consider reading WP:IMPERFECT and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Suggestions to remove articles from the encyclopedia that are not based upon Wikipedia deletion policy and notability guidelines are essentially invalid. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:35, 19 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 03:44, 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. Consensus is that the list only requires improvement through normal cleanup. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maryland state senate delegations[edit]
- Maryland state senate delegations (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 should be either merged or deleted, since it is non-encyclopedic. and is only a long list of politicians, most of them red link pages. The chart goes out of bounds. Tinton5 (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- As Almanac-type material; currently red-linked or not, Wikipedia recognizes de facto notability for all elected state legislators, and if 1 of the 47 was appointed and no article is ever created, I don't see how deleting the chamber in toto improves the project. Dru of Id (talk) 06:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is this article intended as a break-out article from Maryland Senate? I.e. for use with a template:see also-hatnote? Because I can certainly see the validity of the article in that role (although it needs sources first). -- BenTels (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment (userfy) - Encyclopedic list with useful navigational function. That said, the layout needs to be made vertical rather than horizontal. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title also needs to be tweaked: List of members of the Maryland State Senate for the 2011-2012 session or some such. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see the problem... this is just the START of a tabular list. I seriously doubt that they have a 4 year session in Maryland, more likely 2 year sessions with staggered elections, so it looks to me that this needs to be userfied as Not Ready For Primetime. Also, to repeat, the session dates should run on the X axis and the districts on the Y access so that the orientation is vertical. I'd also suggest that having one page for each session is probably the way to approach things without it becoming Too Much Too Much. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the work of a new content creator here, I dropped them a line offering to help. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what the creator is trying to do for the Maryland Senate: Virginia state senate delegations. It's an interesting way to present the information, political science-wise... Carrite (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the work of a new content creator here, I dropped them a line offering to help. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I see the problem... this is just the START of a tabular list. I seriously doubt that they have a 4 year session in Maryland, more likely 2 year sessions with staggered elections, so it looks to me that this needs to be userfied as Not Ready For Primetime. Also, to repeat, the session dates should run on the X axis and the districts on the Y access so that the orientation is vertical. I'd also suggest that having one page for each session is probably the way to approach things without it becoming Too Much Too Much. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Title also needs to be tweaked: List of members of the Maryland State Senate for the 2011-2012 session or some such. Carrite (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or userfy. As Carrite notes, this is a start of a tabular list. More complete lists of this type exist for Virgina and Massachusetts. This list may not be ready for prime time, but it has encyclopedic value. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - could be cleaned up. Redlinks are irrelevant. Nearly all of those people are notable and should have articles. Savidan 04:03, 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. While Unscintillating keeps asserting that there are hundreds of sources, xe has not produced even one that meets the requirements set forth in WP:GNG, and the concerns of the nomination have not been met. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eipass[edit]
- Eipass (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)
no indication of WP:notability. No independent WP:reliable sources given and google searches not finding anything significant. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources can be found. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources exist, but you have to be ready to go to at least the third page of Google hits. Note that the nominator should have mentioned that this topic is covered on the Italian Wikipedia. According to this Italian source, "The Eipass Certificate is one of the 4 international certificates recognized at European level..." Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That link is to a company offering the test. In fact, almost every google hit I found that was not facebook, twitter, youtube, vimeo etc was from someone trying to sell it. And for what is supposed to be an international certificate it seems to be only marketed in Italy and one Kosovan website. I am not finding anything written about it in independent sources. noq (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I am reading, Politea is an association of social scientists, not a "company". Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well it explicitly states "The Politea Association is an EI-Center, an Eipass licensed Center, where you can take exams and attend training courses to obtain the Eipass Certificate ( or European Informatics Passport), with all solutions that Politea Association offers." I cannot find anything other than sites offering it, mentioning it.
- From what I am reading, Politea is an association of social scientists, not a "company". Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not in Italy or Kosovo, so I've never heard of this certificate before. Nonetheless, what I'm seeing is that this is something that started with the European Union Council and the actual authority for the EIPASS certificate comes from an Italian government ministry, Ministry of Education, University and Research. Unscintillating (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are you seeing that? noq (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the Italian Wikipedia article? Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one? The one you linked to above which does not mention it or the eipass article which is sourced entirely to a primary source? Either way, it does not help the case. noq (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:BEFORE step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." Following this procedure yields: Italiano. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is sourced entirely to the company website. And a Wiki is not itself a WP:reliable source. noq (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So have you read the Italian Wikipedia article? Unscintillating (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is sourced entirely to the company website. And a Wiki is not itself a WP:reliable source. noq (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:BEFORE step B6, "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better sourced articles." Following this procedure yields: Italiano. Unscintillating (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which one? The one you linked to above which does not mention it or the eipass article which is sourced entirely to a primary source? Either way, it does not help the case. noq (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the Italian Wikipedia article? Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where are you seeing that? noq (talk) 08:07, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Every hit on at least the first three pages of this Google search: [site:.it EIPASS] has "EIPASS" in the title of the article. Here are two of the first few in Google translate: [27] [28] Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 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 03:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment: So far since the original relisting, a lot of conversation but no actual new opinions on keep or delete... - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This is a rather unimpressive, commercial certificate that (in its most general capacity) certifies that you've had some training in front office software. It was created and is offered by only one company. There are very few sources for it because it is not very widely offered or very sought-after by employers (again, it basically means you can work on the reception desk for a company). And any claims to involvements with European programs are overstated; the Committee launched a recommendation (here it is) for member states to do something about life-long learning in the digital competences area. Certpass is trying to claim to be doing that with EIpass. -- BenTels (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that encyclopedias care if a topic is "impressive", toilet seats are a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic topic. As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." That is, unless you want to argue to the "worthy of notice" clause of WP:N. I.e., that even if WP:GNG is satisfied, the consequent "presumption" of notability is still insufficient due to special circumstances. But arguing that there are "very few sources" seems to be an argument that WP:GNG is not satisfied. And this is something I don't understand, I've already shown that 30 out of 30 webpages for the search [site:.it EIPASS] have EIPASS in the title of the article. I checked the next page and I can now say that 40 out of 40 of these sources have EIPASS in the title of the article. How many more sources are needed? Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as most of those google hits are to youtube, vimeo, facebook and the eipass website that is not really very useful. And the others are from sites offering it so they are not independent. noq (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are zero youtube, zero facebook, and zero vimeo sites in that search, how do you explain that? Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you post the search you are using. Clicking find sources above shows lots of youtube, vimeo, facebook etc links. How are you not getting them? noq (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted it twice already, but here is a URL that does the same: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.it+EIPASS Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As before, all I am seeing from these are places offering courses that include it. No one that is not involved in selling it seems to be covering it. noq (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 594 hits after those 39. Could it be that because there are so many sites that offer it, it is hard to use Google to find sources that only talk about it? Surely you aren't claiming that even though hundreds of sites offer it, it is not "worthy of notice" to be on Wikipedia? Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As before, all I am seeing from these are places offering courses that include it. No one that is not involved in selling it seems to be covering it. noq (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted it twice already, but here is a URL that does the same: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.it+EIPASS Unscintillating (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you post the search you are using. Clicking find sources above shows lots of youtube, vimeo, facebook etc links. How are you not getting them? noq (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are zero youtube, zero facebook, and zero vimeo sites in that search, how do you explain that? Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as most of those google hits are to youtube, vimeo, facebook and the eipass website that is not really very useful. And the others are from sites offering it so they are not independent. noq (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that encyclopedias care if a topic is "impressive", toilet seats are a perfectly legitimate encyclopedic topic. As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity..." That is, unless you want to argue to the "worthy of notice" clause of WP:N. I.e., that even if WP:GNG is satisfied, the consequent "presumption" of notability is still insufficient due to special circumstances. But arguing that there are "very few sources" seems to be an argument that WP:GNG is not satisfied. And this is something I don't understand, I've already shown that 30 out of 30 webpages for the search [site:.it EIPASS] have EIPASS in the title of the article. I checked the next page and I can now say that 40 out of 40 of these sources have EIPASS in the title of the article. How many more sources are needed? Unscintillating (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here is a book:
<ref name="PepeCaruso2012"> {{cite book | author1 = Mauro Schiano di Pepe | author2 = Marco Caruso | author3 = Diego Ettari | title = Computer certification guide. Manuale propedeutico al conseguimento della certificazione informatica Eipass. Con CD-ROM | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=WPeDtwAACAAJ | accessdate = 2012-08-19 | year = 2012 | publisher = S.E.F. (Napoli) | isbn = 978-88-97245-04-9 }}</ref>
- The translation of the title in Google translate is Manual prerequisite to obtaining certification Eipass computer. Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This book seems to have been published by a company that have not published anything else. And yes, hundreds of google hits are not significant - I can google my own name and get hundreds of hits - none of which makes me notable. The article makes claims about being a European recognized qualification but nothing backs that up. The only refs you are coming up with are sites selling it. noq (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at all 633 sites? What is your basis for saying that all of the sites are selling it? Have you read the Italian Wikipedia web site? Unscintillating (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This book seems to have been published by a company that have not published anything else. And yes, hundreds of google hits are not significant - I can google my own name and get hundreds of hits - none of which makes me notable. The article makes claims about being a European recognized qualification but nothing backs that up. The only refs you are coming up with are sites selling it. noq (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, no I have not - have you? But the large sample I have looked at have been selling it (my default page size on google shows 100 results, not 10). Can you provide some that are not? And your question about the Italian Wikipedia article, of course I have read it - or at least the google translation of it - otherwise I could not dismiss it as being sourced entirely to the company providing it. noq (talk) 23:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response. (BTW, the sourcing can be obtained by looking at the Italian version.) Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at dozens of links. I found two that were not selling it, but they were both involved in the distribution and recommendation of the service. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that we have an article on European Computer Driving Licence. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 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 merge to Demographics of Ghana. Though there have been some arguments for keeping the article in this discussion and in the previous AfD debate, none of them have been based on Wikipedia's deletion policy, and so I have placed very little weight on them in my decision. After looking at the "delete" and "merge" !votes, I see a weak consensus to merge. (Ignorant Armies's !vote is for "delete", but seems to be arguing for a merge.) I would like to caution the participants that only material that can be cited to a reliable source should be merged, however, as all material on Wikipedia must comply with the verifiability policy. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
White Ghanaian[edit]
- White Ghanaian (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)
Renominating as not notable; more input needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to Ghanaians of European ancestry There was a previous Afd here less than 1 day ago already. A suggestion to rename this article was made and I think this is reasonable. This is my final comment on this AfD. --Artene50 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you address the issue of there being absolutely no sources that support the notability claim? How do you support your rename, where are your sources for that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I participated in that debate and my delete nomination still stands. I agree with the nominator. The notability of this article is questionable as stated in that discussion. In my opinion, that discussion was perhaps closed too soon, and a rather quick decision reached. If the closer believed concensus was not clear, perhaps relisting would have been better than closing. I was also surprised it was closed the way it was and was thinking of making a query to the closer, but I've been busy. In that respect, I can understand why the nom decided to renominate. Tamsier (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are some people of European ancestry in Ghana, Kenya, Uganda, Zimbabwe. All I'm saying is that one shouldn't deny their existence because they do exist. If those in Ghana are called White Ghanaians, perhaps a simple renaming to the suggested new article name is better. But do we need sources for their existence? I would think not in this general case when there are some Ghananians of European descent who exist. This is not a hoax. This is definitely my final statement here. Goodbye, --Artene50 (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We need sources for someone's or some group's notability; just like last time, your !vote seems to be "they exist." I exist. You exist. As does your neighbor. Doesn't mean we are to be written about on wikipedia. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 15:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 15:39, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources to suggest this article is notable. Any useful information can be merged to Demographics of Ghana (and there isn't a lot of it). Ignorant Armies (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Demographics of Ghana. There is already way too much WP:OTHERCRAP listed on Wiki. Since a "White Ghanaian" is by default a matter of demographics, lets put the stat where it belongs. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:10, 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 03:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Яεñ99. Belongs in the main article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ) (cont) Join WER 15:43, 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) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC) This page should never have been removed![reply]
It is very usefull for people who want to build a trex of a specific type/version, and is far from promotional; it is very useful and needed info! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.166.179.62 (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
T-Rex (RC helicopter)[edit]
- T-Rex (RC helicopter) (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)
Declined PROD. Ironically, the PROD decliner provided even more of a reason for deletion... My original rationaile for prodding is that this line of model aircraft does not meet the notability standards for a Wikipedia article, in addition to smelling somewhat promotional. The editor who removed the prod gave the following edit summary:
"I have removed the request for deletion, as this is a single source regarding specific models not found elsewhere on the web or the manufacturers site"
...which implies that large portions of the article may be unverifiable original research in addition to being non-notable. The Bushranger One ping only 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 23:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The cited German booklets probably provide notability for two specific models of this model helicopter, but not for the line as a whole. And the other cited sources cannot carry the article as a whole; there's not enough there to meet WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 15:47, 5 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, Jenks24 (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - For the level of detail in the article, I find it surprising that there aren't reliable sources providing some of this. There are a lot of links to buy it, and there are a few youtube videos showing people flying them too. I found a reference in a book (ISBN 0857296345) (can't see full content) to the model. It's hard to find references because the "t-rex" name is so common. I am concerned about original research in the article, but I'm leaning keep because I think there's more here beneath the surface. I regrettably can't find anything slam-dunk right now though. Shadowjams (talk) 05:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable model and most of it is most likely original research if not verifiable. Seasider91 (talk) 20:13, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be particularly notable just one of many similar toys on the market. MilborneOne (talk) 11:15, 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) 05:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tony E. Pierce[edit]
- Tony E. Pierce (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)
Actor who has had a series of very minor parts throughout his career but does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. I have failed to find significant coverage of Mr Pierce in reliable third-party sources so I don't think he meets the general notability guideline either. Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 04:33, 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, Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This person fails WP:GNG as there is not enough coverage of him. Even imdb, typically forgiving for semi-famous actors, has no listing of his work. No indepedent, secondary sources either. Not notable. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness, IMDb does have him under the IMDbesque name "Tony Pierce (I)" [29] (though my experience is that IMDb tends to get things wrong quickly with multiple people sharing one name). However, I think that profile, if it's correct, still shows only non-recurring TV appearances and minor parts in movies that are often minor themselves. Pichpich (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I, Tony E. Pierce, don't want my article to be deleted??? I was only trying to help out one of the movie's I was in, Number One With A Bullet, with the movie picture.jpg from a movie poster web page that's all. I didnt' think I was going to cause my article harm with possible deletion. 11:10 P.M., 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyepierce (talk • contribs)
- 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) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Roles in Dances with Wolves and The Bodyguard aren't significant enough, and I can't find any real media attention. The fact that he still works as an estimator says volumes about his acting career. Also major WP:COI as the creator of his own article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael C. Seto[edit]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael C. Seto (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)
Subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) specifically and Wikipedia:Notability in general. Published one book on pedophilia in 2008 which received no mainstream media coverage. Article was created by Seto’s friend and co-author, a single-purpose account here to promote the work and ideas of himself and his friends. Jokestress (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the article appears to be well-referenced, and the subject should pass WP:ACADEMIC under category 7 (influence outside academia) on the basis of noted testimony before US committees and commissions. The argument that the author is an WP:SPA seems to be somewhat spurious; User:James Cantor self-identifies that he edits under his real name and works on or has worked on a large number of articles related to his field of study (sex and psychology). Yes, there is some degree of WP:COI here - author and subject are clearly colleagues - but that should not and does not detract from the notability of the subject. The author has already recused himself from editing a number of articles to which he may have a COI (see here) and it is recommended he add this one to the list. That same pledge also indicates a potential COI on behalf of the nominator.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Vulcan's Forge reading of WP:ACADEMIC. Not happy about the COI, but deletion isn't the answer. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 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) 03:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nandakumar ToolKit[edit]
- Nandakumar ToolKit (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)
No reliable sources, written like an ad, generally non-notable. Frood! Ohai What did I break now? 01:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 17:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete: failed to find anything to support the claim of notability. Probably it is WP:TOOSOON issue. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (no evidence found for notability) TEDickey (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Not even a single reliable source covers the subject. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forensics (musician)[edit]
- Forensics (musician) (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)
No evidence of notability per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. {{db-band}} declained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: "Founded the '111' movement" might be evidence of notability if we had other sources that there was such a movement, and it was notable. "Ran Methodology Recordings" might be evidence of notability if we had a source for the claim, and Methodology Recordings had some significance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 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, The Bushranger One ping only 03:09, 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, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:22, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of high school fraternities and sororities[edit]
- List of high school fraternities and sororities (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 list of high school fraternities and sororities is not a viable standalone list article. Of the ~188 organizations listed here, only 8 are linked to an article, making this nothing more than a directory, and we all know that Wikipedia is not a directory. GrapedApe (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 13 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 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to do a great job of fulfilling WP:LISTPURP. Other than being alphabetical and splitting the frats and sororities, it's not structured in any particular way and it contains hardly any internal links to the items it lists. Also, do these really exist in high schools too? Ugh, glad I missed that boat. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:39, 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. Despite more links being added to the article in recent days, there still don't seem to be any reliable sources to meet the concerns of those requesting deletion. If the creator would like, I will make a copy available in xyr userspace in case the subject should someday become notable (in a Wikipedia sense) Qwyrxian (talk) 05:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
European Youth Press[edit]
- European Youth Press (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)
Promotional article. Telltale signs include: a) none of the member organisations has a Wikipedia article (Because they together build the EYP, and each of them is to small) b) this is the only contribution of the article creator.
Having said that, let's run down the list of "references" to show why they do not establish notability:
- This is EYP's own website; no further comment is needed.
- This, this and this are the sites of various projects/NGOs of a similar nature to EYP. Not independent sources by any means.
- The European Parliament Information Office in Ireland? Please. || Just check before writing some nonsense.
- EYP's own magazine? Again, I don't think so. --> If you have a look to M100 a important Media Colloquium you can see it's a partner of the EYP. Also the orangelog has some articles about M100. May that are facts enough. On the right sight of orangelog you can see a powerd by button. That shows also that orange is a part of EYP.
- And a PR release.
I the absence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 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 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is also an earlier analysis of the extent to which the given sources are not independent reliable sources at Talk:European Youth Press. Since then an IP editor has added a further source to the article. This is from a 2010 "Task Force Policy Report on Democracy in the European Union" from the University of Washington Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. However I feel this is just a passing mention ("Another program that has successfully promoted mobility among students is European Youth Media Days. ... It was hosted by the European Parliament and organized by the European Youth Press.") and insufficient to establish WP:CORPDEPTH for European Youth Press itself. AllyD (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some reliable 3rd party sources
- [10] Europe is more than you think award of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Press, accessed 22/08/2012 http://ijnet.org/opportunities/european-youth-journalists-can-submit-works-competition
- [12]Europe is more than you think award of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Press, accessed 22/08/2012 http://bruxelles.cafebabel.com/en/post/2009/12/04/Europe-Is-More-Than-You-Think-Award-2009!
- [13] Youthmedia award of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Press, accessed 22/08/2012 http://hub.coe.int/en/youth-media-award-2011/
- Changed link to Council of Europe Website: [16] Assises Internationales du Journalisme & de l'Information - Orange coverage with the Council of Europe http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/anti-discrimination-campaign/what_new/campaign_news_en.asp
Better? sol777 12:29, 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) 05:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cisco Unified Provisioning Manager[edit]
- Cisco Unified Provisioning Manager (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)
AFD - concern = No assertion of notability, no secondary sources. 65.242.18.131 (talk) 11:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC) - discussion page created on behalf of IP by Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: though I found some mention, the sources are either primary or lack depth of coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:48, 13 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 00:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:V and WP:N - LES 953 (talk) 06:24, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somnioverus[edit]
- Somnioverus (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 neologism. Google doesn't turn up this word outside of this page, Gbooks doesn't have anything, Google Scholar has nothing. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 13 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 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (if only neologisms were covered by WP:CSD). Searched Google, Google Scholar and JSTOR: no use of the term at all. Obviously fails WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete sometimes neologisms can be covered by the db-hoax criteria if it's blatant enough, but this seems to narrowly avoid it. Per Tom Morris 2602:306:39E1:C830:59AF:528A:3B0A:CE20 (talk) 19:02, 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Navnindra Behl[edit]
- Navnindra Behl (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)
Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:SCHOLAR. Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 13 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 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per nom. The Tribune has around 5-10 results on the subject, but few of them would be sufficient to write an article. Secret of success (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 23:46, 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. The sources and information from PWilkinson and Secret of success raise enough doubt that there isn't a clear consensus to delete, even after a relist. If a Punjabi speaker has more information that indicates that these aren't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, then there is no problem with a speedy renomination. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Surjit Singh Sethi[edit]
- Surjit Singh Sethi (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)
Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:SCHOLAR. Dwaipayan (talk) 17:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 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 00:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A Google book search gives 10,000+ results for the subject, with some of them mentioning his name with commentary. I am unaware as to whether this is sufficient, but we need to take a look into this. Secret of success (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: The GBooks search is frustrating: after promising thousands of results, it then tails out after less than 100, many of which are the subject's own works in, presumably, Punjabi. However, a significant proportion of the rest are admittedly passing mentions in surveys of twentieth-century Punjabi literature or Indian literature in general - but the kind of mention that, in surveys of literature in English or any major European language, would pretty much guarantee the subject's fulfilment of WP:AUTHOR#3 and #4 several times over. In this case, the two GBooks references most likely to establish notability that I could spot are this short discussion in English of one of his works, apparently in the context of a longer discussion of similar work by another author and these two in Punjabi, both of which appear to be book-length studies of the subject's work. I would guess that there are significantly more similar reviews and studies in Punjabi, and that the only reason we are picking up just these two is that GBooks has descriptions of them in English. However, we could certainly do with a Punjabi speaker to advise here. PWilkinson (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:23, 27 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) 05:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cascade Game Foundry[edit]
- Cascade Game Foundry (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. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:51, 12 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) 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The available sources are all about the spin-out from Microsoft. And CGF has yet to produce a product. So it seems a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- BenTels (talk) 17:12, 13 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 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:59, 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. In terms of numbers, we have three !votes for deletion and two for keeping the article (note that the nominator changed his stance to Keep). Dmitrij D. Czarkoff and Electric Catfish offer good arguments for deletion, arguing that it lacks the coverage needed to satisfy WP:CORP. TheChampionMan1234 made a weak argument, as the two voters whose comments he voted delete per did not articulate a good reason for deletion. Northamerica1000 and Philafrenzy argue that the article should be kept because of the extent of the coverage it has received in the sources that have been found. This is a guideline-based argument and therefore fairly strong. So we have two users who believe the coverage is not significant enough to justify keeping the article, and two users who say the opposite. As the closing admin, it's not my role to pick a side based on my personal definition of which level of coverage is acceptable, so I've closed it as no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cardmobili[edit]
- Cardmobili (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. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails WP:NCORP, WP:MILL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, this topic passes WP:NCORP, specifically the section WP:CORPDEPTH. WP:MILL is an essay about "ordinary" topics, and essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources – Please read WP:NRVE. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided: GNews turns up some stuff in Portuguese which may tip the scale on WP:NCORP, but my Portuguese is not good enough to be sure. Someone else will have to look. Also, a local from Portugal may have better sources to add. -- BenTels (talk) 17:07, 13 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 00:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:per nominator and BenTels TheChampionMan1234 01:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:BenTels comment is as "Undecided." Why delete an article partially upon the basis that another user isn't fluent in Portuguese to a degree of certainty to analyze sources? Importantly, see also WP:NOTAVOTE. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Clearly passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per the following sources (others are also available):
- (in Portuguese) "The technology that puts the wallet inside the phone"
- (in Portuguese) "Loyalty cards are in the digital world"
- "Cardmobili and RouletteCricket: great startups, Vodafone Mobile Clicks winners"
- (in Portuguese) "Customers are more loyal to brands with cards on your phone"
- (in Portuguese) "Portuguese want to do away with plastic loyalty cards"
- The Register article
- (in Portuguese) "Ten thousand Portuguese joined the digital copy of voter registration card in the phone"
- (in Portuguese) "Cardmobili wins global competition for applications in Barcelona"
- (in Portuguese) "Cardmobili represent Portugal in the final contest of Vodafone"
- There's also this article with mentions: The Register article
- — Northamerica1000(talk) 13:52, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these are about service, not the company; the rest just mention the Vodafone's investment and give a brief note about service. Nowhere close to passing WP:CORPDEPTH. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Also, this nomination doesn't qualify why this topic is "not notable." Stating why and how the topic isn't notable would be an improvement, because as worded, it could be interpreted as based upon personal opinion, rather than the sources comprised of significant coverage about the topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I change my vote to keep as the extra references seem adequate to demonstrate notability. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two-word nominations to remove an article from an encyclopedia can be ambiguous. Perhaps consider being more specific in future nominations. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 14:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you have changed your stance regarding your nomination, you may want to consider striking the nomination using <s> </s>. This would clarify your stance regarding the topic. Otherwise, users will likely still think you consider the topic non-notable. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two-word nominations to remove an article from an encyclopedia can be ambiguous. Perhaps consider being more specific in future nominations. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 14:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP: CORP, as it lacks reliable coverage. Electric Catfish 18:17, 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.