The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 05:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added this article to my watchlist several months ago and it recently caught my attention so I thought I would search for some sources and found this, their CEO was indicted on illegally exporting equipment to Venezuela and the article also offers some other details such as their 2009 bankruptcy. As a result of this, I searched again adding "Floyd Stilwell" and found additional results and an FBI press release here which mentions the FBI, Immigrant and Customs Enforcement, Department of Defense and Defense Criminal Investigation Service were involved in the investigation. Performing another search also provided results including this which narrowly mentions them. As mentioned above, the company filed for Chapter 11 in 2009 after their sales started failing and hoped to return but I don't see any evidence that they emerged afterwards but it seems that wasn't their first time with law troubles, this happened in 1988. Although there are some interesting details here, I believe this may not be sufficient and it seems they gained the most attention for the 1988 and 2010 indictments. I also found this (third result from the top) which mentions the founder, Dick Marsh and this mentions a president and general manager. The article claims the company was founded in 1961 but this (first from the top) is a 1959 news article that mentions them. Any comments? SwisterTwistertalk 00:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not clear under what grounds you are nominating the article for deletion, but the refs you have found seem to indicate that the topic meets WP:GNG. That said the article needs a complete rewrite from scratch to incorporate what you have found and either source or remove the unsourced text there now. I think the bottom line is that it seems to be a notable subject for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that WP:GNG is criteria for appropriate sourcing in which this article has none. The above sources need to be added as we're discussing the merits of the article and not the resources found in the AfD . The no sources template has been there since April 2012.Mkdwtalk 21:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the nominator has now found enough sources to show notability as noted above. These just need to be added and the article rewritten. - Ahunt (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable subject just a crap article, needs a complete re-write and purge but that is not the same as deleting it. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until fixed or delete - totally unreferenced, almost all content dumped in by a single long-inactive userLeadSongDogcome howl! 03:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At present, the article does not provide any verifiable sources or references. No article on Wikipedia is allowed to stay with out this. I will re-evaluate my position should this change. Mkdwtalk 21:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator - I was well aware the sources listed could at least help the article from its current state but I think it may not be enough, there doesn't seem to be much information aside from the two law cases and much less the exact history of this company. There is a news article from 1959 that mentions the company but one of the Arizona Republic articles state the history as 31 years as of 2010. SwisterTwistertalk 23:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of the existing unsourced text will have to go, but the sources that you have provided will support a short and perhaps more interesting article. - Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is very poor, some of the modification programs that the company has worked on (particularly the Turbo-Thrush modification, with at least 75 modified and the Tracker modifications - 6 sold to the Argentine Navy and ~20 fire bombers for the State of California [1]) probably go far enough to establish some sort of notability. I've added a few references referring to some of the modification programs to the article. This is a search in the Flight International archives (up to 2004) which gives some more articles covering the company.Nigel Ish (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deleting has been given, AFAICT. It seems a notable topic, with sources available. --doncram 23:04, 18 December 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.
Redirects undone with nothing but addition of Allmusic listings, which do not verify anything other than the track listing. I couldn't find any professional reviews or discussion of any of these albums. An empty Allmusic placeholder does not a reliable source make. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge all five No Justice album articles into the No Justice article - Per WP:NALBUMS, "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting". Do we really want five track listings in the main No Justice article? Also, for the second time, I was not notified on my talk page the TfD for the navbox. If we are not keeping the album articles, then we should merge all of them into No Justice.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) All you do is sling around policy verbatim, refusing to budge one iota from it. You do realize that not everything is set in stone, right? You do realize that there is a good precedent for redirecting non-notable albums without merging the track list? Most of the time, the album is non-notable, and merging the track-list is not practical, so the only choice is to redirect without merging. It's perfectly okay to redirect an album without merging, despite what WP:NALBUMS says. Also, you're completely refusing to acknowledge any possible notability. Where are the reviews of the album? I saw none. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Like our debate about the rule of five in WP:NENAN, and my not being notified about the latest TfD above, I am having to repeat what I say because it is being blatantly ignored. The goal of The Wikimedia Foundation is to expand the sum of human knowledge (or something to that effect). IMO, implied in this is placing the track listings for all significant albums of a notable artist in some Wikipedia article, be it the artist or the album. If we wouldn't want the track listings for five albums in the No Justice artist article, then the album articles should remain as content forks and/or size splits. I realize that WP:IAR and WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY exist, and that not everything is set in stone. If the track listings are on AllMusic, then there is no good reason to completely remove them from Wikipedia in their entirety now that they are there. Information about the albums including the track listings can be placed on Wikipedia, because the albums have been published, and the artist is notable. Whether the albums themselves are notable is not necessarily the issue IMO.
Again, why wasn't I notified of the TfD for No Justice on my talk page?--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because you pull the same filibuster "X does not link to Y, Y does not link to Z, Z does not link to A, redirecting albums is bad per verbatim quote of WP:NALBUMS, therefore this template is notable" bullshit you always do, and I didn't want to deal with it again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - As discussed at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_15#Template:Kevin_Fowler, "four such merges to an artist's page tends to be too messy". Most or all of the navboxes that I have created are on my watchlist which is how I came to know of this one, and it is considered professional courtesy to notify the author of a TfD on their talk page. If "X does not link to Y, Y does not link to Z, Z does not link to A" is true, then the navbox should likely remain, and proper investigative research should be conducted to determine if this is the case, and if there are not enough articles connected to the parent article. If the combined length of all of the album articles (including track listing) would be lengthy, then splitting the artist article off into one article per album may be the correct thing to do. Templates are based on utility, not notability. TfD is NOT based on what the nominator wants to deal with, but is based on consensus of users including myself. Supporting my position is that only two of the hundreds of musical ensemble navboxes that I created were deleted due to lack of utility, "Kip Moore" and "Back from Ashes", the latter due to the artist page being deleted. Also, how is my writing a filibuster if it does not prevent other people from voicing their opinion in the one week time frame provided? Additionally, using "BS" in an unencyclopedic manner at TfD is not WP:CIVIL.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the band article. Some of these albums did receive coverage, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], but not enough for standalone articles. If there's anything worth saying other than tracklistings it can said (and sourced) in the prose of the band article. I don't see a problem including the tracklistings in the discography there. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect all to No Justice. With or without the track listings, the band's stub article has plenty of space. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please keep in mind that there is an ongoing discussion about merging of non-notable albums at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#Merging_of_non-notable_albums. With that being said, unless a verdict to merge the albums and their track listings into No_Justice is arrived at, the aforementioned discussion needs to be resolved first.--Jax 0677 (talk) 20:11, 22 December 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) 05:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This place most likely does not exist at all and it appears that this is a joke, a hoax, or a political screed. The author's history of edits include, at various times, describing the ranch as an "independent monarchy" and "AnarchoCapitalist".[6] The author (Tnkaiser) has inserted bogus census data in the article describing "median income for the household at the Ranch was none of your damn business". The author describes the motto of the ranch as "Leave Us Alone, If You Don't Want To Lose It", and then later as "None Of Your Damn Business".[7] The author describes a "long-term plan to … allow for the development of a non-Statist society." Some of these types of statements were inserted by the author and some by an anonymous IP, but when the original author edited after the IP, he did not delete the statements, so I can only conclude that the IP and the author are one and the same. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever the truth about this ranch is, there don't seem to be any reliable sources discussing it. --Metropolitan90(talk) 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90. It might not necessarily be a hoax in that some form of this land might exist in some shape or form, but it is certainly not notable in the slightest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have no evidence at all that the ranch exists. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 17:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found a Loopnet listing but it appears fabricated too. If this were a true ranch, you'd think it'd actually be verifiable in some way. The coordinates given in an old revision show only an empty field. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:52, 17 December 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 amounts to a successful WP:PROD nomination. Mackensen(talk) 15:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An in fact unsourced article (all sources are non-WP:RS), written by the musician himself. Most hits on the Western-script Google are downloads, torrents and Wikipedia-clones. Fails WP:GNG. The fact that the album exists, does not make it immediately or necessarely notable. The Bannertalk 21:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This album is as non-notable as the artist himself and my comment at Osman's nomination applies here as well. Although the article claims the album charted, there aren't any reliable third-party sources to support this. I'm open to recalling my vote if non-English sources are found, SwisterTwistertalk 23:17, 15 December 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) 05:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant selfpromo with no independent reliable sources. The Bannertalk 21:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed, the article is promotional and it seems the links are unreliable, insufficient and primary. I'm open to recalling my vote if Bulgarian or other non-English sources are found but there probably wouldn't be many as it seems all of his most recent movies are produced by him. His album's article, Endle$$ Summer 20,12, claims it charted on the HOT Muzic Radio 50 Hits and was certified Gold but there aren't any third-party sources to verify this. While searching with his first two films, I found nothing relevant so they may have been foreign and independent films. SwisterTwistertalk 23:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject's first two films might be foreign and independent films -- but more likely they are amateur or unproduced films conceived of by the subject, who is a 14-year-old boy. --Metropolitan90(talk) 01:28, 16 December 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.
Does not meet WP:CRIME, not even close. — raekyt 20:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't it clear that it satisfies GNG? And the coverage seems sustained, which would keep it from falling under NOTNEWS. postdlf (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A small peice by the local TV station in Chattanooga (the University is basicly in a suburb of Chattanooga).
A writeup about the book in a Chattanooga newspaper's website
An article in an Adventist magazine
Another article in an Adventist magazine
An radio interview with the president of the Adventist Guam-Micronesia Mission, only a couple lines
I don't see how this is significant coverage, which is a part of GNG. If this is all that is needed for inclusion of a murder victim, then be prepared for millions of new pages to be added... I don't see any significant coverage here beyond what you'd expect for any other murder victim. So to include this under GNG and ignore WP:CRIME would open the door to pages for almost anything, and completely negate the purpose of the criteria on WP:CRIME. — raekyt 21:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the noms subsequent comments. It is a biographical article so it comes WP:BIO, specifically the WP:CRIME section. We should only fall back on to WP:GNG if there is no specific notability guideline for the essence of the article in question. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This seems to have eben a random killing, not a killing becuase she was a missionary; so it ius not a martyrdom. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 17 December 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.
Seems to fail WP:PROF as I can find no mentions via a Google Books search or a Google Scholar search. The best claim for notability comes from, "He was appointed as the Principal in his collage 1938-39" which would satisfy point 5 of WP:PROF for having, "held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" but it doesn't mention what "his collage" was. The Academy of Science has been formed two years early and I wouldn't consider that a major institution at the time, if that's what he was appointed the principle of (it's not a college, though). He attended Lucknow University which was started nine years before he received his MS from the university but I can find no reference that supports that he was named their chancellor.
I thought he might pass point two of WP:PROF by being, "awarded gold medal by the Academy of Sciences of India in 1936" but like I said, the academy had been instituted just years earlier and I wouldn't consider that a, "a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level". It may be national but can we consider it "highly prestegious" for the time? It's hard for me to believe that it was highly prestigious as it could have only even existed for two years.
The photo linked at the bottom of the page shows that he was a founder of and worked for College of Physicians & Surgeons Pakistan which was founded in 1962. Perhaps this satisfies a notability guideline but I can't think of one.
Note that if you're searching, a book called The Life of Muhammawas written by Abdul Hameed Siddiqui that may throw you off.
Given the time period that the subject completed/achieved his accomplishments and that most information about him would have been written in not-English, there may be a large amount of information out there that can be used to establish notability but at this time, I can not find any indication that such sources exist. Perhaps the author has some references that can be provided to help establish notability. It seems that he was a good student and surgeon but establishing notability seems difficult.OlYeller21Talktome 20:44, 15 December 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. Consensus is to delete ... WP:TOOSOON might count here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, is WP:ONEEVENT, she was on a single reality/competition show. A mention on the show's article is sufficient. The majority of the article is a play by play of the show, followed by the claim that she plans to be a big model and movie star. I wish her luck, but this is not encyclopedic. -MJH (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP editors, please weigh in - an anxious fan of this subject has repeatedly removed the AfD template from the article. They apparently want a decision quickly.--Nixie9 (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have requested temporary protection for the page. Unfortunately, Hannah Jones has a very common name which is impossible to search for successfully even with keywords, although a number of contestants do have articles, not just the winner. I looked at a couple at random (Amanda Swafford and Melrose Bickerstaff), who did show additional notability, though Melrose's is a bit borderline. Googling, all I am finding is material related to the TV show. I chose a random group of four names from the ANTM template to compare this article to (Samantha Potter, Analeigh Tipton, Isis King, and Allison Harvard), and all showed rather more notability and coverage than Hannah - the weakest one, Samantha Potter, had done a couple of documented little cameo appearances in The Big Bang Theory and a music video, so fair enough. As Hannah doesn't appear to have gone on to do anything of the sort (yet) I am leaning towards delete, but holding back for now to see what others say. Mabalu (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If she makes her mark, the page can be created then.Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 14:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She already made her mark. and why does Brittani Kline she didn't even continue modelling. So Hannah Jones will be kept. --Missjenkins (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then please find reliable sources to show that Ms. Jones has indeed "made her mark". I looked at Brittani Kline and she won her series - the winners of each show are notable so her article is valid, regardless of whether or not she is still modelling. Mabalu (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete/comment After some careful deliberation and searching, I did find some sources, not all the best, the best probably being 1, and though this is a blog, it is the official one for Austin Fashion Week. However, in the course of looking at ANTM nominations, I have seen that some of the girls continue to get coverage/name drops/references for quite a number of years after the show. For now, it is probably WP:TOOSOON for Hannah Jones, but my spider sense tells me that she will go on to do a bit more and achieve sufficient notability then. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball so until then, although she sounds a nice girl, I have to say I lean towards deleting it for now. Mabalu (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Guys seriously for me i think we should just get this over with. --GTPMF (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, GTPMF, at this point, if we "get this over with" - the article is deleted. Which I'm sure isn't what you want. Mabalu (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Mabalu. She's just not there yet (as to notability). GregJackPBoomer! 15:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - How about Alexandria Everett? she already made her mark in all-stars she should be the one who has a page though. Hannah on the other hand she is not there yet although 3 of her reference are confirmed while the others are NOT. --GTPMF (talk) 17:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - and i forgot Missjenkins is out of her/his mind by putting repetitively that she has a film career? i followed her in Tumblr and she doesn't even mention about movie careers but rather than modelling and runaway shows. --GTPMF (talk) 17:55, 21 December 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) 05:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an MLB Cheerleading League. This is simply a list of MLB team Cheerleaders and could easily be merged into the respective team articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not appear to be an actual organization with this name. It does appear that some of the individual squads receive enough coverage to warrant pages of their own. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... just on the principle that I think cheerleaders in baseball is a terrible idea.Spanneraol (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The idea of cheerleaders during a baseball game doesn't seem to work. Explains why only the players, military and the national anthem singers are on the field, and no cheerleaders are present. ZappaOMati 02:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously? First of all, no organization exists by the name included in the article/list title, let alone an organization that satisfied the notability requirements of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Second, even to the extent that one or more of the individual MLB cheerleading squads might be notable, there is no reason why a subject of so little substance merits a stand-alone article/list separate and apart from the articles regarding the parent MLB teams. If there were any substantive content included within this list, I would suggest a merge of such material to the team pages, but there is none. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is factually wrong as there is no such league or organisation as asserted. -- Whpq (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If such a league exists, it certainly does a good job of being quiet about it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for all the reasons mentioned. It is interesting that the one person listed in the article as a "notable" cheerleader is a red link. Rlendog (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator User:Nixie9 (formerly Modern.Jewelry.Historian) with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN - local police commissioner. Single ref states he was elected, not repeated substantial editorial discussion fails WP:GNG-MJH (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for an admin - WP:WITHDRAWN per discussion below, with apologies. I am fka MJH.--Nixie9 (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The PCCs have not had a chance to establish their role, but they are the equivalent of an elected mayor to a police force. I thinnk we keep artiles on elected mayors, who hold an executive position, in contrast with ordinary councillors, who we regard as NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:POLITICIAN With all due respect, the newly introduced Police Commissioner role in the UK is extremely important. The post is one of national importance despite the fact that hardly anyone voted in the election. Ilford North Scott MP (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator User:Nixie9 (formerly Modern.Jewelry.Historian) with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Should every local city police commissioner have a WP article? Refs simply state he was elected. -MJH (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note for an admin - WP:WITHDRAWN per discussion below, with apologies. I am fka MJH.--Nixie9 (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lancashire is a county, not a city, and English counties are first-level subdivisions of the country. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:POLITICIAN With all due respect, the newly introduced Police Commissioner role in the UK is not equivalent to a US local city commissioner. The post is one of national importance despite the fact that hardly anyone voted in the election. Periglio (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clive is a County Councillor and a PCC, so passes POLITICIAN. As above, this is a new post so the amount of information will be a work in progress doktorbwordsdeeds 21:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- County councillors will usually be NN, but PCCs ougth to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No offence to the editor who put this request in but I suggest you actually find out who and what Clive Grunshaw is and where and what Lancashire is before writing a deletion request about someone who you evidently know nothing about. Ilford North Scott MP (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G7 page blanked by author. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a book that has been proded with a book that fails the criterias in WP:NBOOK. No independent sources about it. PROD contestet by the author (of both, article and book): The novel is being published and is expected to release early 2013.Ben Ben (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of meeting the WP:NBOOK criteria. Given the tone of the article, this could go as a Speedy G11; given the Copyright line at the bottom of the text, it should possibly go as a Speedy G12? AllyD (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for my upcoming novel - Jhumki. It is a fiction based novel that has a social theme running through it. I fail to understand why it is up for proposed deletion. My profile mentioned on the page highlights my achievements in the field of academics and writing. Please advise on the necessary changes that I need to make on this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 05:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no NHL Ice Dancer cheerleading league. There is no NHL Cheerleading League. I find no references in RSs to NHL Ice Dancers. This is simply a list of cheerleading squads. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I questioned the notability of this list back in May, but never followed up. I did remove an improper entry then, only to now see that it was restored. The big problem here is that any team that has a team of women grouped as a team or crew is being categorized as "ice dancers", except that this characterization is wrong in nearly every case. In Calgary, the girls simply clean the ice, nothing more. In Edmonton, they are something akin to cheerleaders in the stands, but rarely dance or perform on the ice, etc. This article appears to be someone's attempt to shoehorn a concept that may work in one sport (say the NFL and its cheerleaders) into others where it isn't appropriate, introducing a WP:SYNTH problem. Resolute 23:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people in Detroit (both women and men) hand our prizes, do some generic cheering stuff, but really are not dancers at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:HOAX or WP:BULLSHIT; take your pick. Either way, this "league" just doesn't exist. Ravenswing 06:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Ravenswing. Patken4 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 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.
Fails WP:GNG. Principal photography has not begun, so fails WP:NFF. The majority of the article content is available or appropriate if referenced in Michael_White_(producer). Lots of name dropping, clearly an attempt to support ongoing fundraising effort. Certainly a worthwhile project, but not encyclopedic. No editorial references supporting notability (yet). WP:TOOSOON-MJH (talk) 19:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I retract my erroneous comment about principal photography, which has commenced. Still according to WP:NFF without passing WP:GNG there should not be an article yet without substantial repeated editorial coverage.---MJH (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Incubate Per Too Soon/lack of significant coverage. CinephileMatt (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate this currently-filming and as-yet-uncompleted film. Return to mainspace only if/when the film is complete AND has the requisite coverage. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 23:52, 16 December 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. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the acts booked. Otherwise a non-notable business (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage is limited to self-published sources; Cornell-related media, which does not show "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large" (as described in WP:N); or mere tangential coverage in reliable sources (which fails the
Significant coverage" requirement). Basically, organizing cool concerts doesn't mean it's notable. Previous AFD expired w/o comment GrapedApe (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close Seriously, the previous AfD closed today with no consensus... Relisting it now will make absolutely no difference. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was non-admin closed with no !votes. There's nothing wrong with a re-list.--GrapedApe (talk) 12:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed a few hours before re-listing, and I'm fairly sure you're supposed to wait a while before relisting, regardless of consensus. Besides, relisting now when it was ignored before is unlikely to make any difference. Lukeno94 (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No consensus closes due to a lack of quorum are, technically, WP:NPASR (no prejudice against speedy renomination). This is ... a really speedy renomination, but I guess that's what it says on the tin, so I don't think it's grounds for a procedural close. On the merits, I'm pretty ambivalent about the article. There's quite a bit of coverage of their hosted concerts in general, but I don't really see reliable third-party sources about the commission. I'm not quite sure I'm willing to firmly advocate deletion here, but if this AFD doesn't attract a quorum on what is effectively its 4th relist, WP:SOFTDELETE may be the way to go. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, CLOSE and lock for at least 30 days I was just looking at this and here it is again already! Was this done with a bot? We should have a wikipolicy about this sort of thing. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 00:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the references this is a notable organization. Stowonthewolder (talk) 01:51, 1 December 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, MBisanztalk 01:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly The Cornell Daily Sun has a lot to say about them. Anyone else? Um .... Show me a good source outside Ithaca and I'll change my mind quickly. Until then, it's all fine and good they're Ivy League, but I went to a FCS school too. Oh No! It's Faustus37!it is what it is - speak at the tone 09:13, 7 December 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, MBisanztalk 19:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: 2nd nomination not a problem. Its borderline, but I'm not convinced its not notable either.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only notability is the acts they book, but that sort of notability is not inherited--it's like saying a bookstore is notable because it has books by famous authors on the shelves. Otherwise it's just a routine student organization, and the absence of any real content in the article shows it: If the individual concerts discussed are notable enough, then there can be separate article on them, or a mention of them in the articles on the group. That the Agency booked the Grateful Dead doesn't make the agency notable. It is not too soon for relisting a no-consensus close a month afterwards; it would have been wrong had it been a keep. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 22 December 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. MBisanztalk 21:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no indication in the article that this belongs in an encyclopedia, and I found no coverage. --Michig (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-reliable sources with no indication of notability. -- LuK3(Talk) 16:50, 22 December 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. MBisanztalk 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only possible claim of notability is unsourced, and I'm unable to find any sourcing to prove it. As such, this is a non-notable company. As Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses, this advertisement does not belong. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Above vote still stands, even post-cavassing. —Theopolisme 17:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone checked out the previous AfD? A shedload of sources were found there, but User:Cindamuse removed a whole bunch of information 11 hours before this AfD was opened. I'm going to cite the sources that were stated as making this pass WP:GNG: [8], [9] and [10]. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at those sources ... certainly didn't convince me. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteReferences appear to be primarily subscription websites, except two which link to other wikipedia pages. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Anthony. Additionally, in its present state the article has only one reference - to an ad agencies directory which nowhere near pass WP:RS.Max Semenik (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The latter concern has been rectified, however my !vote still stands. Max Semenik (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except the majority of them aren't subscription websites, so...what's the argument? SilverserenC 11:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BWilkins, what the hell are you doing? The moment Lukeno told you that the information in the article had been removed, you should have re-added it so that the AfD voters could be properly informed about the article. The fact that you didn't is rather damning.
The article subject is clearly and obviously notable. It has tons of news coverage over years and is one of the most talked about media agencies in the world. The sources speak for themselves. SilverserenC 10:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me? I reviewed those ref's as noted above, and found them lacking. It's most certainly not my responsibility to add what I considered to be crappy references back into an article, and it's certainly not "damning" that I didn't do it. I find your attempt to personalize this more damning than anything else (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is lacking about the refs? They're news coverage of the subject. And regardless of your opinion of them, you should have added them back in, as the removal of them clearly was not an improvement to the article. SilverserenC 11:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not established in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Note that the content and sources previously removed included a roster of employees and clients sourced to press releases masquerading as reliable sources. Not even close to news coverage. It simply doesn't meet the threshold for independent and reliable sources.Cindy(talk to me) 11:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there are quite a few sources that are rooted in press releases, I believe that the new citations added by Silver are enough to establish notability for this organization. Sure, I would like to see more, since I only see two as anywhere near significant, but still, it squeaks by for me. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So i'm guessing that's a no, it wasn't a mistake. You have no proof that they are press releases. They have authors and are articles in reputable publications. How exactly are they not news coverage? SilverserenC 11:18, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So now you're going to badger the nominator, anyone who !votes to delete, and then WP:CANVASS those who !voted to delete as well? Rather surprising and disturbing behaviour from you SS. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Informing them that, when they voted, information had been missing from the article is not canvassing. I do the same thing when I improve an article in the middle of an AfD. That's the whole point, after all. SilverserenC 20:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Comment. @Silver: In essence, it comes down to differentiating between content intended to inform and that intended to promote. In making an assessment of the copy, it is clear that the content and sources were ultimately sourced to information culled directly from the company, i.e., an announcement that the company had gained another client. Great for the company, but not appropriate content for an encyclopedia. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 13:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added further information and references into the article that are not "an announcement that the company has gained another client". I hope you find them satisfactory. SilverserenC 01:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't check the sources from the previous AfD, for the precise reason that it convinced multiple experienced editors that the article should be kept - and it was a 2012 AfD, not an early one when restrictions were laxer. I'm confused as to why this viewpoint could suddenly have changed. Lukeno94 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be quite possible that the participants in the previous discussion did the same thing that you did here. That is, neglect to personally review the citations offered and/or relied on the assessment of others to play into their recommendation on the validity of the article. Just a thought. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 19:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly doubt that two experienced editors and the person who took it to AfD would all do that. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been asked by Silver seren to reconsider my !vote. Having reviewed the references (again) my position is unchanged. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment On further research it seems that Silver Seren has actively canvassed every editor making a !delete comment here, except Cindamuse for whom the discussion happened here. I am not happy about this, particularly as the editors in question include three very experienced admins. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not canvassing to notify you that improvements have been made to the article and to please take another look at it. I did not tell anyone to change their vote, I told them to look at the article. If that resulted in them changing their vote, then that was on them. SilverserenC 20:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have expanded the article from what it was previously. Please take another look. SilverserenC 04:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks for your work on this article, Silver. At the same time, while you may have acted as the great physician by adding some needed sources, in my opinion, I think your bedside manner could use some tweaking. Nevertheless, your work is appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 07:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. And apologies for getting upset. I understand why you consider the "sales" references as you do, even if I disagree with that. I've just had to deal with too many AfDs where people try to strip down the article in order to get it deleted and I automatically assumed that's what was going on here. I see now that I was wrong in that assumption. SilverserenC 08:07, 10 December 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, MBisanztalk 19:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain. Even in my own mind I have no consensus. . I am not sure of my own view on sources like this; they are probably PR-influenced as would be almost all coverage in the topic area, , but still substantial, and I could equally well have argued on either side. I don't consider a rank of 34th in the world as significant in itself, but it would be higher nationally. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, from you that's a delete LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 21:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article about a prison gang appears to be non-notable in reliable sources. All I could find is some unreliable sources from questionable websites. Propose deletion at this point. TBrandley 19:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems this gang does exist (see [11]) but I can't find anything that would establish notability. I actually tagged it as copyvio of this, but if that's resolved then it should still be deleted since it fails WP:GNG. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:44, 15 December 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted (G11 and G12) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Promo for local conference, fails WP:GNG. Looks like a promo vehicle for sponsors. The Bannertalk 19:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11: This looks like an advertisement masquerading as an article. Tagged as such. Lugia2453 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 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 deleted by User:Acroterion with comment "Wikipedia isn't a dating rumors site". (Non-admin closure) "Pepper"@ 18:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncited "celebrity page" news that belong as information on the articles of Taylor Swift and Harry Styles NtheP (talk) 18:04, 15 December 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. Consensus is to delete based on policy (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dieselboy - Probably too soon, considering the label was founded this past February and there isn't much content to establish notability. Google News found nothing useful and this is probably because it is too soon. SwisterTwistertalk 19:25, 15 December 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.
Fails WP:GNG (previously nominated for speedy in error, as ships don't count for A7) MJH (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain - I believe the 1980 scrapping may be inaccurate as Google Books found a result here (second from the top) which confirms it existed in 1970 and was commissioned for Kenya. However, if you notice the other results, a ship called "MV Harambee" was used in Kenya for years after that. This 1986 result indicates that Eastern African Shipping Line "collapsed in 1980". Viewing this result, however, another ship with the same name was commissioned in 1990 so they may not all be related and Google News found a 2012 result here which may strengthen this. To help clarify this, we may need editors familiar with Kenyan history and shipping. SwisterTwistertalk 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing two different vessels. One was a harbour ferry, see Likoni Ferry, but the subject of this article was an ocean-going cargo ship, see photos in [12]. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Every large ship is recorded in a registry somewhere - do they all qualify for articles? I assumed that it needed to meet WP:GNG of references and editorial discussion, ie as a special ship or incident. --MJH (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see the significance or notability. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have changed my mind on this because of the work done since I first saw the article. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since nomination, Benea has turned this into a quite good article, and added an as yet unreferenced claim that the ship was on a postage stamp. This now should survive AfD with a valid claim, but get an add refs tag.--Nixie9 (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would have added the evidence, this nifty little stamp seen stage right File:MV HARAMBEE STAMP.jpg, but the licensing is dodgy which made me pause. I'm not sure of the copyright status on 1960s era commonwealth stamps, as to whether the stamp is public domain for other reasons, but I'm fairly sure it is not 'own work' as the uploader has, presumably in good faith, claimed. Benea (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following Benea's good work, the ship clearly passes GNG now. Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following expansion, and commence traditional "Praise Benea" chant. Buggie111 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely keep - I've worked it over again and added some more references. I'm sure that I've seen article somewhere on East African Shipping Line, perhaps in Sea Breezes? Not a stub now, methinks.Davidships (talk) 20:05, 18 December 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.
Delete. The sources linked above all mention the case briefly in the larger context of paternity cases, but with no analysis or anything but a brief summary of what's already found in the primary source. As there's no sources that speak to this case being important in this field of law (it's not even a Supreme Court of Louisiana ruling), I think we can rule out a merge. Lord Roem (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Availability of reliable sources isn't the issue; it's that this is just one of thousands of non-notable mid-level state appellate cases. TJRC (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, availability of reliable sources is how we define notability. Sources=Notable. Pburka (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, partly. There must be "significant coverage" to meet GNG, and I believe this article fails that. Firstly, the mentions are trivial, it's just mentioned briefly as part of a list of larger concepts in child custody law. Even more, there's no source that says why this case was notable, that it impacted child custody law, that it even impacted Louisiana law in any way whatsoever. Lord Roem (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thousands of court cases are reported weekly in reliable sources. Very few of those cases are notable. Likewise, my name has been reliably printed in many telephone books, all reliable sources, but I would not claim that that would justify a Wikipedia article on me. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your name in the phone book would be a trivial mention. What we have here is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". "Significant" means that sources address the subject directly in detail (per WP:SIGCOV) which these sources do. Unless this article is WP:NOT, we should apply the WP:GNG guidelines and keep it. Pburka (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indication of notability of the case in any of the cited sources. Just about every case gets cited somewhere. Crack open a copy of any volume of Shepard's Citations and boggle at the list. I'm still going with delete. TJRC (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "indication of notability"? Is there a guideline which describes that? Pburka (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that there is no indication of notability of this case in any of the sources being cited to support the claim that this case is notable. Therefore, my position is that the article should be deleted as non-notable, and nothing in the sources, in my opinion, indicates otherwise. Done now. TJRC (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found this article after seeing the case referenced on another site as a precedent for dishonest impregnation without intercourse still requiring child support. From the contents of the article it was not clear if this was the case or if he had simply not proven his story. It would be better if the article made this clearer, but I feel the case is notable, even if only due to people's misinterpretation of the outcome. JSekula71 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, blogs have discussed this case. Blogs discuss EVERYTHING, from what the author ate for lunch to the pebble found in their shoe. We need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources discussing this case. We don't have that. The reason the article doesn't discuss whether there was or was not intercourse and/or dishonesty is that we do not have reliable sources discussing this. That these questions are the ONLY issues that blogs are discussing re this case is telling: The purported reason for this case's notability is simply not documented. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Counterpoint - While I am not one of the Wikipedia editing elite and there is probably an article that discusses at length why I'm wrong, I still feel that Wikipedia should be a place where you can get the current status of research or knowledge on a given topic. I don't understand why the article couldn't simply say that while many Bloggers consider this to be landmark case, no reliable sources have commented on it. In the spirit of sharing information and squashing misinformation, I think that it's appropriate to keep, even if it doesn't meet some strict standard that is supposed to be applied. JSekula71 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia reports what reliable sources have to say on a subject. Yes, some blogs have discussed this case. As I said, blogs discuss pretty much everything from the most important issues facing humanity to that anonymous girl in a bikini who was briefly shown at about 14 minutes before halftime in last week's game (I made this up. But would it surprise you if bloggers were discussing it?). If the topic is notable, Wikipedia should have an article about it. If not, not. There is no way to document that reliable sources have not discussed this case (and lack of reliable sources does not make something notable... that's just backwards). If bloggers' obsession with this case or that girl or whatever is notable, reliable sources will discuss that obsession. Without that coverage, we'd really be just making stuff up. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With considerable searching, I have been unable to find anything other than the briefest of outlines of the case (in reliable sources). That several blogs and such feel this case is definitive proof that family courts the world over are out to stick it to men is irrelevant unless and until reliable sources discuss these claims. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:13, 20 December 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 Procedural close. The article itself has also been nominated for deletion, just above. The talkpage will stay or go with the article, and doesn't require a separate XfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable legal case, no reliable sources SGMD1Talk/Contribs 15:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any special reason you've nominated the talkpage rather than the actual article for deletion, or did you just inadvertently post the AFD template on the wrong page? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now see you've nominated the article itself as well, just above. I'll procedural-close this nomination of the talkpage so that all the discussion can be in one place. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:46, 15 December 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 author requested deletion - [16]. - filelakeshoe 14:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 13:59, 15 December 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. MBisanztalk 02:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the three Domain wall articles should be consolidated, because individually WP:NNMJH (talk) 03:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the poster - there should be one article titled "Domain Wall". Currently, the magnetics one is the most complete and accurate, so merge the optics and string theory content into that one, retitle it "Domain Wall" and get rid of the disambiguation page. PianoDan (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I know that domain walls are extremely well known in ferromagnetism, somewhat well known in ferroelectrics, extremely obscure in optics, and I'm not so sure about string theory. I think magnetism is where the concept originated, and magnetism is still the primary picture that people have in their heads when they use the term domain walls in any context. Not all wall-like topological defects are called "domain walls" -- for example, a crystallographic twinning defect is never called by that term I think.
What's best to do about all this? I think ideal in the long term would be a Domain wall (generalized) article linking to our specialized magnetic domain wall article, the general ferroelectric article, the general string theory article, etc. The link domain wall should probably point to the magnetic article, not the generalized article. Later on, if someone writes a whole article on ferroelectric domain walls (for example), it's no problem, we can just update the link in the "generalized" article.
An alternative that would work for now is to have the full article on magnetic domain walls, with a small section at the end about domain walls in other contexts.
Either way, I doubt optical domain walls will ever have enough content for a full article, so to make a long story short, merge. --Steve (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hello, I am the user who split these three articles apart in the first place. The original reason for doing so was because they were on different topics. Seeing as they were, I split them and marked them as stubs. I originally disregarded how many references there were for that article, but looking at the article again, I believe that the article has enough notability to remain separate of an amalgamated Domain wall. There is one other independent reference that mentions Domain walls in optics, and even though there may be no others on the article, I believe that the article can be kept as a stub, open to expansion by anyone else who finds more content on the subject matter. OmnipotentArchetype0309 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is I don't think the shortness of some of the current articles is a problem. It is a commonplace situation for terminological articles, and the current organization is clearer. Mangoe (talk) 14:06, 15 December 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.
Delete - All I could find in internet searches on this person were two photos and a review of the 2004 book, in which two pages were displayed. I tried to use Google Translate to examine these, but they were images of pages, which could not be translated. I could find nothing on the internet mentioning the two earlier books. If something notable exists, it must be included in this article, so its merits can be examined.Bill Pollard (talk) 10:57, 16 December 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.
Comment: So, less than 24 hours later, this has already reached the same levels of notoriety as the atrocities committed by Anders Behring Breivik and co.? --86.40.107.195 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has. Surprised? -- Veggy (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and be done with it, as the nominator has said. Note that the first AfD, had such gems as "This is like not allowing the September 11 attacks page to exist". Please don't allow this one to descend to such levels of absurdity. --86.40.107.195 (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Above anon user's only contributions are to this discussion. -- Veggy (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does that make them less relevant? Do I not have a brain? --86.40.107.195 (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is not a regular news story. This is one of the bloodiest school shootings in US...perhaps anywhere. By your logic Columbine and the Aurora shootings should also not have their own articles. There are enough reasons this should be kept, please stop wasting time and effort over nominating this. Theo10011 (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is derp? Sounds like a PA. --86.40.107.195 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This is a significant event, it killed several children in a school and it has gained worldwide attention. Clearly satisfies the notability guidelines. The fact that this article even made itself to WP:ITN also means alot to the notability of this article. These types of shootings are also fairly rare, I think. Also agree with what Theo10011 says above. Suggest speedy closure as keep. HeyMid (contribs) 11:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be remove --Olli (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nominator is an idiot - Enough said. Notability has already been established. --Kuzwa (talk) 11:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can discount that equally idiotic argument as well. --86.40.107.195 (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This article has, in its notoriety, crossed the threshold from being mere news to being a historical event. The sheer reportage on this incident along with the depth its analysis in definitively indicative of its significance. Lord Chamberlain, the Renowned (talk) 11:04, 15 December 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.
Keep- first of all it is Miss Universe that she will compete in. secondly, being the national representative in a major beauty pageant is notable. All contestants each year have their separate articles so I dont see a point in this nomination. TOOSOON does not apply as she has won a national major title.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, as with other Miss Universe contestant articles without notability elsewhere. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 13:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Both Habagat and user sue rangel has one thing in common they !voted on all these Miss Universe 2012 contestants AfDs within a few minutes time. And with the same reasonings on them all.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Colombia 2012, and do the same for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate additional notability. Mabalu (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an established practice where winners of major national competitions are sufficiently notable for an individual article. Repeated common practice is a guideline. As far as my personal interests are concerned, and in consideration of the small amount of information, we might usefully combine some of these., but that should be a general discussion, not here, where it is obviously receiving little attention. (It might depend on the relative importance of the different competitions, a question about which I have no knowledge), So, keep for now. The suggestion to combine with Miss Columbia 2012 is one possibility, but not the only one. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 14 December 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, Sandstein 10:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mabalu - being a national pageant winner and a contestant in the Miss Universe is clearly enough to be notable. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:33, 15 December 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. MBisanztalk 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - notable per national title. representing denmark in notable pageant.Nominator also seems unsure of notability requirements. I ask the nominator for speedy closure of all the articles concerning the MU articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. Miss Universe 2012 is the only noteworthy thing she has participated in, in which she has not placed yet. Besides, her name is spelled Josefine in all official sources. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Both Habagat and user sue rangell has one thing in common they !voted on all these Miss Universe 2012 contestants AfDs within a few minutes time. And with the same reasonings on them all.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Our "reasonings" are valid. Just because we agree doesn't mean we're sockpuppets of each other. Perhaps you should remember to assume good faith, BabbaQ, and maybe visit the notability noticeboard where I started a discussion a few days ago. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Universe Denmark, and do the same for all beauty pageant contestant articles where the only justification is that they competed in a pageant and there are no other sources to indicate additional notability. I found absolutely nothing beyond Miss Universe for this lady. Mabalu (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed her name is correctly spelled "Josefine". Now I know this, I see she was a contestant in Denmark's Next Top Model and also something called Miss Dinamarca, whatever that is, but still not enough to support keeping.Mabalu (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have an established practice where winners of major national competitions are sufficiently notable for an individual article. Repeated common practice is a guideline. As far as my personal interests are concerned, and in consideration of the small amount of information, we might usefully combine some of these., but that should be a general discussion, not here, where it is obviously receiving little attention. (It might depend on the relative importance of the different competitions, a question about which I have no knowledge), So, keep for now. (since this particular individual has a little more information than some of the others, it might possibly be justified even if the others are combined. but we should decide that first. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 14 December 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, Sandstein 10:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per other national beauty queen AfDs... I've been bold and renamed/moved the article to Josefine Hewitt as well. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —Ed!(talk) 14:03, 15 December 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. Based on the discussion, the associated policy, and a further dip into the references, policy is to delete as failing WP:PROF (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ANYBIO, no references other than his university bio page, copied to a Slovenia Times article. No matches to the 9 criteria of WP:PROFMJH (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that he meets the criteria 6 (an appointed academic post at a major institution of higher education) and 8 (the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area). For no. 6, he is Chair of the Department of German, Russian & East Asian Languages at Bowling Green State University. For no. 9, he was the chief editor of Slovene Studies: Journal of the Society for Slovene Studies. He is also the president of the Society for Slovene studies, the United States association of experts in Slovene language. --Eleassarmy talk 14:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Being a department chair is not sufficient by itself to pass any of the WP:PROF criteria. Criterion #6 is for people in charge of an entire university, not just a small subunit of it. And it is also not an endowed chair or distinguished professorship (#5). —David Eppstein (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a well-established scholar, and someone could easily improve the article with additional references. Doremo (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reconfirming the subject's bio against criteria 1-9 of WP:PROF, I believe that it still does not pass. Head of German and a few other languages does not match "a highest level academic post" ... "at a major academic institution" and I can't find support for the claim that the Journal of Slovene Studies is "a major well-established academic journal". Currently the article is turning into a promotional bibliography including minor articles with no editorial commentary. I believe this content is more suitable for an academic's university home page.---MJH (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Journal of the Society for Slovene studies is actually the most notable academic peer-reviewed Northern American journal on Slovene language and literature (i.e. "a major well-established academic journal in their subject area"). It has been published since the late 1970s, which is for over 30 years now (therefore well-established). --Eleassarmy talk 20:37, 14 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 09:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In contrast to what is asserted above, I'm not sure that the journal Slovene Studies meets our notability criteria for journals. Our article on it has zero independent sources and not even its own website claims that it is included in any databases (let alone selective, major databases). --Randykitty (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have now had a closer look at both Pogalcar and Slovene Studies. The Web of Science lists 9 articles by him (a 10th is from a different person with the same name), none of which has been cited even once. Of course, WoS is not very strong in the humanities, so I checked GScholar, too. That renders 1 article cited 3 times and 1 article cited 7 times. None of this is indicative of any notability at all. As for the journal, as noted above, it is indeed the "the most notable academic peer-reviewed Northern American journal on Slovene language and literature". At the same time, it is also the least notable academic peer-reviewed Northern American journal on Slovene language and literature, as it simply is the only journal in North America on this subject... Slovene studies is far from a major area of studies, even in Europe, so being president of the Slovene Studies Society also doesn't mean much either. In summary, I think this bio thoroughly fails all criteria of WP:PROF and I don't see any evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO either. --Randykitty (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have two remarks on this:
Firstly, this is not the only Northern American journal on this matter. There is also the Slovene Lingustic Studies Journal, published since 1997.[17]
Secondly, the Society for Slovene Studies is described as "an internationally recognised society of scholars" here.[18]. The society's journal is also mentioned here among the most notable Slovene-language media. It has been contributed to (e.g. [19], [20], [21]) and referenced ([22]) by Slovene scholars of the highest prominence.
I'll try to find more references about the society and the journal, but these seem reliable and notable enough to me. I therefore still stick to the opinion that Pogačar is notable for Wikipedia as the president of this society and the editor of "a major well-established academic journal in their subject area".
Delete I see no evidence of a pass for WP:PROF. The broader subject area is Slavic languages, within which Pogacar doesn't appear to be significant. As far as relative academic prominence goes, being an associate prof is not that high on the scale, and below your "average" full professor. RayTalk 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PROF, academics/professors meeting any one of these conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. The criterion for inclusion is also "the head or chief editor of a major well-established academic journal in their subject area". This guy's subject area are the Slovene and the Russian studies, not the Slavic languages in general. As the Slovene studies are taught at a number of universities as an independent academic subject, their scope is neither too broad nor too narrow to not treat them also here as such. There's no good reason to do otherwise. As for "a major well-established academic journal", I've provided the material that qualifies it as such above. --Eleassarmy talk 21:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly doubt that this journal is a "major well-established" one and am on the fence of whether to take it to AfD, too. Yes, it has been mentioned in passing in a book and some of its articles have been cited, but that doesn't make a journal any more notable than it does make this researcher notable. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, my understanding of the way the guideline works, is that it's supposed to instantiate the idea of actually being of note. Or, in another way, if I were to go to the nearest department at any major university to this professor's area of expertise, pick a random senior professor, and ask, "is this somebody people in your field should know about," the answer should be yes. This prof clearly doesn't come close to passing that basic idea for the English wikipedia. I would not object to transclusion into the Slovene language wikipedia, where it may be of special interest to the readership. RayTalk 19:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As somebody with a reasonably intimate knowledge of departments in this professor's area of expertise at major universities, I believe one would in fact receive a "yes" answer at many of them (especially at departments that consider Slavic languages to include more than Russian). Doremo (talk) 20:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete -- subject comes close on several WP PROF guidelines, but no clear pass on any of them. I think that there's enough information provided to keep the article on the journal, because it seems notable, but not at the higher level that editing it would be a clear pass of WP:PROF (separately, I think that that is the weakest criteria of the WP:PROF list, but regardless, I don't see a pass here). I think given the faculty title and lack of major awards listed, I would need a RS directly asserting the importance of the researcher or one of his ideas. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 05:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For now, we have checked only online sources. User:Doremo has stated that he has an intimate knowledge of this subject area. It would be great if he could check the offline sources and provide relevant quotes, if any, to better establish the notability of the professor as well as the journal. In addition, I'm still searching for anything relevant online. --Eleassarmy talk 08:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult for me to quantify this. Of course, I know Pogacar personally (as does, I believe, every English-speaking scholar involved in the small field of Slovene studies—certainly at a good number of major U.S. and Canadian universities—and quite a few in Slavic studies). The position of an academic extensively involved in publishing (as an editor more than an author) differs from one primarily known through research; that is, he's not necessarily known for ground-breaking or state-of-the-art research, but he is widely known and respected as a coordinator, facilitator, and editor due to involvement in journals, as a reviewer (generally anonymously, as is typical), as a conference organizer, and so on. In my opinion, he's got quite a high profile among scholars in Slovene studies—but whether this equates with suitable notability for WP is something for people to decide through consensus. I'm more or less an "inclusionist," so I would probably vote to keep an article on pretty much anyone, to be honest. Doremo (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it does. Thank you. I've found two more online sources relevant for this debate:
In addition, Pogačar has his entry in the book Slovenski kdo je kdo (the Slovene version of Who's Who),[23] prepared by the notable lexicographer Drago Bajt [sl] and described in detail in multiple Slovene media as the first Slovene comprehensive biographical dictionary.
I considered changing my vote to Keep on the basis of the list of notable Slovene translators, but the list is too long (over a page of names single spaced) and without comment to seem sufficiently selective. I want to give Doremo a lot of space to show notability here, because I trust experts who know the field of the nominated subject well, but I think we still need something that we can point to even for the lower standard of the Average Professor Test. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 06:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have much more to add in terms of showing notability (beyond the references that I've already added to the article). Like I said, Pogacar is well known in the (relatively obscure) field of Slovene studies, but primarily as an editor, coordinator, and translator rather than as a published author. Whether this kind of notability meets general WP notability requirements is something for the WP community to decide. I myself don't see any harm in keeping the article (which is objective, non-promotional, referenced, and linked to two content articles), but others may have a motivation to delete it. Doremo (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now the rationale. I created the article in order to counter the systemic bias implicit in the current (and even more so historical) ways that the Big "Goliaths" (read: big nations) tend to treat the smaller nations, ethno-linguistic groups, and minorities ("Davids" fighting for their place under the sun with "Goliaths"). We, ethnic Slovenes have experienced such ways by our Austrian and Italian neighbors who a) annexed and subjected the quarter of total Slovene population which became the forcefully ItalianizedSlovene minority in Italy (1920-1947), and b) during WW II committed war crimes against Slovenes that never were persecuted because the British (read: another "Goliath") government prevented any trial in the name of Cold War between the - naturally huh? - Big players after the war, no one cared that justice has been abandoned. So, in my strong opinion, even if this person who is subject of the article would have not written a single scholarly article at all, the very fact of him being instrumental in maintaining the infrastructure (read: journal) for keeping Slovene studies alive and kicking internationally in such a biased global "community", this alone would make him a notable person. P.S. I apologize for my awkward English since I am obviously not a native speaker of the Big Language, although my Grand-Father spent first seven years of his life in Chicago where he was born and learned English upon his parents emigrating from Europe in the 1880s wave of Slovene emigration, but he had soon, aged only seven, upon the death of his father in a coal mine accident, returned fatherless to the Old World with his mom only (i.e. my great-grand-mother), to watch - forty years later - his home, built by himself, totally burned down by the Mario Roatta soldiers despite the fact that he wasn't on either side in the (civil) war, being neither a Slovene partisan nor a White Guard (Slovenia) member. My grand-father was just a hard-working (and church-going) family man. I counter the WP:systemic bias here in his honor. --DancingPhilosophermy talk 10:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid that you are mixing up "important" or "worthy" with notability in the WP sense. Not the same thing, I--Randykitty (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC) fear.[reply]
Comment I think DancingPhilosopher makes a cogent point. For example, from the perspective of world literature, most (if not all) Slovene poets and authors (like writers from other small nations) are not particularly noteworthy and would surely be unknown in nearly any literature program in the English-speaking world. Yet they have a place in WP, presumably because of their prominence within the (small) context of Slovene culture. Similarly, Pogacar has a notable position within the (small) context of Slovene studies, even if his position within Slavic studies as a whole or literature studies is much less prominent or even negligible. Doremo (talk) 11:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would assume that there are significant, in-depth sources on those writers and poets. The language in which these sources are published is irrelevant (we should use English sources where available, but other-language sources are certainly admissible). I don't see any such sources on Pogacar, so I don't think that the comparison is valid. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking more along the lines of RayAYang's quite reasonable suggestion of "go to the nearest department ... and ask, 'is this somebody people ... should know about,'" with regard to worthiness/importance in my comment about writers/poets above. It's an attractive criterion for inclusion, but is probably less useful for exclusion. And, of course, inclusion needs to be supported by reference to reliable sources, whatever the language. Doremo (talk) 13:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that the journal he edits is indeed a major journal: WorldCat shows 281 holdings, which does not include whatever there may be in its own language area. This meets one of the qualifications of WP:PROF, and WC is a reliable source, so there's no need to discuss the others, which I agree are a little borderline. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 22 December 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.
Keep: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Something tells me the nominator forgot about WP:BEFORE, because there are clearly enough good sources here for WP:GNG to be comfortably met. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick check shows plenty of references to fill out the article, someone just needs to do it. —Ed!(talk) 14:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic passes WP:N, having received significant coverage in reliable sources:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:V. WP:Deletion policy offers this as a rationale to delete an article, stating: "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". The only provided source redirects us to the website of the organisation, and as such, the content in this article is unable to be verified. Couldn't find any other sources either. Till 10:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Official chart is online here. It looks the URL recently changed. I'll update it. Took me all of 30 seconds to find. - SimonLyall (talk) 11:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the source it doesn't seem to violate the deletion policy mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've taken a look at the PDF file of these year end charts, and the RIANZ specifically states that any reproduction of the material is strictly prohibited. This could probably deleted under CSD G12. Till 04:14, 20 December 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) 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This person does not appear to meet the notability requirements at WP:MUSICBIO. I was unable to find any sources covering this individual in detail that qualify as reliable and independent. VQuakr (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note – the AfD template was constantly being removed which resulted in the author being blocked. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Ed!(talk) 14:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant (or any) coverage by independent reliable sources. The links at the article consist of his own website plus social media sites; nothing at all that meets Wikipedia standards. I was going to suggest a redirect to We Shot the Moon, the band to which he belonged from 2007 to 2008, but it may not be notable either; its references are no better than Wheatley's, and a search of Google News Archive found only a single article about this band (with a passing mention of Wheatley).[31] --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 15 December 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) 05:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject of the article does not meet WP:N or WP:BIO standards, and the article contains no reliable sources. This article (which was created by an account since blocked for sockpuppetry) is more akin to a LinkedIn page than an encyclopedia entry, and a thin one at that. Circumspect (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This verges on "no indication of notability". הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 01:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This person does not meet WP:BASIC for a standalone Wikipedia article. I found this passing mention in a Forbes article and this primary-source article, but not much else. Not enough coverage exists about the person, (as opposed to article's the person has authored, which are available in searches), to meet WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:33, 16 December 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. Consensus is to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems hoaxy. The only citation is to a college student's writing (which was not even indicated to be a dissertation, or even a term paper), and the spelling is un-Chinese. And, I'll say this, I've never heard of this alleged origin of ink. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find reliable sources to establish the topic for inclusion. Searches revealed little to nothing. --Cold Season (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been years since I wrote that article and I don't even remember why I wrote it in the first place. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:26, 11 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 09:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the rationales above. I'm not sure why this was relisted, it seems pretty clear to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 14:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google Books provided several results and Google News archives also provided results (first link is dead) and they all focus with the same thing, he invented India ink. I'm open to recalling my vote if non-English or offline sources are found. SwisterTwistertalk 19:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote it, OhanaUnited, because the article by Vincent Fatica told you that this was the case. Vince simply got the name wrong. (Interestingly, it seems that he wrote some of the letters upside down.) And that's the reason that you couldn't find anything, Nlu and Cold Season. Now go and look up the name Tien-Tchen, thought to have lived between 2697 and 2597 BCE. (He didn't invent it when he was born.)
By the way: M. Fatica is not a "college student", Nlu. He is an assistant professor of Mathematics.
But not of history or archaeology. The name "Tien-Tchen" still makes no sense in any commonly used romanization scheme, and I remain skeptical of its accuracy. I would also think that "simply got it wrong" and "wrote some of the letters upside down" hardly vouches for the underlying substance of the assertions. --Nlu (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on sources citing the name, it appeared that this was first asserted in English and French (which I don't read, but can get slightly the gist given that I do read some Latin) in the late 19th century, without any real citation to Chinese sources. Dickens, for example, indicated that "Tien-Tchen" lived during the time of "Honang-ti" (presumably Yellow Emperor). The thing is, nothing I can find in the Records of the Grand Historian (which, admittedly, only contained a brief mythical biography of the Yellow Emperor) supports this assertion either. Despite the fact that I now do believe that this assertion was/is frequently stated in English and French sources, one would expect a citable Chinese source to support it even for it to be viewed as verifiable Chinese legend. I am still unable to find one. --Nlu (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since Dickens (and similar sources) made a somewhat-more-recognizable reference to the Yellow Emperor, I looked further. It appears that only "reliably mythical" (if one can use that contradictory expression) about the ink being first used in the Yellow Emperor's time was a Han Dynasty assertion (by the official Li You (李尤)) that the Yellow Emperor himself invented ink. The more "reliably mythical" origins of ink point to the Zhou Dynasty official Xingyi (邢夷) as its inventor. I wonder if this assertion that "Tien-Tchen" was its inventor came from this sentence that Li You wrote:
書契即造，墨硯乃陳
Which, in modern pinyin (which, obviously, ancient Chinese didn't use) would be "shu-qi-ji-zao, mo-yan-nai-chen" -- but which clearly wasn't referring to a person at all; it clear means, "When writing was created, the inkstone and the ink were then created." I really find it so unfounded that this assertion should not be perpetrated here (notwithstanding, as I admit, English and French sources' assertion that this is the case). --Nlu (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked in the Book of Han, which contains a table of ancient (from the viewpoint of its author Ban Gu, who, obviously, was himself about 2,000 years to our past) personalities. (See [32].) The only person that Ban listed among the Yellow Emperor's contemporaries whose name might remotely be romanizable as "Tien-Tchen," as far as I can tell, would be Da Tian (大填), whom Ban merely described as "a teacher to the Yellow Emperor"). I will admit to hardly being an expert in ancient Chinese myths. (There is a reason why I haven't edited pre-Han articles much at all.) But this assertion still appears to be so out there that it can't be considered reliable notwithstanding the repetition of the claim in various English and French sources. It seems to be one of those things that a sinophile/sinophobe could very easily make up and make people believe at that time. --Nlu (talk) 05:10, 20 December 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) 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Completely unsourced, and there's nothing I can find that verifies the contents of this article. Moreover, the way the name is rendered is inconsistent with the usual romanization methods used at the time (Wade-Giles) and after (Pinyin and variations). I can't tell if it's a hoax, but it may be, but even if not hoax, the unverifiability may mean the article should be deleted. --Nlu (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable; Google and Google Book searches merely return syndicated publications. Mephistophelian (contact) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete in the absence of any coverage in reliable sources we cannot have an article on this person per WP:V. It is possible that the apparent lack of such sources is because of inaccurate transliteration, but there isn't much we can do about that. The article hasn't received any new content since its creation in 2007, and the way it was written suggests it was written by a relative of the subject. Hut 8.5 18:57, 8 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 09:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If the article is true, the subject would be notable by extension of holding a flag officer rank, but we can't tell that, so there's not a lot we can do. —Ed!(talk) 14:22, 15 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:44, 22 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 09:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 14:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google scholar gives him an h-index above 25 (good possibility of satisfying WP:PROF#C1). The very first source on the article ([33]) is an interview for the professor following his receipt of a an award for being a distinguished educator. He was an editor on the Handbook of Organization Studies, a frequently used text in courses on the subject (see, for example, [34]). These two point towards satisfying WP:Prof#C4). His bio [35] lists him as a Distinguished University Professor at the University of South Florida, possibly satisfying WP:PROF#C5). RayTalk 17:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to satisfy two categories of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- the Distinguished University Professor at USF is awarded a bit more liberally than at most comparable schools, but it's probably still enough for PROF-C5, and definitely above the Average Professor Test -- Ray's research is quite convincing on C1 and C4 as well. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk) 05:44, 19 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is something fishy going on here? Says all sorts of fancy things but fails to back them up with any solid evidence. Tonnes of name dropping but notability is not inherited. The first reference is supposedly a "List of Jimmy Spice Curry's entertainment background" but links to an empty IMDB page. His working with Lenny Karvitz is supported by a dodgy, cheap video with a soundbite from Kravitz and is otherwise unrelated to him. The claim of working with Grammy winner Preston Vismale is supported by an advert for a low budget, low production value film which doesn't mention Vismale. Claims he made the "first Bahamian movie " is at odds with the above advert which says it's the first Bahamian gangster comedy, not movie in general. Claims of "his minor crew role in the movie short "The Saint of the Zuiderzee"." is supported by what is claimed to be "Claremont McKenna College alum discusses the movie: "Saint of the Zuiderzee"" but is not that and does not mention Curry. First external link is a press release "Honors given to Curry at event." Who's the release from? What honours? Who gave them? What event? Reading the press release it sounds like he may have talked to some school children. It claims he is a living legend but if thats true why is it so difficult to find any credible mentions of him. If his film "Filthy Rich Gangster" is so historical why is there a lack of good mentions of it out there. It doesn't even rate a mention in IMDB. He's worked with all these top pros but still fills his youtube clips with spam links trying to get work. This article is a mess of deception, lack of verified claims, puffery and name dropping. Due to this and the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources this article should be deleted. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Puff Piece, and deceptive. --Sue Rangell✍ ✉ 21:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No delete The fishy smell is actually your suggestion, which seems very "personal". The delete response sounds worded more like an attack than constructively written response. (How is it that the Delete editor could only find negative when there is lots of positive both in the article and the links, which were totally ignored (100% ignored). Yes, while some of the issues you raise are valid from a technical standpoint (broken or incorrect links) and some of the formatting of the article are not in exactly Wikipedia perfection, the claims the the article, and Jimmy Spice Curry, are not valid from an intellectual property, historic, and creative nature are without merit.
1. The link that was dead is no indication of a purposeful error. 2. The purpose of Wikipedia editors is not to decide whether the quality of a movie or song is up to their standard. Jimmy Spice Curry is an independent, socially-conscious producer/director, who sometimes works with much smaller budgets than his "purely commercially-motivated" counterparts. 3. The first Bahamian movie is a legitimate venture. It seems that some of you are basing your opinions more on the "size, nationality" of the production of the movie, rather than the historic nature of such an accomplishment. 4. You conveniently ignored the other aspects of Jimmy Spice Curry's article that didn't have missing URL links, etc and focused purely on the issues that could be used to push for the deletion of the article. 5. Interesting that none of you noted that there are "no copyright violations" in the entire article. Not one product (audio, visual) mentioned is in violation of any copyright laws, or other intellectual property laws (trademarks, patents, etc) because the products are often lower-budgets, but totally legal. Further, regarding the Preston Vismale reference and link, that issue was merely an incorrect URL/Link. 6. Deletion based on some videos links also including wording giving viewers info on products by him that are for sale, is no indication that the initial products are not valid, but merely use of a marketing tool, as you'd also find on many other Wikipedia links where in the primary webpage link, there is also some information/links guiding readers/views to items by the band, producer, artist, that are for sale. Even major corporations often include some promotional information at the beginning of their movies, or at the back of albums, this is not a violation of Wikipedia but merely an attempt to vilify the article, writers and Jimmy Spice Curry. Further, the Wikipedia editors claiming that there is not much credible information on Jimmy Spice Curry in existence, clearly ignored a simple search engine result, that would list (in the case of Google.com) several hundred, some of which are promotional, but many others purely academic in nature. 7. The project "Lenny Kravitz The Real Bahama Jamma" was written, produced, directed by Jimmy Spice Curry, and authorized by Virgin Records, and the government of the Bahamas. Jimmy Spice Curry, as is the case with most production deals, is not the promoter nor responsible for the local or global promotion of such a venture, and the limited promotion of the venture is no indication that it does not exist. 8) "Saint of the Zuiderzee" was a production by a College, and Jimmy Spice Curry did play a minor role, as the original article indicated. Nowhere in the Jimmy Spice Curry original article is there the claim that he is rich, or powerful, but merely that he is a socially-conscious producer, writer, artist, director. Further, the claim that "name dropping" is being used in the original article, is probably simply the response of the Wikipedia "delete" suggestion editors who do not know the mentioned celebrities personally. Many Wikipedia articles are written, and the colleagues, and celebrity relationships between the person the article is written about is not questioned.
It seems as though there is a double standard inherent the deletion request; while major corporations and more well-known producers/artists can have certain promotional info in their videos, etc, for less known producers/artists like Jimmy Spice Curry, who actually need the promotional opportunities more, the initial Deletion page creators are holding this article re Jimmy Spice Curry to a higher standard.
In a world where most artists, producers are only focused on money, don't you think it may be good to support articles written about people like Jimmy Spice Curry, and possibly suggest ways to improve the links, etc as opposed to working together to eliminate Jimmy Spice Curry, from Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not supposed to be an elitist site, but a site for anyone and any topic that is relevant to human intellect, history, etc. I apologize if the formatting of this response does not meet exactly with the Wikipedia guidelines, and trust that you all won't use this also against the original Jimmy Spice Curry article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.76.12 (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) The page linked to is a section were imdb allows user submitted info but is still blank. There is no credits associated with the link. Add those the multiple issues, something fishy. 2) No but we do look at notability. Low budget jobs are less likely to be notable. Less press is given to backyard movies. 3) If it's so historic why is there a lack of good mentions of it out there? Why didn't your advert say it was the first Bahamian film? 4) I adressed the parts with missing references in my second sentance. "but fails to back them up with any solid evidence." Where is the verification? 5) Straw man. 6) It's an indication of what the internet is being used for, promotion, just like what looks like happening here. Google hits are not an indication of notability. When I looked at the search results I saw a lot of unusable sources. 7) Good for him. He got a soundbite from Kravitz. That does not make him notable. 8) A minor crew part on a College production does not make somone notable. The deceptive sourcing was just another problem with this puff piece. not numbered) So you're saying the name dropping is there to establish notability by association. If the celebrity connection is a large part of the basis of the article then it is questioned.
Projects with are budget are more likely to attract attention in independent reliable sources. Wikipedia document subjects that have had significant coverage in independent reliable source. Wikipedia is not trying to redress any perceived double standards. Wikipedia is not here to give free publicity to the little man, to hold him up against the elitist media.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Medirantalk to me! 09:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject might have some notability, but unfortunately the sources used in this article are not enough to establish that. Most of them are either press releases or YouTube videos, neither of which is generally considered a reliable source. If reliable independent sources are found which describe the subject's career, the article can be re-created later. --Metropolitan90(talk) 21:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, references are dead end - no editorial discussion, sustained or otherwise.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Being a puff piece if fixable with sourcing. However, there is no coverage that I could find in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 20 December 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. Although a branch like this does not typically deserve an article of its own - and shouldn't - there's no consensus in this discussion to delete. This does not preclude future AFD's (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The program has gotten a ton of Reliable Source coverage per Google News. Somebody needs to add some of these sources to the article, which currently has only one reference and that a dead link. But notability is based on AVAILABLE sources and there clearly are a lot of sources available. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P. S. Possibly the reason people thought there weren't sources is they were searching under APPL, rather than Area Police/Private Security Liaison which is the actual name of the article. For some reason this AfD was listed under the redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 1 December 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) 20:41, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public)talk 00:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above. Morefoolhim 19:23, 8 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 09:26, 15 December 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. Consensus was leaning towards delete. So I used my more-than-rudimentary Danish to review the Danish articles, and then the French review. This confirmed the consensus. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prod'd ages ago in 2007, removed by an IP address for no good reason. No independent sources. Possible COI from the article's author in 2006 (he went around adding links to Bigum in unrelated articles about how awesome Bigum is). Given 5 years to develop since the prod was removed... there are still no sources. Google search for "Martin Bigum -wikipedia" turns up his own webpage, an exhibition he once did (not really a 3rd party source but better than his personal webpage, sure), and mostly user-edited stuff otherwise (Youtube, other user-editable encyclopedias). Danish Wikipeda article isn't any better. SnowFire (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also could find no reliable sources. Apparently he is a non-notable Renaissance man. - MrX 02:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The paris-art reference is solid, just very short. I don't think the interviews are too useful for proving notability, though. This does help the article's case, just not sure it's really enough. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are interviews of him, and yes in non-English sources. Also has (at least)two books published about his work.Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. From the Google Books result I assume you mean? "The face of God" is a self-published book. There are two in-passing references in "Production Methods: Behind the Scenes of Virtual Inhabited 3d Worlds" and "Design Thinking Business Analysis: Business Concept Mapping Applied" but both appear quite minor, it's not like the books are about his work, they just used him as an example on a single page. The other results are Wikipedia-mirror books that don't count. SnowFire (talk) 16:39, 1 December 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, MBisanztalk 00:05, 8 December 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, Medirantalk to me! 09:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Interviews BTW are the lowest form of reference, since it is the perfect self citation.--Nixie9 (talk) 04:54, 19 December 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.
Article creation date precludes BLP PROD. Unreferenced BLP. If references are added in reliable sources this AfD may be closed early as if it were a BLP PROD. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 09:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - competed in the Olympics, clearly notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep[36] Clearly has played top level football in France and in European competition! Govvy (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn now there are BLP references. This was always a procedural nomination. The keep !votes are not really relevant. The reference now in the article is. The nomination was precise over this. Thank you for adding references. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:00, 16 December 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.
This page was already deleted as per a previous discussion. TravellerQLD(talk | contribs) 09:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've tag it for speedy deletion via WP:G4, previously deleted via AfD only 3 weeks ago. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and close - Recreation of previously deleted material from November 27, 2012. Mkdwtalk 09:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing speedy deletion - It was only a month ago that I voted delete and I still see no evidence of notability. The article contains the same content and sources thus I stand by my initial vote. SwisterTwistertalk 19:04, 15 December 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) 05:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Too soon to tell whether this is anything more than just another gun crime. And title is too vague: I'm sure there have been mny shootings in Memphis.TheLongTone (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and unencyclopedic. Wikinews might be a good place for such a page. —teb728tc 11:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - blatantly WP:NOTNEWS, and part of a highly problematic concern with this well-intentioned new editor. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:56, 15 December 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. Courcelles 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does not meet the WIKI guidlines of WIKI:GNG and notablity, lot of unsourced material and personnel claims , the only references cited is a picture giving awards to school students standing "beside" vice chancellor of the university Shrikanthv (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Shrikanthv (talk) 10:26, 30 November 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. Courcelles 02:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Unrecognized by all major dog associations, the only references I can find to them besides casual discussion and those sites that seem to 'scrape' dog breeds out of everywhere are on the two sites created to 'promote' these as a breed instead of mutts that look like wolves. They don't even have the notability as Puggles, which are a similar in that they are unrecognized mutts. Tikuko 02:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; this is not a breed. It also looks (to me) as if credence is trying to be gained by quoting BVA/KC and until very recently the lead actually stated 'this is a breed of dog'. Two of the references lead to the same article, another is a 'you tube' promotional video. Unfortunately, there are quite a number of articles like Utonagan - Northern Inuit dog is another example. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually the person who changed it from 'is a breed of dog' to 'is a crossbred dog' before deciding an AfD would be more applicable. --Tikuko 19:38, 7 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has a link but fails WP:CORPDEPTH as a routine notices of a move. A google search reviels press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for companies at this time. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems to be a significant vendor in its areas of speciality, but not a lot of coverage found. GNews only has press releases. GBooks has a few mentions such as [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]. --Michig (talk) 09:08, 22 December 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.
Redirect to Rolf Forsberg, the documentary filmmaker responsible for this and dozens of other similar projects. Even if lacking notability for a separate article, it can certainly be listed in that article where readers might learn more about the filmmaker himself. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 08:52, 16 December 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.
PROD reason was: rarely used term, and the article only consists of a (disputed) definition and a series of (probably excessive) quotes; and was removed by article creator. In addition, the rare uses seem to be, with the exception of some libertarian think-tanks, primarily referring to corporate lobbying, rather than the more general concept implied here. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 03:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alternatively, redirect to tragedy of the commons until you can find comments about the phrase as a term, rather than merely using the phase. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 03:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why would comments have to be found about the phrase as a term? Wikipedia is not a dictionary...
Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.
The phrase refers to a notable concept...
Call it concentrated benefit and diffuse costs. Such is typically the case when special interests want bigger government in the form of taxes, regulations, subsidies, and mandates. 1
With many policies, especially those related to taxation and spending, the benefits might be highly concentrated, with the costs of that policy widely distributed. 2
In subsidy programs, the state government redistributes wealth to special interest groups in the form of concentrated benefits, and it diffuses the costs of these benefits to all those who remain unsubsidized in the marketplace. In short, tax credits are a form of wealth redistribution — we all bear the cost, but only special interests and favored industries benefit. 3
One explanation for government failure in such situations is that special interest groups can have powerful effects on legislation that harms or benefits a small group of people a great deal but affects everyone else only a little. 4
The taxes would be paid by the people over the whole country, but the benefits would go to the few people in those particular locations. This type of spending is a rather gross waste of resources that worsened over the years as the government has been allowed to do more particularized things. - James M. Buchanan
Redirect to where? Given that you believe that the meaning doesn't appear to be universal...then please explain the disparities in the meanings. In nearly all of the cases the phrase refers to the same exact concept: in terms of specific government programs/regulations... the cost to society is quite possibly greater than the benefit to society...but it's hard to tell because the cost is spread among millions of people. When is the phrase used differently? --Xerographica (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example...here's Roger Koppl, a professor of economics and finance, using the phrase in a discussion with the political scientist Jeffrey Friedman...
None of this touches your point that the world is complex so that serious people can disagree on policy. I don’t think I denied that either. I just said that it is better to signal goodness than do good. For voters, that follows from the low stakes. They are rationally ignorant and thus prefer policies that signal goodness. For politicians, it follows from the *high* stakes. Only those will survive who are effective at signaling goodness while in fact concentrating benefits and dispersing costs.
When Roger Koppl used the phrase "concentrating benefits and dispersing costs"...do you think Friedman had any trouble understanding exactly which meaning Koppl was trying to convey? Have you even read anything by Koppl or Friedman? Do you think Arthur Rubin even knows who they are? A concept isn't notable because people outside of the field haven't heard of it? This is a farce and a disservice to the readers or Wikipedia. There's a plethora of high quality, scholarly material on the concept and it's going to be deleted because, ironically, editors who don't understand the concept of decentralized knowledge believe that a concept can't be notable if they haven't heard of it. --Xerographica (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read Milton Friedman and David Friedman; I would be more impressed if one of them had commented on the concept, rather than Jeffrey Friedman, who seems to have had his resume posted as a Wikipedia article. [Note: I'm not claiming that he posted his resume, only that somebody did.] — Arthur Rubin(talk) 20:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They did comment, fairly extensively, on the concept...
The problem of concentrated benefits and diffused costs is a real problem. - Milton Friedman
At the moment, we in the United States have available to us, if we will take it, something that is about as close to a free lunch as you can have. After the fall of communism, everybody in the world agreed that socialism was a failure. Everybody in the world, more or less, agreed that capitalism was a success. The funny thing is that every capitalist country in the world apparently concluded that therefore what the West needed was more socialism. That's obviously absurd, so let's look at the opportunity we now have to get a nearly free lunch. President Clinton has said that what we need is widespread sacrifice and concentrated benefits. What we need is exactly the opposite. What we need and what we can have - what is the nearest thing to a free lunch - is widespread benefits and concentrated sacrifice. It's not a wholly free lunch, but it's close. - Milton Friedman, The Real Free Lunch: Markets and Private Property]
What predictions can we make on the basis of this simple model of individuals and interest groups bidding for legislation? One is that legislation will tend to benefit concentrated interest groups at the expense of dispersed interest groups--where "concentrated" and "dispersed" describe the bundle of characteristics that determine how large a fraction of the benefit that the members of the interest group would receive from legislation can be raised by the group to buy the legislation. - David Friedman, The Political Market Place
I see your point. However, this concept, even if you can find a definition, still fits in tragedy of the commons. [OR] In fact, in a sense, this concept is exactly the tragedy of the commons. (Analysis not presented here, as it's my analysis.)[/OR] In any case, there is no sense in which this topic is not an example of tragedy of the commons. it should be merged there, and any separation done on a different basis than separating out this topic. Perhaps splitting out political aspects of that article. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 21:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not political corruption for the benefit of the many to be sacrificed for the benefit of the few? How is regulatory capture not relevant to "tragedy" while concentrated benefits and diffuse costs is? Either government failure is...or it isn't...a "tragedy". I've shared numerous passages that clearly prove that "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" is a notable concept. Can you share any passages which clearly prove that "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" is directly related to "tragedy of the commons"? I agree that the two concepts are peripherally relevant...which is why you're welcome to add "tragedy of the commons" to the see also section of the "concentrated benefits and diffuse costs" entry. --Xerographica (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it political corruption if those with the most interest in a mapper (concentrated interest) have the most interest in communicating their views to decision-makers (politicians, or not)? I don't see the relevance of "regulatory capture" to commons, unless you treat the space of ideas as a commons, which doesn't make much sense? I'm not going to "remove" the link to political corruption from the article while this discussion is in progress, but it is, to quote you, "peripherally relevant", at best. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 14:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to quote Wikipedia See Also policy...links can be "tangentially related". Political corruption, regulatory capture and concentrated benefits and diffuse costs are all examples of government failure. You either agree that government failure is a tragedy of the commons...or you do not. You're arguing that CB/DC should be a section in "tragedy" yet it's already discussed in public choice theory. Which is CB/DC more relevant to...public choice or "tragedy"? --Xerographica (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The concept is just the tragedy of the commons, although framed a little differently; we already have an article about that (although it might benefit from some expansion into new fields). bobrayner (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about one of that factors that can create tragedy of the commons and a host of other discussed situations. So they are certainly not synonymous, not even in the same category, as one is a cause and one is an effect. Next, 99% of Wikipedia article are about the subject behind the title, not about the title itself. It looks like this is a common concept with a lot of coverage. The article needs work, maybe eventually even the title could get tweaked, but this is a new article. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 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.
Note for an Admin: WP:WITHDRAWN as references are being added to support notability. Thanks all!---MJH (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear MJH, dear Staff, I know my article is not complete. In fact, it is difficult to find accurate information on the singer. I have nevertheless added a lot of information to it. It is difficult because he was popular more than 50 years ago and that he comes from a very poor country (Bolivia) where the people did not have a good access to many communication/information facilities. It means that there are not many prints and marks left of the singer. Anyway as you can see if you look at the references I put, he has created this sucu sucu song (for which I created the article by the way) which has been sampled in many different versions around the world by famous singers and bands even in a tv series (Top Secret). I think that this artist really should be represented on Wikipedia. I think the article fulfill the WP:NSONG now and that all the references fulfill the point 2,5,11,12 of the WP:MUSICBIO. I wish to improve the coverage of the andean music of that time in Bolivia. There are not many artists of that time that have a lot of sources, especially on the internet.. I hope you will consider this injustice compared to singers or groups of western countries and that the criteria of quality should be different. Sorry for the quality of my English and thank you for reading. Best regards Robbru (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nice work, big improvement. I think he has a chance now.---MJH (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am going to add more. I found interesting cultural articles on his influence on bolivian andean music. Robbru (talk) 16:36, 9 December 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, —Theopolisme 02:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A withdrawal by the nominator might be in order here as a courtesy. Bring it back in a couple months if it still offends thee... Carrite (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added 2 categories and more than 2000 characters today. I have discovered many prizes he has received in Bolivia and Argentina. I think the article is complete enough to deserve to stay on the english wikipedia website. Please let me know if you agree. I am going to add more information on the article progressively. Thank you for helping me improving my articles. I did not understand all what Carrite wrote.. Did you mean that I should ask -MJH to cancel the nomination? BR Robbru (talk) 20:54, 15 December 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. MBisanztalk 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While I see many hits (and even videos that appear to be reliable), I just couldn't find enough reliable sources. Most of the hits I find are just betting sites. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 15:50, 14 December 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, —Theopolisme 02:46, 15 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is blatant promotion and should have been speedied. Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I coundn't find anything to convince me that this is notable, and most of the article appears to be about Alan Shearer. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 22 December 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.
Fails WP:NALBUM - Their one album should merge with the band article. All the references are reused, and only support one good article. MJH (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the nominator says merge not delete. (And see also WP:PERNOM) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you are proposing a merge please do so on the article's talk page. AfD is not the correct venue. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I propose deletion. The referenced discussion content is already in the band article.---MJH (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tracklisting is verifiable and is not in the band article, therefore there is content to merge. --Michig (talk) 17:34, 10 December 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, —Theopolisme 02:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main band article. No assertion of notability per WP:NALBUM, and no significant coverage online from WP:reliable sources. A bit tricky, as there's a fair bit of coverage for Zeus (band). Maybe Zeus! should change their name? But what do I know. Altered Walter (talk) 20:45, 20 December 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.
This page has been deleted once via BLPPROD and once upon my A7 (no assertion of notability) nomination. This time, I'd say it's pretty much on the border between AfD and CSD (as in I'm sure there are some admins who'd delete it, and some who'd reject a speedy nomination), but I figure once a page has been created three times, it's time for the community to decide if we want it or not. So: Does not meet any of the WP:CREATIVE criteria. Fairly minor role on a fairly obscure show, and no substantive coverage in reliable sources, as far as I could find. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also: According to my Twinkle CSD log, the previous article was created by Joshvs (talk·contribs). As this was a month ago, I don't remember it very well, so, without meaning to cast any aspersions on Traptor12 (talk·contribs), who created this version of the article, would an admin mind comparing the Traptor copy to the Josh one? It's quite possible that it's a coincidence, but it's probably best to clear that up before we go any further. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to request It's not a direct copy, the entire contents of the Joshvs version was "Sam Marin is a voice actor in the United States. He is best known for his roles of Benson,Pops and MuscleMan on Regular Show. He co-stared in The Native Man from Lolyland and 2 in the AMPM. He voices other characters in Regular Show.", no cats/tables/etc. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would suggest that it was worth discussing whether editors felt that salting the article (if it is deleted) was or was not appropriate. In closing AfDs, I have often found that such suggestions come late, and earlier commenters don't have an opportunity to notice/discuss whether that option is appropriate. Discussion on this point will be helpful to the closer in case of deletion. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All I wanted to do was to mke Sam Marin's Wikipidea page since everyone of the cast of Regular Show has one, plus he voices three of the main characters so he has mad skills. I tried to make the page simple and complatly different from the old page but the only problem was that I had no idea what the old page looked like. I am just saying this to beg the people of Wikipidea to not delete Sam Marin's page. From User:Traptor12 18:30, 10 December 2012
Comment Hi Traptor12. I've tried to put some information about Wikipedia's notability and reliable sources guidelines on your talk page, but I'm not sure if you've seen it there, so I'm leaving a note here, too. If you can provide sources Wikipedia considers reliable for the material in the article, you will have a much easier time convincing editors here that the article meets those guidelines, and as a result be kept. This isn't personal, and I hope you will review the information I provided, if necessary, talk to some other uninvolved editors at the Teahouse, and so on. Wikipedia can be a frustrating place until you understand some of those guidelines, so I hope that the information I've provided proves helpful. Drop a note on my talk page if I can be of more assistance. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 16:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Regular Show, which appears to be what he is primarily known for. A standalone article isn't justified. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 22 December 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. Notable for a single event when they were a minor. Nothing else to establish further notability. Add these limited notability items to the desire to remove by the subject, the pointer clearly leans to delete (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete - I will say that he has accomplished quite a reputation with Billy Elliot including the Tony Award but he hasn't gained much work aside from that especially if he finished his time with that play two years ago. Google News found a minor mention through this 2012 interview with one of the cast members of Billy Elliot and Google News archives, unsurprisingly, found several results for Billy Elliot. SwisterTwistertalk 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is crazy talk. The kid won a TONY and there is significant editorial coverage. The subject has no publicity rights over his wikipedia article. Passes WP:GNG by a mile. What if Bill Gates doesn't like his article?--Nixie9 (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources that establish notability and the fact that he's won a Tony pretty much clinches it. He's notable, passing WP:GNG. Normally we only delete an article based on the subject's request if there is a BLP issue at stake and there are privacy concerns. The fact is, he's a performer, so he's a public figure. Had he still been a minor that may have been a consideration but he's 18 and has chosen to be a public figure. If not now, the article would have been eventually created. freshacconci talktalk 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The last and only thing this kid did as a performer was Billy Elliot when he was 15. Since then he has not done anything else and is just living a normal life and will most likely keep doing so. Respect his privacy, What is the point of keeping a wikipedia page on a kid that hasn't done anything after the age of 15 and plans on keeping to himself. Respect his privacy I say again. "Normally we only delete an article based on the subject's request if there is a BLP issue at stake and there are privacy concerns" That is the exact reason why the wikipedia page needs to be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrnfna78 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that he is currently in a performing arts school so it looks like performing will continue to be his future (unless that statement is not accurate). In any case, sometimes people are only notable for one thing and if that one thing is significant and well-sourced a Wikipedia article is appropriate. By BLP issue I mean an issue pertaining to WP:BLP which does not seem to apply here. By privacy, I mean that there is a concern for their privacy based on appearing in Wikipedia. Again, this is not the case. The fact is, his name and likeness are on many other media outlets other than Wikipedia. Deleting this article will not permit him any more privacy since you can simply google his name and find plenty of hits. There are no apparent privacy concerns so there are no compelling reasons to delete the article. freshacconci talktalk 21:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete "Normally we only delete an article based on the subject's request if there is a BLP issue at stake and there are privacy concerns" That is the exact reason why the wikipedia page needs to be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrnfna78 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are permitted to only one vote so I have moved your second comment to the first vote. SwisterTwistertalk 20:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know David personally, he is not currently in a performing Arts school. I am doing this with his consent. He gave a very good reason of why he wanted it down and I am doing him a favor in asking this page to be deleted, he wants it down for personal reasons that he doesn't feel comfortable sharing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xrnfna78 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Billy Elliot the Musical#Original Broadway production. He is only really known for that one show. Most of the content of this article is about things other than the role for which he is known, so I don't see a compelling reason to keep given the request to delete. --Michig (talk) 08:37, 22 December 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 procedural close with no prejudice against speedy renomination, given the initial proposal was for the elementary school and the article is now on the school district. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created today, Prodded, converted to a redirect, restored, then converted to a redirect (which is creating circular redirects). It was prodded due to notability. I've restored the page as an article, and listed it here for AFD discussion. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 01:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article about the tragedy, or alternatively the school district for the school. We don't typically have pages for elementary and middle schools, but obviously this is a search term now, so redirect it as we do all other non-highschools. Shadowjams (talk) 01:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I started this, I may as well give my opinion as well. I think that it's going to be tough to make the case that this school is not notable, now. The simple fact that every news organization in the world has talked about the school all day today, and likely for a good long while to come (yea, yea, I know that's "crystal ball-ing", but its a pretty realistic assumption), gives the school itself a good amount of notability. So, I'd say "Keep", but... I have to admit that I don't really care that much either way. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 01:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think there's a big difference between every news organization referencing it specifically, and every news organization referencing it by virtue of the tragedy. The latter is what's happening, and I think our notability criteria's pretty clear about how to deal with that sort of situation. Not to mention we have a lot of experience dealing with 1BLP events that approximate things like this. The Westside Middle School massacre comes the closest to this that I can think of offhand, and in that case the Middle school redirects to the district. I suppose that'd also work here as well, although I think the more salient example is probably the tragedy. Shadowjams (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, redirecting to the school district would be perfectly acceptable to me, in fact, maybe even preferable. Reason being, there's no need to forever tie the school to the massacre, it's first and foremost a school, and so it should redirect to the district, as we do with virtually every (I'd estimate over 99% of all) grade school and middle school. I think there's no compelling reason though for a keep, I think it's a question of where the redirect should be. Shadowjams (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I don't think that the incident will ever be separable from the school itself. You can clean up the blood stains, but no one will ever be able to take those memories away from the kids, parents, and staff there, or from the rest of us for that matter. Suggesting that Wikipedia should not "tie the school to the massacre" is... I don't know. Egotistical and naive, at the very least. Wikipedia isn't the center of the universe, and nothing that anyone does or says here can separate the school from the event that happened there today. All that being said, I wouldn't mind if this page about this school is redirected to the page about the district (is there one? It's not really a problem to me if either this page or the district are red links, but that seems to drive some people nuts, so I feel as though I have to ask...). I don't think that an article about the school itself is particularly important, but it'll be an uphill battle to keep it from existing at this point. It's fairly easy to point to Columbine High School, with the obvious conclusion being that this schools page is comparable. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 02:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: No brainer. Elementary schools are rarely notable, and a 1E situation doesn't require a separate article on the school.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There should be an article covering the event, and that article, in my opinion, should also cover the school itself; it may be interesting to the reader to not only find information about the notable event, but also the location of the notable event. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 03:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand: this school is going to meet WP:N simply because it was the site of something that is probably going to be painted as the worst school shooting since Virgina Tech. If, despite all the coverage, the school itself doesn't manage to meet WP:N, then move the article to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Merge with shooting article, and redirect (not that there's much to merge). PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 03:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A location doesn't become notable merely because something notable happens there. Weak arguments are weak, don't waste our time, please.. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there is already an impressive article on the shooting, and this is a one sentence thing hardly worth keeping around. (Note to self, don't edit Wikipedia when tired). PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 03:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the shooting article. It is patently obvious that the school is only ever going to be known for the shooting, and having an article on it will not help readers understand it in any way. Think about it; an elementary school has a building with an address, a principal, and some number x of students. All that information is in the shooting article. Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is patently obvious that the school is only ever going to be Then next year the school in question gets recognized as a Blue Ribbon School and instantly becomes "notable". Or it becomes known that the school contains a top secret bunker where the government houses the remains of aliens from outer space. WP:CRYSTAL? PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 03:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Notability is not inherited; absent this event, it is just one of a thousands similar elementary schools. Tarc (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect... to what, exactly? I bring this up not because I either agree or disagree, but to make the point that it shouldn't be redirected to the shooting incident page simply because that will end up creating several double redirects. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs) 03:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The double redirects can be fixed. People interested in the shooting may search for this school, and that's the entire point of redirects. If this doesn't redirect to the shooting page, then it should redirect to the school district or town's page. PCHS-NJROTC(Messages) 03:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The schools debate has been had long since, and the compromise (reached and consolidated somewhere around 2006 if memory serves) was to have the names of the schools redirect to the school district. See Project:Schools, Project:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes, and the hundreds if not thousands of past AFD and other discussions about this since approximately 2004. That's done in this case by simple use of the edit and rename tools, no administrator deletion tool necessary. As Milowent said, this is a no brainer. Any of you could have just done this, without bringing it to AFD. Don't throw all of the knowledge of how we've generally handled things for six years out of the window just because of news reporting. Uncle G (talk) 06:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If we're now deleting school district articles, leaving us with absolutely no relevant target for a redirect from a school (a locality provides very little scope for content on educational organisations), then we're going too far. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 11:51, 15 December 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. Consensus is to delete WP:TOOSOON. If there is indeed a desire to merge some of the aspects into another article, I could provide source info. Only keep arguement is non-policy based (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could be consolidated into runtime system, not notable stand alone. Not even mentioned in the single cited syllabus. Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The second reference in the article mentions the VMS proto-runtime, but none of the three papers linked to on that page mention proto-runtime as a construct or term. There is just one paper I could find that has a paragraph on proto-runtimes: Runtime software adaptation: framework, approaches, and styles. None of these show enough notability for a stand alone article. The Run-time system article itself is in need of sources, but I agree this is probably the best place to merge. Mark viking (talk) 05:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From a technical standpoint, a proto-runtime is a significantly different thing than a runtime. Perhaps from a word perspective they sound similar, but from a concept perspective, they're as different as an article on atoms vs an article on atomic energy. Those both talk about atoms, but the concept of splitting atoms for energy is very different than the concept of the existence of atoms. In this case, a runtime system exists for all computer languages, but a proto-runtime is a fundamentally new concept for parallel languages that recognizes that all runtimes can be split into two pieces. One of those pieces relates to the language semantics, the other relates to the machine details. The proto-runtime is the piece that relates to machine details. A proto-runtime is provided as a separate thing, and then later one or more language portions are added, to create a runtime. A proto-runtime cannot be used on its own, but must have the language portion added. In a practical sense, this has value by simplifying the creation of a runtime. Only the logic of language constructs need be supplied. Low-level machine details are encapsulated inside the proto-runtime, which is reused across many languages, so the effort of tuning those low-level details for performance is amortized across all of the languages. Does this make sense? In the references, the thing called "Virtualized Master Slave" or VMS is the proto-runtime. It was only recognized after publication what the proper name should be. The proto-runtime concept is in use at Technishe Universitate Berlin, at INRIA in Paris, France, at Unister in Leipzig, at Arizona State University, and is part of a collaboration with Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Edinburgh University in Scotland, and Passau University in Germany for exascale computing. Many more references will be forthcoming that put the proto-runtime concept into use, and a soon to be submitted paper will put the term "proto-runtime" into publication. Perhaps a revision, which includes the above explanation of the difference, would be of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanhalle (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I left a note on User_talk:Seanhalle also, All the above may very well be true, but you need editorial references to establish it. A vague passing mention in one paper is not a significant discussion of the subject. I suggest you gather some references (non original research) and try to add this to Run-time system. The pending papers you mention will need to have been peer reviewed first. At best a case of WP:TOOSOON--MJH (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Seanhalle for the clear explanation of the proto-runtime concept. It does sound like a promising approach to developing runtime systems across languages and systems. What is at issue here is the Wikipedia idea of notability. An article needs (1) multiple reliable sources (in this case, probably peer-reviewed papers), so article content can be verified, and (2) reliable independent secondary sources (reviews, news articles, books) to show the topic is notable in the field and to provide objective assessments of the topic. It may be that the proto-runtime concept is too new for secondary sources to appear, see WP:TOOSOON for details. It seems at present there aren't enough sources out there to show notability and to build an objective, verifiable article that can stand on its own. Mark viking (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Thanks for explaining the criteria you are using to judge notability. The need for peer-reviewed publications makes sense, to establish correctness. However, the need for secondary citations seems less valid for fundamental computer-science topics. I understand the need for secondary citations in areas that involve significant opinion and judgement. Secondary citations demonstrate value, when value is validly measured by "buzz". But in fundamental computer science topics, such as runtime systems and other foundational concepts relating to the structure of computation, what matters most seems to be independent verification of the correctness, which is supplied by peer-reviewed publication. Secondary citations are unlikely to even exist, which is a reflection of the area of knowledge. Blocking such fundamental concepts from being included in wikipedia, due to lack of secondary citations, seems like inflicting harm on wikipedia simply for the sake of following a uniform procedure, with no deviation. You're the judges, right? Read the article, to understand the concept, then decide how foundational it is.Seanhalle (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC
Hello Sean. What we require is post-publication peer review and evidence that the contribution has managed to make an impact in its scientific community. Both can be reasonably measured by the number of secondary citations. The pre-publication peer review you refer to may, depending on the journal or conference, not even guarantee complete correctness (some conferences are targeted to "work-in-progress", reviewers can overlook mistakes in proofs, ...) Any foundational work that has managed to make an impact will (almost by definition) have a large number of secondary citations. —Ruud 13:19, 15 December 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, KTC (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and merge. Delete would be acceptable. Seanhalle's reasons for his "keep" vote are contrary to Wikipedia policy, specifically WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources mentioning this (WP:TOOSOON). —Ruud 13:19, 15 December 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. Courcelles 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A topic about an indie band from London, England that appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Custom Google News archive and Books searches such as [42] and [43] are not providing any coverage. Sources in the article don't appear to be reliable. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:52, 30 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, not notable.--Phazakerley(talk) 05:08, 15 December 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 Más_Para_Dar#Track_listing. Agreed, redirecting is better than deleting and Google News only found three results, two of them noting the song is a hit. It seems the album is more well known and has charted so that is notable. Rather than voting, I will simply redirect the article. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwistertalk 20:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability at all. Where are the chart positions, news articles, anything? Against the current (talk) 15:32, 14 December 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, KTC (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Más Para Dar, the song's parent album. The song, while it has not charted and does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS, is a single from a charting album and seems like a plausible search term. Gong show 06:35, 15 December 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Deluka - WP:NSONGS suggests that non-notable members be redirected to the band's page, and some of the material may be worth merging as nom indicates. Gong show 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deluka - It seems he is best known for Deluka but nothing else. Google News provided several results, the first one provides some details about how the band was formed and a different search also provided several results, one of them being an unreliable source (examiner.com), and they are all relevant to Deluka. SwisterTwistertalk 18:57, 15 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ANYBIO, the references are to self-provided biographies provided to work related conferences, and work related PR. No independent editorial coverage or claims to notability, other than that this is a man with a job. I'm sure he is a good person though. MJH (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please, guide me which kind of references would work? TanweerIKhan 06:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickaang (talk • contribs)
He has been covered in many Pakistani news. Please, check the references. NickAang 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickaang (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:BIO. Sources contained within the article do little more than confirm the existence of such a person, with no indicia of significance. RayTalk 20:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear at all notable. --Michig (talk) 08:28, 22 December 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. Courcelles 01:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A topic about a disbanded English punk rock band that may fail WP:N and WP:BAND. While there's this one source in the article, [44], searches in Google News archive and Books are not providing additional coverage. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:28, 30 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:54, 7 December 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, KTC (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't quite meet WP:BAND, and I can't find anything about them in WP:RS online apart from that one BBC local new feature. Since they've long since disbanded, there's little chance of them becoming more notable in future. Altered Walter (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real evidence of national success beyond Hereford, certainly no evidence of major label signing or chart success, which WP:BAND often requires. --Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:26, 17 December 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.
I am tentatively going to say that Andrew Aitken is non-notable (and, of course, a conflict of interest as the user is Andrew "dewdrop" Aitken). Maniesansdelire 00:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no notability claimed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do drop this speedily per A7. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've speedied this, but in case it doesn't get speedied I'd like to voice that this guy has no notability. To any admins: you might want to look at blocking this guy. Evidently this isn't his first time trying to add himself to Wikipedia and has had this article deleted before. His only edits have been to spam for himself and his band. It looks like he has no plans on doing anything besides that.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 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.
Redirect to Star Hellas due to single event notability, as should be done for all beauty pageant contestants in a similar case with no additional notability reasons. Mabalu (talk) 10:50, 13 December 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, -- Cheers,Riley 00:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - extrapolating from WP:BIO and WP:PEOPLEOUTCOMES, a winner of a national beauty pageant has made a top achievement in their field at a national level. An international win would make her even more notable, but a national win is sufficient. It's almost completely unreferenced, but that can be fixed: there's not much in WP:RS from a search for the Romanized spelling of her name, but there's plenty if you search for "βασιλικη τσιρογιαννη". Altered Walter (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per FreeRangeFrog's statement on Alexia Viruez AFD. Basically, representing a nation at miss universe and winning a national title is notable.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:56, 15 December 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers,Riley 00:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and very POV-ish. --Phazakerley(talk) 05:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge This is an event in the history of the X Window System. Searching for the term is a little confusing because XWin has been used as a contraction of X-Windows and Cygwin may have also had an XWin product. If one could find a source for verification of the story (I could not), it would be suitable for a merge into the history section of the X Window System article. As the xwin forums no longer exist, this topic will probably not increase in notability. If we can't find a reliable source, then deletion is best. Mark viking (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any encyclopedic relevance here. --Michig (talk) 08:25, 22 December 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.
Thanks for pointing this out! I have forgotten to continue adding more information to the article a long time ago. I have improved it just now, all sources coming from their official copyright holders. Once again, thank you so much! I highly appreciate it. MegastarLV (talk)
Thank you for putting more stuff about him. How can I help so the article does not get delete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.218.173 (talk) 06:17, 10 December 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, -- Cheers,Riley 00:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG because there are no independent secondary sources which confirm the content replicated entirely from his law firm bios. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:25, 21 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER - an appropriate standard since this article cites his television show. BlueRiband► 01:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to La Corte del Pueblo where he is mentioned, and which appears to be his main claim to fame. --Michig (talk) 07:46, 22 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ANYBIO all the (working) references are mentions that he opened a business, nothing editorial about the individual. Others are citations supporting WP:TOOSOONMJH (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Weekes is a noted tennis coach. He's helped tennis players like Pete Sampras with with game and he also organizes a major professional tennis tour in the Las Vegas area, the Party Rock Open, formerly the Lexus of Las Vegas Open. With these credentials, he is a notable figure in tennis. --DependableSkeleton79 (talk) 05:16, 13 December 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, -- Cheers,Riley 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notable people get discussed by independent editors, in reputable sources, with some frequency greater than 0.--Nixie9 (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly leaving a redirect to Party Rock Open. I don't see justification for an article about Weekes. He is mentioned in the Party Rock Open article so a redirect there may be appropriate, but I wonder how likely it is that that would be useful. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 22 December 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 Think Tank (Blur album). Consensus to merge. Someone can go into the history to take the best parts over to the target article (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:32, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NSONG although the album certainly passes WP:NALBUM and is great. MJH (talk) 04:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Think Tank (Blur album). It comes close to notability, based on the number of sourced comments and facts in the article, but merge or redirect to the album is preferred over deletion for songs of questionable notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that it should be kept as their is a fair amount of detail covering the songs musical style. I don't see why it fails NSONG. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced. Why delete something so well written and sourced? Also it seems to have enough reviews as well to prove it had a fair amount of media attention. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:33, 14 December 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, -- Cheers,Riley 00:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to Think Tank (Blur album) - WP:NSONG has several criteria which are not met by this article. The song has never 1. been ranked high on a national or notable music chart 2. won significant awards 3. been performed by several notable artists. I still feel much of the style information can be suitably included in the album article with out being lost. Mkdwtalk 09:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - remember Wikipedia is place of subjectivity, you seem to hold very objective rules. A lot of media attention is all that a song really needs for an article. Those rules seem to be put in place to help prove that, not set the rules for a song article in stone. This song has plenty of coverage and if you're really questioning it, I've heard Ambulance on a radio multiple times, I'm not even a fan of Blur and I know the song well. I could find more citations proving it had substantial media coverage if that helps it stay up. Hey being a single, charting, winning awards, and being covered makes a song worthy of an article, why does almost every Beatles song ever have an article, even their rarities and b-sides? --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about WP:GNG then, which I wouldn't say there are enough to suitable meet that either. Material is and quantitative against qualitative. For example the XFM cited source does not exist, Stylus Magazine no longer exists, and the most cited pop matters is actually an article about Blur and discusses many songs on the album. I hold the 'guidelines' not rules for articles very highly as that is largely the foundation for a good AfD discussion and not an WP:ATA such as subjective importance. Mkdwtalk 22:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just fixed the link to the xfm page (best to put a deadlink template in rather than claim that it "does not exist") and I dont see why the fact that stylus magazine no longer runs makes it any less of a reliable source. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ] 19:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Stylus is a notable example, but I think if the song were truly notable then one of its three sources should not be from a defunct publication whose main focus is music. Finally, I generally don't edit articles that I argue for deletion to avoid the perception of COI. If the article is kept, I often come back to tag areas of problems or concerns that I had. Mkdwtalk 09:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I like the article too, but honestly the majority of the content is borrowed from Think_Tank_(Blur_album). As nominator, I am now ambivalent. I think the major content for Ambulance should be consolidated into one place.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Think Tank. There isn't really enough here that a standalone article is needed. --Michig (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This song is already almost a decade old, there are still hardly any 3rd party sources about it as of 2012 -RoseL2P (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have enough credible and sourced reviews to stay up, also it's age is not a factor. It's independently sourced enough as it is. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 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.
Man with a job, no own albums or songs found. Article looks selfpromo and partly copyvio (although I could not find the source of that) The Bannertalk 18:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Saraya - Google News found a result here and a repeat here where he played with Orleans. I also found this which mentions he was a guest musician at an American Red Cross relief fund and another result here for an event which briefly lists his past work. I also found other minor mentions here (last result at the bottom and third to the last). Google Books found results here and here (the second link is second from top, both mention he was a member for Saraya, a band which charted but it wouldn't help this article), here (member for Those Guys), here (fourth, fifth and sixth from the top) and here (preview never indicates who the band is and I can't find who "TS" could be). Honestly, it seems he was more active in the 1970s-1980s and present though mostly now with replacement and sideman work. He has never maintained anything solid so an add to Saraya and redirecting may be better, considering so many of the Google Books results mentioned this. Additionally, the article suffers from NPOV and other tone-related issues ("Barry’s worked with some of the best" and "Barry’s also been blessed to record and tour"). SwisterTwistertalk 19:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please allow me a little more time on this. He is worthy of note and has recorded with Pat Travers, replacing Peter "Mars" Cowling and recorded several times with Yngwie Malmsteen. I am new at this and will look for other help to correct short fallings. Thank you phaze1todd—Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that playing with others is not enough to make Dunaway notable. Dunaway must be the headline, not others. Does he have albums or singles on his own name? The Bannertalk 00:15, 16 December 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.
