Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. No outstanding delete votes. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The Lost Tape[edit]
- The Lost Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:MUSIC. Mixtapes are generally not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We don't delete articles because they cover subjects that are 'generally not notable', and a Google search demonstrates that this one does not fail WP:MUSIC, with all this coverage, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 06:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of anything is not notable, but this is clearly notable by the weight of coverage it's received. Someone should update the article with some of these refs. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easy Keep – Passes WP:GNG and
criteria #1 of WP:BANDWP:NALBUMS, per: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean the GNG, as WP:BAND does not apply to an album. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You cited the topic as failing WP:MUSIC, which is a generic rationale, because this is an entire guideline page; and WP:BAND is a part of that page. WP:NALBUMS is more accurate. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep or Nomination withdrawn - Feel free to close. Thanks all. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AALBC.com[edit]
- AALBC.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Alexa Rank 303,323 therefore I highly doubt this is a notable website, it also looks like this article was created for promotional purposes given the user that created this article has been banned. JayJayTalk to me 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Please read WP:Notability. Notability isn't based on Alexa ranks. The article cites two New York Times articles and a Publishers Weekly article about the website. That's the sort of stuff notability is based on. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two articles from the NY Times and two from Publishers Weekly might be might give it a Weak keep but definitely not a Strong keep. JayJayTalk to me 17:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP: WEBCONTENT. It also meets WP: GNG, and has very reliable sources, including the NY Times. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy weak keep though it may be better to merge the content into a list of online book clubs or something, its not going to have extensive content, Sadads (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While the coverage currently in the article is not very extensive, it does pass WP:GNG. The article could certainly use some addition of reliable sources and expansion, which I have started to do. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:53, 19 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Conn (judge)[edit]
- David Conn (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The sources provided in this article barely mention its subject, who is a living person - they only refer to him in passing in his role as a judge, and don't contain anything close to significant coverage of him as either a person or in his official role. As such, WP:BIO and WP:BLP are obviously not met, and it's unclear to me why the article was created. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doesn't WP:BIO list certain occupations, which are considered notable, by default? From WP:BIO#Politicians:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This will also apply to those who have been elected but not yet sworn into such offices.
- Four other members of the Court of Military Commission Review were nominated for deletion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Bechtold. The consensus there was that this court was a national court, and those articles were kept as per the clause I quoted above. The closing administrator wrote: The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that national-level appellate judges are notable ex officio. Consensus can change, but, given that closure, I thought an artice about Conn would also be in order. Geo Swan (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's fair to say that we take BLP issues much more seriously than was the case in 2008, so that isn't a good precedent. Thank you for the explanation of why the article was created, but there appears to be no coverage of this person (for instance a search of Colonel David Conn returns almost nothing on Colonel Conn). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be more specific about your BLP concern? Geo Swan (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The presumption to privacy. On the basis of my search for sources (which seem to have returned similar results to yours judging from the sources used in the article) Colonel Conn is not notable. As such, we shouldn't have an article on him just because he holds a position through which he's presided over some cases which were reported in the media. On the basis of the near total lack of sources, I'm not at all convinced that there should be any assumption of notability for judges on this court. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay.
- The lead section says "...must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Were you suggesting the article lapsed from this instruction?
- WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy has subsections, but its main section is empty.
- Can I assume you are not suggesting the article victimizes Colonel Conn as described in WP:BLP#Avoid victimization?
- The next section is WP:BLP#Public figures. If you think the article lapses from this section, could you please explain how?
- The next section WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources is intended to protect individuals from identity theft.
- The next section is WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown -- which I suggest is not relevant for holders of notable public offices.
- The next section is WP:BLP#Subjects notable only for one event -- which I suggest is not relevant as per WP:BIO#Politicians as I quoted above.
- The next section is WP:BLP#Persons accused of crime -- which I suggest is also not applicable.
- The next section is WP:BLP#Privacy of names -- which I suggest is also not applicable for holders of notable public offices.
- Thanks in advance for explaining your privacy concern. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my above comment: he's not notable, so we shouldn't have an article on him, and in my view this article infringes his right to privacy. I hope that asking these questions in such a wordy fashion when I'd already explained my concern isn't an attempt to generate a discussion-stopping WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please -- are you suggesting WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown applies? I suggest he is a public figure. He has held a national office. He has published papers. Personal correspondence with him has been cited as a reference in other people`s documents. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much. The near complete lack of sources about this person indicates that whatever the position he holds, he is not really a 'public figure' in any meaningful sense. Judges in prominent roles tend to attract lots of coverage in the legal press and more general news reports and other publications. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You wrote Judges in prominent roles... Please explain how it is not meaningful to recognize that a public official in a prominent role is a public figure... Geo Swan (talk) 09:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of sources on this judge indicates that this isn't a prominent judicial role. The court appears to be notable, but the near total lack of refs on this person doesn't support claims that its judges are themselves automatically notable. I'm not sure what you're hoping for here to be honest. I've explained my rationale repeatedly above, and you keep asking variants on same questions. I'm not going to answer them again as this really looks like an attempt at WP:CHUNK to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are free to claw-back what seemed to me to be an acknowledgment that Conn filled a “prominent role”.
- While you have made several comments here it seems to me you have avoided addressing whether, according to WP:Notability (people)#Politicians (aka WP:POLITICIAN), holders of national offices are notable once RS confirm they held those offices. FWIW WP:SOLDIER similarly recommends that flag officers are notable once RS confirm they were promoted to flag rank. So, those who have argued that Conn is not notable according to WP:SOLDIER are not disputing that by the long-standing convention of WP:BIO there are narrow classes of individuals who are notable due to the offices they held -- without requiring documentation of the usual biographical details we would otherwise look for. Holders of national offices are an instance of one of those narrow classes. According to those who cite WP:SOLDIER, flag officers are another instance. Conn is not a flag officer, but he has held a national office. Geo Swan (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of sources on this judge indicates that this isn't a prominent judicial role. The court appears to be notable, but the near total lack of refs on this person doesn't support claims that its judges are themselves automatically notable. I'm not sure what you're hoping for here to be honest. I've explained my rationale repeatedly above, and you keep asking variants on same questions. I'm not going to answer them again as this really looks like an attempt at WP:CHUNK to me. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pretty much. The near complete lack of sources about this person indicates that whatever the position he holds, he is not really a 'public figure' in any meaningful sense. Judges in prominent roles tend to attract lots of coverage in the legal press and more general news reports and other publications. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification please -- are you suggesting WP:BLP#People who are relatively unknown applies? I suggest he is a public figure. He has held a national office. He has published papers. Personal correspondence with him has been cited as a reference in other people`s documents. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my above comment: he's not notable, so we shouldn't have an article on him, and in my view this article infringes his right to privacy. I hope that asking these questions in such a wordy fashion when I'd already explained my concern isn't an attempt to generate a discussion-stopping WP:CHUNK. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The presumption to privacy. On the basis of my search for sources (which seem to have returned similar results to yours judging from the sources used in the article) Colonel Conn is not notable. As such, we shouldn't have an article on him just because he holds a position through which he's presided over some cases which were reported in the media. On the basis of the near total lack of sources, I'm not at all convinced that there should be any assumption of notability for judges on this court. Nick-D (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that it's fair to say that we take BLP issues much more seriously than was the case in 2008, so that isn't a good precedent. Thank you for the explanation of why the article was created, but there appears to be no coverage of this person (for instance a search of Colonel David Conn returns almost nothing on Colonel Conn). Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and was a judge on a court that does not reach the bar of "members are significant". Could possibly be redirected to United States Court of Military Commission Review, but should be deleted first either way. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain why should it matter whether or not he fulfills the criteria suggested in the essay WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People -- if he fulfills the criteria in guideline WP:Notability (people)#Politicians? Shouldn't a guideline trump a essay? Could you please address whether you agree or dispute whether he fulfills the criteria for WP:Notability (people)#Politicians as a judge holding a national office? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He fails WP:POLITICIAN, too, as I said in my initial statement ("...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..."). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but rather than repeat this phrase, can you explain your position? This court can hear appeals of death sentence cases, which I suggest puts it at just below the level of a national Supreme Court. So why do you consider this a court that does not “pass the bar”? Geo Swan (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the USCMCR is a less important court than the SCOTUS. But where did you get the idea that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN only applies to members of the SCOTUS? I think the literal meaing would apply to any judge at the national level. Can you explain why you think the current wording doesn't apply to any judge at the national level? Most of the judges who considered the Guantanamo captives' habeas petitions were US District Court Judges. Why wouldn't WP:POLITICIAN apply to any of them? I think one of two of the people who responded here have said they are lawyers in real life. They may not like hundreds of their public sector colleagues being considered notable. But I think that would be a concern that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Geo Swan (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but rather than repeat this phrase, can you explain your position? This court can hear appeals of death sentence cases, which I suggest puts it at just below the level of a national Supreme Court. So why do you consider this a court that does not “pass the bar”? Geo Swan (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He fails WP:POLITICIAN, too, as I said in my initial statement ("...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..."). - The Bushranger One ping only 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain why should it matter whether or not he fulfills the criteria suggested in the essay WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People -- if he fulfills the criteria in guideline WP:Notability (people)#Politicians? Shouldn't a guideline trump a essay? Could you please address whether you agree or dispute whether he fulfills the criteria for WP:Notability (people)#Politicians as a judge holding a national office? Geo Swan (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just removed some fairly POV wording from the article. This includes material relating to 'controversial' tactics used by the prosecution in a case Conn presided over which was cited to a primary source which didn't mention Conn (the news story on the trial only identifies him as being one of the panel of judges which presided over it), a couple of irrelevant quotes included as part of reference citations, and POV wording which implied that Spc. Adam Winfield committed murder - he was found guilty of not preventing murders rather than committing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable subject, Fails WP:BIO and also Fails WP:SOLDIER. The creator Geo Swan's arguement of WP:POLITICIAN fails on "the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", because there is no coverage of the subject other than taking the name in the articles on proceedings.--DBigXray 06:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteFails WP:BIO and WP:SOLDIER. I can't find reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the topic, which are required to establish notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (1) colonels are not inherently notable, and (2) the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court. He also fails my standards for notability of attorneys. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subject fails WP:GNG as there is not "significant coverage" directly regarding the individual. Additionally subject fails WP:SOLDIER. The military tribunal may pass WP:GNG, however those individuals who are part of said tribunal appear not to warrant individual articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- We have policies, guidelines, conventions, and essays. Sometimes arguments in {{afd}} call upon documents in the Wikipedia: namespace as if they had the authority of policy or guideline, when they are essays. Some essays are very widely accepted, and, with some work, and a broad discussion, could be promoted to the status of a guideline.
- Several contributors here have argued that this article should be deleted because it does not comply with WP:SOLDIER. But WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline. If the article does comply with WP:POLITICIAN I suggest an accepted guideline trumps an essay.
- I request the closing administrator discount all respondents above who echoed the opinion the article violates the essay WP:SOLDIER.
- I suggest the most important question here is whether Conn meets the criteria of holding a national office as a judge.
- One correspondent above asserted "...the court on which he was a judge is not a major appellate court." First, so what? WP:POLITICIAN says nothing about sitting on an appellate court. Second, the USCMCR is an appeallate court -- one empowered to consider appeals in death sentence cases. That correspondent doesn`t say what a “major” appellate court is, but I suggest any appellate court empowered to consider appeals of death sentence cases should be considered a “major” court.
- Another correspondent above asserts Conn was "...a judge on a court that does not reach the bar..." -- but without explaining this assertion. As above, he is a national judge, as per WP:POLITICIAN, and, as above, the USCMCR is a court authorized to consider appeals in death sentence cases.
- Do we sometimes ignore all rules? Yes. But, I suggest, when we do so, we should do so after meaningful arguments have been made to explain why we should make an exception. No offense but, I suggest, the arguments for making an exception advanced so far have boiled down to simply “I don`t like it.”
- For what it is worth I initiated a discussion a couple of days ago -- Should we create a new namespace, for essays? -- where I tried to address the general problem of {{afd}}s where essays were treated as if they had the authority of policy. While my specific proposal found no support I think there is a widespread concern over essays being cited as if they were policies. Geo Swan (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays remain essays instead of policies because you have to go through the gauntlet of 40 musk-infested elephants to get them to be anything more. The solution isn't to marginalize essays, but instead to establish that essays which are accepted by broad consensus of the community become guidelines, or at least are considered equally. (And I still find it darkly amusing that nobody ever trots out the "oh, that's just an essay" argument with regards to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Oh, and since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well, your request that the 'closing admin...discount all respondents...who [stated] the essay violates WP:SOLDIER', without qualification, smacks of trying to get their !votes thrown out completely, even though all the WP:SOLDIER citers above have also stated that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree that some of the highest quality and most accepted essays should be considered for promotion to guideline status. Some other essays are crap. Others, without being crap, reflect a fringe viewpoint, and should not be promoted to guideline status, for that reason. And still others, while valuable, may be impossible to turn into guidelines for various reasons.
- So, are you tacitly acknowledging WP:SOLDIER, an essay, would be trumped by WP:POLITICIAN -- if WP:POLITICIAN is applicable?
- You wrote: “...since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well...” Rather than simply repeating this assertion could you try to explain your reasoning... I quoted the first numbered point from the politicians` section of WP:BIO above. The third numbered point, in contrast, states:
Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".
- I suggest these two numbered points establish a clear distinction between the required notability criteria for LOCAL officials and NATIONAL officials. Numbered point three makes clear LOCAL officials are not guaranteed notability. LOCAL officials can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion. I suggest the distinction being made here is that holders of NATIONAL offices are notable when RS confirm they hold that office. Period. If this wasn`t true there would be no reason for WP:BIO to have a politicians section, at all.
- With regard to WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO -- just to be clear, you realize that WP:POLITICIAN doesn`t contradict WP:BIO? You realize that WP:POLITICIAN is a specific shortcut to the section of WP:BIO that applies to politicians -- and other office holders like judges?
- With regard to WP:GNG -- the GENERAL notability guidelines are supplemented by specific guidelines, like WP:POLITICIAN.
- With regard to the role of the closing administrator -- it is my understanding that the closing administrator has a responsibility to discount me too opinions, and to evaluate the extent to which the arguments advanced comply with our policies, guidelines and established conventions. No offense, but while you have been quite clear that you don`t want WP:POLITICIAN applied here, you really haven`t tried to explain why. So, no offense, by my understanding of the closing administrator`s responsibilities, he or she should discount your opinion. Geo Swan (talk) 10:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, I do want WP:POLITICIAN applied here. Because this is a military court, not a national one - courts-martial can enforce capital sentences, too, but aren't near the level of a national supreme court - and he does not pass it. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays remain essays instead of policies because you have to go through the gauntlet of 40 musk-infested elephants to get them to be anything more. The solution isn't to marginalize essays, but instead to establish that essays which are accepted by broad consensus of the community become guidelines, or at least are considered equally. (And I still find it darkly amusing that nobody ever trots out the "oh, that's just an essay" argument with regards to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.) Oh, and since the article fails WP:POLITICIAN as well, your request that the 'closing admin...discount all respondents...who [stated] the essay violates WP:SOLDIER', without qualification, smacks of trying to get their !votes thrown out completely, even though all the WP:SOLDIER citers above have also stated that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO and/or WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appellate level judges are notable. The distinction between essays, guideline , and policies is very vague, not only because because we can make exceptions to any of them, but because the actual effect of all of them depends not on how the text is written, but how the community chooses to interpret it. The basic rule of our operation is CONSENSUS, which is itself an interpretation of IAR, and means we can do whatever we want to do if we agree on it. e make the encyclopedia. We decide what is for the good of the encyclopedia. We decide what we want to include. What we want to do depends on what we as a collectivity thinks we should do. Given essentially and reasonable or unreasonable view on that, I can find policy based reasons for it--or against it. The validity of the argument is judged by only one criterion, whether the community agrees on the result. In this case the court is of so great importance that it is reasonable to consider the judges of it notable. Several years ago i realized the uselessness of discussions on policy and by and large stopped participating in them, as I realized the discussions were a waste of time, even when they reached a conclusion. What we say there , and the eventual result of policy discussions, actually don't matter. What we do in individual cases matters. The contrary view is based on the way we have been brought up to respect established authority. This lacks relevance in a community like ours, where we ourselves are the responsible authority, and nobody can judge us, and say except as a personal opinion whether we are right or wrong in what we do. If it makes sense for an encyclopedia , we should do it, and there is no other rule.
- I consider that the attempts to remove these articles are in effect political bias, to avoid coverage of what makes the US look in a bad light. This practice is so destructive to an honest encyclopedia that our balanced should be towards keeping them if in doubt. I remain a child of the 60s--with principles based ultimately on the Enlightenment The purpose and effect of free information is to counter the establishment. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? I'm nominating this article for deletion as because its a BLP with no sources to establish notability. Accusing me of doing so due to some kind of "political bias" seems to be a rather massive assumption of bad faith. The rest of your post appear to fall under WP:ITSIMPORTANT I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What it looks like to me is that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians encodes several narrow classes of exceptional occupations. It seems to me that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians specifically encodes that individuals for whom there are WP:Reliable sources that confirm they hold these exceptional occupations are simply notable. Period.
- Usually, when someone objects to the wording of a policy or guideline, aren`t they simply told to express their objection on the policy or guideline`s talk page, or on some other relevant policy fora -- and let the Xfd play out according to the current wording?
- If what you really want is for the closing administrator to ignore the current wording of the relevant guideline -- to exercise WP:ignore all rules -- wouldn`t it be best for the project if you offered open and explicit arguments for IAR? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend that my nomination is based on something other than the near complete lack of reliable sources about this living person. I've got no ulterior motive here. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for stating you have no ulterior motive¸-- even though I don`t think anyone has stated or implied you have an ulterior motive. ::::: What I think your nomination did, and your subsequent comments, is to ignore the clear surface meaning of WP:Notability (people)#Politicians -- which distinguishes between NATIONAL office holders and LOCAL office holders. It states LOCAL officials have to match “the primary notability criterion of ‘significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article’ ” -- and that NATIONAL officials don`t. As I noted in this comment if we weren`t going to recognize that when RS confirm someone held a NATIONAL office they were inherently notable there would be no reason for WP:BIO to have a Politicians section at all. IF WP:POLITICIAN wasn`t establishing an exemption for NATIONAL office holders then those articles would be no different from articles on ordinary BLP. But WP:POLITICIAN does establish more relaxed criteria for articles on NATIONAL office holders. You may not like what the guideline says. Well, there are things you can do about that.
- If you think the closing administrator should exercise IAR, then shouldn`t you explain why?
- Have you considered trying to explain at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) why you think WP:POLITICIAN should be amended? Geo Swan (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is we don't believe that the United States Court of Military Commission Review counts under WP:POLITICIAN - it's a military court, not a national one. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why you're trying to pretend that my nomination is based on something other than the near complete lack of reliable sources about this living person. I've got no ulterior motive here. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not here to 'counter the establishment'. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia - of notable subjects - and David Conn is not notable by Wikipedia policy, not some vague conspiracy by the cabal. I find your lack of WP:AGF disturbing- The Bushranger One ping only 06:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification -- are you acknowledging that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN trumps the advice in WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People aka WP:SOLDIER. Are you arguing that the guideline WP:Notability (people) is contradicted by an official policy? If so, could you please cite the policy, and quote the relevant passages? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. WP:COMMONSENSE. As a member of a military, not national, court, Conn doesn't pass WP:POLITICANS. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification -- are you acknowledging that WP:Notability (people)#Politicians aka WP:POLITICIAN trumps the advice in WP:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide#People aka WP:SOLDIER. Are you arguing that the guideline WP:Notability (people) is contradicted by an official policy? If so, could you please cite the policy, and quote the relevant passages? Geo Swan (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, what? I'm nominating this article for deletion as because its a BLP with no sources to establish notability. Accusing me of doing so due to some kind of "political bias" seems to be a rather massive assumption of bad faith. The rest of your post appear to fall under WP:ITSIMPORTANT I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 24 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Baky International Humanitarian Forum[edit]
- Baky International Humanitarian Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Adversiting, spam. Saint Johann (ru) 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find reliable, independent sources giving significant coverage to this "annual" event with origins in 2010, and first held in 2011. The event is not notable at this time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. No independent WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 19 June 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. I don't think there's a need to break out the salt shaker yet unless it's recreated again. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
James Knowles (footballer)[edit]
- James Knowles (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by afd. Still fails WP:NSPORT, as Mr Knowles has not played in a fully pro league, and still fails WP:GNG in the absence of significant coverage. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. However, I don't think the PROD needed to be replaced as the previous two AfDs were for a different player. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to the team's page at best. The article is well written, but I can't see how this person need his own article as his team is a minor or school league. –BuickCenturyDriver 22:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I think fans of Blackburn Rovers would be quite surprised to learn that their club plays in a "minor or school league"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect there's some cross cultural confusion here. I think he means minor in the American sense of the term, (i.e. not top flight), and is referring to the reserves for which Mr. Knowles has actually played. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Protect Redirect In a sense, if the page is getting recreated over time then maybe it should be locked as a redirect until notibility can be established. There clearly is interest in the person and thus long-term non-perminant protection will stop the create and delete cycle for a while. –BuickCenturyDriver 01:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect there's some cross cultural confusion here. I think he means minor in the American sense of the term, (i.e. not top flight), and is referring to the reserves for which Mr. Knowles has actually played. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think fans of Blackburn Rovers would be quite surprised to learn that their club plays in a "minor or school league"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom – no indication of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. A redirect would not be a good idea since his name doesn't appear to be a viable search term. – Kosm1fent 15:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, and hasn't represented his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metaphor Entertainment, Inc[edit]
- Metaphor Entertainment, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, no notability asserted. PROD tried by another editor previously but removed Justinc (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very minor company. No real notability established. --Artene50 (talk) 05:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, a brief search reveals no reliable sources and there is no notability here. Ubelowme (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 04:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Institute of Public Policy[edit]
- Pacific Institute of Public Policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for organisations and companies or be the subject of any significant independent coverage; reliable sources only contain passing mentions and press releases (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, While it has been suggested that the wiki only includes reference articles which mention PiPP in passing, many of the articles actually only exist in the first place due to topics arising as a direct result from surveys and research findings that came from PiPP. Therefor, it seems a little unusual to suggest that PiPP was only 'mentioned in passing'. On the wiki, PiPP is referenced in papers by the Australian Government's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade along with the Australian Government's aid agency, AusAID. Both are extremely significant in terms of their impact in the Pacific Islands region. PiPP is well-known in the region, particularly in Australia and among the Pacific Islands and is 'notable'. This notability is demonstrated in part by the variety of sources on the wiki, which include government agencies, the United Nations, news media coverage from media outlets in Fiji, Vanuatu, Australia, New Zealand etc. Tobes82 (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since the Institute covers policy for several countries in the Pacific, it would seem to be a notable topic in public policy and Oceanian countries. The article does need to be cleaned up (bare URLs, etc.), but that shouldn't be a basis for deletion. --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Tobes82's sound analysis--Cavarrone (talk) 02:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find the news coverage to be sufficient (significant and independent and from multiple reliable sources). Considering that this agency's focus area is not a huge media market, the degree of coverage reflected in the article is actually quite impressive. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 24 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tochukwu Ipere[edit]
- Tochukwu Ipere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:AUTHOR - the books mentioned in the article are self-published - Amsaim (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete When I tried to find out more about the "International Poet Of Merit Award", which sounds prestigious, the first website that popped up on a Google search was "Fraudulent Vanity Press Publishing of Manuscripts and Poetry". This is a "pay to play" award. This self-published poet is non-notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. In addition, the article appears to be an WP:Autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 03:21, 18 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erand Hoxha[edit]
- Erand Hoxha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kept at AfD in June 2009, despite the subject having not played in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. First and foremost, this article fails WP:GNG. While the Albanian Superleague is included in WP:FPL, it's inclusion is disputed. The second and third sources are the same and confirm only that an organisation calling itself the "Professional League" consisting of the chairmen top league clubs and of the the Albanian FA. The first says nothing about professionalism whatsoever. There being insufficient verifiable evidence to confirm the Albanian Superleague as fully pro, we cannot assume that it is. As such this article fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I initially nominated this article for deletion years ago, but based on some work by Eldumpo and some additional research I just did, I think the article passes the GNG or comes close enough to keep the article while an Albanian-speaking editor cleans it up and adds references. A quick search of the sportishqiptar.com.al website shows that Hoxha gets a fair amount of coverage (ref #3 is dedicated to his career up to 2009). Jogurney (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:51, 19 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Curran[edit]
- Gary Curran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kept at AfD in October 2008, despite the subject having not played in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, and hasn't represented his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:04, 20 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nate Weiss[edit]
- Nate Weiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at AfD in August 2008 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage. As such, the article still fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, and hasn't represented his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, as it was withdrawn by the nominator (see below) (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anibar International Animation Festival[edit]
- Anibar International Animation Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google translate of Alban wp Rosenhaven (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)— Rosenhaven (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Being a translation from another Wikipedia is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject's notability might be questionable but the nomination is faulty. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No valid deletion rationale. Default to WP:PRESERVE, in my case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per invalid deletion rationale that ignores WP:ATD, WP:CSB, WP:PRESERVE, and WP:HANDLE. Being the ONLY such film festival in Kosovo makes this a unique enough accomplishment so that verifibility should encourage both patience and the seeking of input from Serbian language-reading AND (now) Albanian-language-reading Wikipedians with access to non-English sources that may not be available online. Heck.... this was trans-wiki'd just hours ago. Why the hurry from the SPA nominator to speedy delete and then rush to AFD when the speedy was declined... WHILE it was being actively edited? Wikipedia is a work-in-progress after all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- seeking of input fron Serbian Wikipedians with access to non-English sources You lack knowledge. People in the country Kosovo speak Albanian and their enemies in the country Serbia speak Serbian. Rosenhaven (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the ONLY such film festival in Kosovo Please bring WP:RS for your claim or change your vote. Rosenhaven (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check WP:NPA. The article makes that claim, not me. I seek input from those perhaps more able than myself to advise, no matter their native language... and have now added the Albanian delsort below, thank you. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion using application of existing policy and guidline... both in addressing a nomination by a single purpose account, and in questioning whether or not deletion policy was followed. It is not to be elavated to a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making it about Serbian-Albanian hostilities. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check WP:NPA. No attack from me. Rosenhaven (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and have now added the Albanian delsort below, thank you. You still lack knowledge. You also add discussion on California to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England only because they speak the same language? Let me guide you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Kosovo. If you want to add it to some country, then add it there. Rosenhaven (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article makes that claim, not me. You make the claim here by repeating it. Your Keep is based on unsourced claim in google translated article. Rosenhaven (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Emboldening your points is considered shouting. Shouting is consider rude. I make no claim, but simply repeat the article's assertion in the hope that an editor with access to non-English sources might assist, just as I have added this discussion to other delsorts. If somone able to find and offer a non-English sources does so, then fine. And I have no idea why you make an unjustified claim that I added California to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England, but suspect you said so to make a point. Thank you for suggesting it be added to the delsort for Kosovo. Now done. When dealing with topics that may or may not have soures in a non-English language, I prefer getting as much input as possible from those more able to opine knowledgably. This would include adding to delsorts of the area's languages so that Serbian language-reading AND (now) Albanian-language-reading Wikipedians might assist. And by the by, just as did the others before me, my keep was based upon your invalid deletion ratonale. Please read Deletion policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry, not intended to be rude, bold removed Rosenhaven (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Emboldening your points is considered shouting. Shouting is consider rude. I make no claim, but simply repeat the article's assertion in the hope that an editor with access to non-English sources might assist, just as I have added this discussion to other delsorts. If somone able to find and offer a non-English sources does so, then fine. And I have no idea why you make an unjustified claim that I added California to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England, but suspect you said so to make a point. Thank you for suggesting it be added to the delsort for Kosovo. Now done. When dealing with topics that may or may not have soures in a non-English language, I prefer getting as much input as possible from those more able to opine knowledgably. This would include adding to delsorts of the area's languages so that Serbian language-reading AND (now) Albanian-language-reading Wikipedians might assist. And by the by, just as did the others before me, my keep was based upon your invalid deletion ratonale. Please read Deletion policy. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check WP:NPA. The article makes that claim, not me. I seek input from those perhaps more able than myself to advise, no matter their native language... and have now added the Albanian delsort below, thank you. AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion using application of existing policy and guidline... both in addressing a nomination by a single purpose account, and in questioning whether or not deletion policy was followed. It is not to be elavated to a WP:BATTLEGROUND by making it about Serbian-Albanian hostilities. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, being the only such competition in the country does not necessarily make it notable. To the best of my knowledge, I host the only competition in my country to see who can destroy the most keyboards accidentally within a given time frame. This is unquestionably not notable, even though I know of no other in my country (or the world, at that). --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Speedy Keep as no valid rationale for deletion has been provided.DarkAudit (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for procedural mistake, please close this discussion. New discussion for notability discussion that is inappropriate here opened. Rosenhaven (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just compounded your procedural mistakes, as you cannot have two AfDs open at the same time, in your singular zeal to delete this article. (Incidentally I for one will oppose that one, too, as a Google search shows that the festival is internationally known, and I believe the difficulty is one of finding foreign language WP:RS). (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibar International Animation Festival (2nd nomination). De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shawn in Montreal, you make a mistake. The originator requested this discussion closed (which is, as I understand it, allowable at that point as no dissenting opinion had been offered) before opening the other. Thus the second would have been openable (and ought not have been subject to procedural close) and this one should have been closed instead (now a moot point). Also, Google results alone are not enough to establish notability. If WP:RS cannot be found, notability cannot be established. To suggest that you would vote contrary to the logical result of what you state as the likely problem is to suggest that your vote would not be based on the facts as you see them. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've just compounded your procedural mistakes, as you cannot have two AfDs open at the same time, in your singular zeal to delete this article. (Incidentally I for one will oppose that one, too, as a Google search shows that the festival is internationally known, and I believe the difficulty is one of finding foreign language WP:RS). (talk) 14:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for procedural mistake, please close this discussion. New discussion for notability discussion that is inappropriate here opened. Rosenhaven (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteBeing a translation is also not a reason for a keep. I do not see notability established in this article, nor anything resembling a reliable source. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added an WP:RS, using the foreign languages function of Google Search. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG, one source alone doesn't seem to establish notability.
Still a delete. --Nouniquenames (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:GNG, one source alone doesn't seem to establish notability.
- Note to closing admin - A second nomination was opened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anibar International Animation Festival (2nd nomination) with a deletion rationale while this is open. Only non-procedural delete !vote there was from User:Nouniquenames who has commented likewise here. Second nomination has been closed. KTC (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would actually be willing to withdraw my vote to close this (likely under SNOW) as it has mostly been a procedural debate instead of challenging the merits of the article. This would be with the understanding that, were the originator (or someone else) not to open a new AfD with better reasons listed, I would likely do so. Even if the new AfD then fails, at least it can be based on the merits of the article instead of based on the procedural issues of this AfD (and the other one that was already closed). --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Drop me a note and I'd be happy to do so myself WITH a proper deletion rationale. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redacted earlier delete. Reasoning was based upon criteria unrelated to the proposal. Recommending close as Snow Keep. --Nouniquenames (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I might close this myself per WP:IAR, but I am not a neutral party. Ping me when it is closed and I'll gladly do the nomination correctly, and invite participaints to revisit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The arguments that the two members of Impaled Nazarene being shared makes this group notable founder on the rocks of WP:NOTINHERITED. The Bushranger One ping only 00:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Belial (band)[edit]
- Belial (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of meeting notability guidelines. Only sources given show it existed, but nothing to show any significance. Google searches not finding anything significant. noq (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" Contains Reima Kellokoski and Jarno Anttila both of which have spent several years in Impaled Nazarene, Finland's biggest Black Metal band which has 100,000+ views on youtube videos and many in high 10,000s. They both feature in these videos and music. Drummermean (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- When copying from this articles talk page you omitted my response - Appearing in a notable band does not automatically make them independently notable noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jarno Anttila and Reima Kellokoski played guitars and drums, respectively, in the album, Pro Patria Finlandia, which was the top album import of Japan. http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=54794 . It also entered the national album chart in Finland at position No. 38.
- This is not an article about Impaled Nazarene - so why is this relevant? noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is certainly an article about Impaled Nazarene, as it bears the title: IMPALED NAZARENE: 'Pro Patria Finlandia' Tops Japanese 'Import' Album Chart - July 8, 2006. Drummermean (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself" Discogs.com: http://www.discogs.com/label/Lethal+Records+%286%29: Lethal Records lists Belial and their published work which is independent http://www.moribundcult.com/releases.html: The official Moribund Cult record label which also has a wikipedia page, lists Belial's work here. Drummermean (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drummermean (talk • contribs)
Edit: Drummermean (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to two or more independently notable musicians: When searching Reima's alias, 'Repe Misanthrope', around 600,000 results appear in Google as he is search a well known drummer. He has contributed to much of Impaled Nazarene's song-writing, as can be viewed in wikipedia articles.
- This is not an article about Impaled Nazarene, why is this relevant? And as has been pointed out on the talk page previously, the discogs and moribund links are purely directory listings and not significant coverage. noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, Jarno yields 100,000s of views. He has also contributed to much of Impaled Nazarene's song writing which can also be viewed from sources. Jarno recently left Impaled Nazarene and attained a lot of coverage, such as by Roadrunner Records http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=143118 , who are probably the biggest record label for metal and rock music. Drummermean (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC) (duplicate signature removed)[reply]
- This is not an article about Impaled Nazarene. Or Jarno. noq (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you referring to? http://legacy.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=143118 is completely about both subjects. It bears the title: IMPALED NAZARENE Parts Ways With Guitarist, Announces New Album Title - July 17, 2010 Drummermean (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Drummermean (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jarno Anttila has produced independently notable tracks for Impaled Nazarene. He was involved with an album which was the top album import of Japan and entered the national album chart in Finland at position No. 38 (see above for links). When he recently parted way with the band, he had many news articles bearing his name. One example, as well with the one above, is: http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=58016 Reima Kellokoski has also produced independently notable tracks for Impaled Nazarene. He was involved with an album which was the top album import of Japan and entered the national album chart in Finland at position No. 38 (see above for links). Drummermean (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Drummermean (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you read to the end of the criteria - "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Being in a notable band does not automatically make you notable! Your metalunderground link just shows he left a notable group - that does not make him individually notable anymore than joining the group does. As I keep saying, this debate is about Belial - your arguments have all been about Impaled Nazarene. noq (talk) 14:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main argument for inclusion here seems to be that since Belial shares two members of Impaled Nazarene then it meets the inclusion criteria as it "contains two or more independently notable musicians". Unfortunately, the individuals in question do not appear to have any independent notability outside of Impaled Nazarene at the present time. Youtube, Google and Discogs are NOT reliable sources. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism hey! 13:59, 22 June 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. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 07:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Boffin[edit]
- Boffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparent flagrant violation of WP:NAD. This is evidenced by its references as the OED and Urban Dictionary. There is no reasonable place to move/merge any of this in Wikipedia as it basically all amounts to trivia. At best a tiny amount of the "origins" section of this article belongs in the otherwise empty Wiktionary etymology. Teply (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We have separate articles for nerd, geek, egghead and anorak (slang) which are all quite similar and so it seems that this class of words is among those allowed for by WP:NAD: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject". As examples of sources which discuss this type in detail see Typical Men: The Representation of Masculinity in Popular British Cinema; Churchill's War Lab: Code Breakers, Boffins and Innovators; Movers And Shakers: A Chronology of Words That Shaped Our Age. These approach the topic in various ways: cinematic stereotypes; wartime history; influential words, and so demonstrate a depth of coverage which satisfies WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The other words you list, I (mostly) agree, may have some generally notable encyclopedic value because of the connotation of those words, which is explained in those articles. On the other hand, as far as I can tell, "boffin" is just used in verbatim exchange for "scientist/engineer" with no particular connotation that needs explaining, sort of like how "grand" to mean 1000 units of currency is not an encyclopedic article. An example of this verbatim exchange is in the very title you mention, Churchill's War Lab: Code Breakers, Boffins and Innovators. Teply (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not the best article in Wikipedia but worthy of inclusion as a notable slang term in many English speaking countries. I don't accept that it violates WP:NAD, only the first short sentence is concerned with defining 'boffin' (the job of a dictionary), the rest talks about the etymology of the word and discusses some renowned boffins.--Ykraps (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article goes beyond dictionary definition by discussing its connotations, the origin of the word, and its cultural role. References show the term is widely used and there's sufficient discussion of the term in popular and scholarly media to allow an article to be written that goes well beyond dictionary def. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Save Boffin from the coffin. Articles like Bimbo or boffin? Women in science ... and Let luvvie embrace boffin in the digital future suggest it has acquired sufficient stature for its own page. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A term that can sometimes (in British newspaper headlines) simply be a synonym for scientist or engineer but, as per several preceding contributors to this discussion, almost always carries a mixture of positive and negative connotations (such as brilliant, unworldly, socially inept). A further couple of possible references:
- Jennifer Quinn (27 May 2004). "In defence of the boffin". BBC News Online Magazine.
- Dyer, Nicole (2004). "Rebirth of the Boffin". Popular Science. 265 (Sep 2004). Bonner Corporation: 160. ISSN 0161-7370. -- PWilkinson (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 21:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Throw In Records[edit]
- Throw In Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unconnected series of unsourced "facts". Anything that a source can be found for would fit in the existing Throw-in article. noq (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the content can be verified to a reliable source, it could be included in Throw-in. Sperril (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looks like a lot of unverified original research. Anything worth salvaging should be included in throw-in, provided that sources can be found. — sparklism hey! 06:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only one of these is a "record" per se, and that is unsourced, the others are just random trivia. Nothing really worth salvaging that I can see -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced original research, and pure cruft. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I struggled to understand what this article was about at first. Definitely original research and cruft. – Kosm1fent 15:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced information, possible Original Research. Creator has had ample time to add sources, and has failed to do so. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unsourced and not useful. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - serves no use whatsoever. GiantSnowman 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsourced and original research. There is no information in this article that cannot be placed in Throw-in if a source is added. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsourced trivia. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:35, 22 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brand journalism[edit]
- Brand journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NEO, basically. It's a term coined by one guy and popularised by one guy and the people who snarf his blog posts. Ironholds (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The content is a superficial rewrite of some of the sources. The topic lacks in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the phrase is a promotional coinage. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Cullen. Basically, it's spam masquerading as lingo. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Blah, blah, blah. Jargon-filled spam. Puffery for a fairly obvious "new" phrase for some fairly obvious old concepts. And (now that I've got that off my chest) no independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 03:04, 24 June 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 for Garnik Hovhannisyan, Hovhannes Harutyunyan, Sargis Movsisyan, Armen Babayan and no consensus for Samvel Petrosyan with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Garnik Hovhannisyan[edit]
- Garnik Hovhannisyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kept at AfD in March 2008, despite having not played in a fully professional league. Therefore, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
- Hovhannes Harutyunyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sargis Movsisyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Samvel Petrosyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Armen Babayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom – none of them played in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. – Kosm1fent 16:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per nom and Kosm1fentSeasider91 (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - per nom. None of them have played professionally or received significant coverage. They all fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Samvel Petrosyan became Soviet cup winner playing for Ararat. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Petrosyan - Delete the others - Petrosyan played for Ararat Yerevan from 1973 to 1983 when they played in the Soviet Top League and won the Soviet Cup. The others haven't played in a fully professional league, or been capped at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Petrosyan - As pointed out, he played for a cup winning club, and in the Soviet top flight, which is generally regarded as sufficient for inclusion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:00, 22 June 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 Speedily deleted per Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.
Kevin Mesa[edit]
- Kevin Mesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at AfD in March 2008 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a fully professional league and media coverage comes from questionable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1fent 16:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL presented j⚛e deckertalk 17:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keegan Ayre[edit]
- Keegan Ayre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at AfD in February 2008 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Perhaps worth pointing out the article was created by a now-banned user, Zombie433 (talk · contribs). Mattythewhite (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - hasn't played in a fully professional league and media coverage on him is routine. – Kosm1fent 16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He still has not played in a fully pro league, and has not received significant coverage, fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, or played for his country at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:40, 20 June 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 both Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Torbeši (Našinci)[edit]
- Torbeši (Našinci) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be a partial copy of Macedonian Muslims; can't read the parenthetical so I have no clue what this means. Don't think it would qualify for a redirect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pov fork - the significant difference is that it denies that they are ethnic Macedonians. Dougweller (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Torbeški, created by the same user, should be deleted along with this one. --Local hero talk 01:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as POV fork. Torbeshi are a kind of Pomaks and Torbeški is not a distinct language. Jingiby (talk) 05:04, 19 June 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 1 as nomination withdrawn "and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of lists of lists[edit]
- Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists
- Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/List of lists of lists (6th nomination)
- List of lists of lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research, no independent sources, no useful relevance Night of the Big Wind talk 14:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per consensus reasoning in the first AfD, two months ago. A legitimate navigational aid and no reason to get rid of it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ArxiloxosSeasider91 (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous AfD, q.v. --Seduisant (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is a user-navigational index page, not an encyclopedic topic. The fact that Mr. Hammer, a serious deletionist at AfD, withdrew his nomination the first time around, acknowledging the page's utility, should have been taken into consideration by the nominator. The title is whimsical, but descriptive. Carrite (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look on the talkpage for an earlier AfD, but there was mention of it. So I assumed I was the first to nominate it. It seems the closing of the first AfD was handled incorrectly :-( Night of the Big Wind talk 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request speedy close as keep as nominator. No article but navigation. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Out of principal I don't close AfD's I have started[reply]
- Keep valuable, useful, interesting, clever. Which may not be valid keep arguments but keep anyway.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of gurdwaras#Georgia. There's a clear consensus that we shouldn't have a standalone article at this time. I'll leave the history intact but protect it for 6 months. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sewa Gurudwara Sahib[edit]
- Sewa Gurudwara Sahib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not have WP:RS and notability is not established. The Determinator p t c 15:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. The Determinator p t c 19:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I hate to say it, because unlike Christian churches which are a dime a dozen in this part of the world, gurdwaras are pretty uncommon here. I feel like it should be notable for that fact, but I'm not finding any sources other than the organization's own website, Facebook page, etc. If a suitable redirect target could be found (or created) I'd support redirecting it, but I haven't found one so far. LadyofShalott 23:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked again and came to the same conclusion: Delete The Determinator p t c 00:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of gurdwaras#Georgia. Have applied related source to list as citation. Agree with User:LadyofShalott above this is an uncommon institution in Georgia, but since page lacks sourcing, redirects are cheap. Page can be rebuilt if sufficient sources can one day be found. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:32, 17 June 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 21. The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cesar Henao[edit]
- Cesar Henao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable candidate for public office, fails WP:POLITICIAN, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN or the General notability guideline. Google news shows only three hits in any way related to the subject of the article: one is the site recording his registration for the election, one is about him as an intern for another politician 4 years ago, and the last has a quote from him in an article about Hispanics registering as Democrats in Florida. -- Donald Albury 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect- To United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 21 (currently empty); likely search term. Merge basic candidacy and redirect. Dru of Id (talk) 16:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge first two sentences to United States House of Representatives elections in Florida, 2012#District 21. Like Druid says, this is a likely search term (don't know how many of those are Wikipedians looking at the AfD, but still) and the elections page is a natural spot for the content to be at. Appears to be weak when compared to relevant notability guidelines. No prejudice against recreating should he do something surprising ("notable") later on, of course. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE :: I am also a candidate in the same race, same district as Cesar. We are, in fact, opponents. In these times of societal turmoil, when democracy has been sold to the highest bidder, it is important for societal institutions to support the democratic process. In the context of the November general election, Cesar IS NOTABLE as one of only three candidates (including an incumbent) who has qualified for the ballot to represent 696,000 citizens in the United States House of Representatives, as I have. We both face an uphill battle against an entrenched, moneyed, career politician. Any community forum, including Wikipedia, may serve as a potential resource for the people who are looking for information about those who are vying for their votes, hoping to serve. For that reason, I suggest that you not delete this page, at least until after the general election date of Tuesday, November 6, 2012. My name is W. Michael (Mike) Trout; I am a candidate for Congress in Florida's New 21st Congressional District, and I approve this message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.74.21.109 (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — 108.74.21.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are subject to agreed guidelines, such as WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE AND CHANGE POLICY I do not believe this article should be deleted either. I may be biased because I am the Campaign Manager, but I believe in the principles of opensource information sharing, and I don't believe deleting this page is justified simply because Wikipedia thinks that Cesar Henao isn't "famous" or a "celebrity". I think Wikipedia needs to change their standards, and recognize the kind of exposure a private citizen chooses to undergo by qualifying as a candidate for public office. We have filed documents with the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Election Commission, and the State Department of Florida - all of which are public record. Deciding to run for public office is something that sets people apart, because most people don't do it. I disapprove of Wikipedia's attempts to be a gatekeeper of information on such an important subject as voter education. I think Wikipedia's standards are based upon the wrong measurements, and is based upon a "celebrity" mentality when it comes to approving pages. This policy is not helping anyone in the 21st century who wants to be better informed about their government, and the people hoping to represent the people in elected office.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonWeakley (talk • contribs)
- — JasonWeakley (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to the election page as per above. Sorry, Mike and Jason, I know this may be upsetting, but that's the consensus here at Wikipedia; we have to have standards for inclusion if we are to maintain our credibility as an international encyclopedia. Simply running for office does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO. If you want to be notable enough for a page here, either win the election (then the page will be restored), or else demonstrate that you have received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, not counting routine election coverage. Meanwhile, your NAME will still be here, and it will lead people to the election page. (That's what Redirect means.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 24 June 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. Needs to meet both BLP and GNG guidelines, which it does not seem to be able to meet. Sockpuppets/involved people have done more to harm this process than to help (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jarred Land[edit]
- Jarred Land (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was dePRODded by an anonymous IP after the addition of several sources and some text. I just went through all references one by one and they either are primary, non-independent sources, non-RS sources (WP itself, imdb, blogs), don't mention the article's subject, or (in the case of Vogue) grossly exaggerated. I removed one section, which consisted only of name-dropping (all material can still be seen in the edit history and by using the diff link above). In the end, nothing much remains. In the absence of sources, this fails WP:BIO and WP:V, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. The sources presented in the article do not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither his creative work nor his role as company president appear to have received more than passing mention. Many of the sources here are not acceptable and don't support the content for which they're referenced, and reliable independent sources are lacking. Google and Google News searches aren't encouraging. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is the president of the largest camera company in the united states. It looks like he is also currently on the panel of Vogue Magazine and published in Vogue print. Looks like a personal attack linked to other articles for deletion by user Guillaume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.190.189 (talk) 06:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 76.79.190.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep Jarred Land is an important person in the field of Digital Cameras and Hollywood Movie Making. This page provides necessary information about his work. It should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.39.19.0 (talk) 10:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — 110.39.19.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- Note to closing admin Please review the edit history of this debate. One of the anonymous IPs changed the nom and Edison's !vote. I think I have restored everything as it should (while leaving the keep !votes of the two IPs), but it would be good to double-check. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. this person is important to everyone in the film industry he runs RED which you should do a search on. He is tied to peter Jackson, david fincher, and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salworx (talk • contribs) 19:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC) — Salworx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep . Jarred Land is incredibly influential and a key people as noted on RED's own Wiki page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Digital_Cinema_Camera_Company . If you follow Guillaume2303 recent admin activity he seems to be deleting other articles relating to Jarred land and RED as what seems to be personal attacks, or perhaps even of anti-competitive nature. One of his attacks on Bambi magazine in which he orchestrated other wiki editors and on it's talk page offered personal gifts to editors and favors for voting with him. this cannot be the way that Wikipedia is run. This has been logged with Ron Jones with Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk) — Pigfish23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment There seems to be a WP:Walled garden or articles related to Land. Red Digital Cinema Camera Company seems to be another problematic article, replete with references that are to unreliable blogs or don't support the statements that they reference. As I don't know much about cameras and really are getting a bit tired of these meat/sockpuppets that don't know better than coming with ridiculous accusations instead of offering solid policy-based arguments, I don't intend to wade into that one, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There have been no personal attacks made against the subject of the article; there have been a plethora of meatpuppets, some of whom have been blocked, who have persistently made the same kind of accusations being made again here. As before, I welcome administrative oversight, and anticipate much the same result. 99.156.68.118 (talk) 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to do this, but look at Guillaume2303's history. This Editor must be stopped. Of note, he had a previous account that he freely admits which was deleted and removed for similar biased actions. Look at just this one which was raised to the highest level. Just one example : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Guillaume2303#Bambi_Magazine. this clearly needs to goto admin. Members like this is what scares away support, financial and not, to Wikipedia. The comment above this is clearly them posting as someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigfish23 (talk)
- Delete: Sources provided fall far short of establishing notability, and my own Google search turned up nothing promising. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Remember WP:BIO includes a classification of creative professionals where this individual belongs according to his invention, business, and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.99.2 (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite several claims by various IPs on this page of the notability of the subject, they have failed to provide any sources except a couple of Wikipedia articles (and remember Wikipedia isn't a WP:RS). --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BIO and verifiability concerns. Also, a whole bunch of IP sockpuppet/meatpuppet accounts showing up out of the blue to vote on an AFD is nearly always a sign of spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: User:Pigfish23 and User:Salworx have been indefinitely blocked per CU (socks of each other) and behavioral evidence (SPAs created explicitly to disrupt this AfD). The IPs struck above have been blocked for one week as WP:SOCKs/WP:MEATpuppets and for vandalism. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was going to suggest a Redirect to Red Digital Cinema Camera Company, the company of which he says he is CEO, but I could not find any independent confirmation of that - not at Google News Archive, not at Google, not even at the company's own website. That's about as unverified/non-notable as you can get. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to above comment. Wow. Wikipedia editors are sure getting lazy. Come on guys lets do proper due diligence before throwing this guy under the bus and not make false accusations like the above which could be libel. This person states he is the president, not the CEO like MelanieN states. And it is very clear he is the president, every news article on the company website states so, for example http://www.red.com/news/la-jolla-fasion-film-festival-submission-extension-for-red. As editors and admins you have a responsibility to accuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6F00:877:0:0:0:6C59:452C (talk) 05:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete for non-notable ( although subjective ) but i am posting this logged out as I don't want to be tied to this one... it is an embarrassment for WIKI how this talk played out with the editors G and Melanie. Melanie, for a veteran editor your complete lack of fact checking is shocking. Lets delete this one and pretend it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.170.110.24 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to MelanieN Melanie, you are usually on ball but you messed this one up, even the links on this talk page at the top for "search for news" shows numerous sources verifying his occupation. I suggest you edit your note, and i will delete this add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.192.27 (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So now you've got a new editor to attack? MelanieN's rationale re: mention by reliable sources is valid, and the above smears and attempts to pressure an editor into changing or deleting their comments are a continuation of user harassment, as enacted by previously blocked accounts. More sock/meat puppets.... 99.156.68.118 (talk) 10:33, 24 June 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. Community is too small to guarantee notability for a mayor — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gary C. Matzner[edit]
- Gary C. Matzner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor league lawyer and one-time mayor of a small Florida settlement. Does not meet general notability guidelines. Biker Biker (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Person in question is not notable for being a lawyer, but because he is the co-founder of a significant city in South Florida and is integral to the community's history. (http://www.pinecrest-fl.gov/index.aspx?page=66) Gary Matzner also spearheaded the committee that saved Parrot Jungle, which is a world famous (and notable) landmark.
GROUP TO EVALUATE PARROT JUNGLE SITE The Village of Pinecrest has agreed to create a Parrot Jungle committee that will evaluate the use of the property in the event the village can purchase it. A private group, Preserve the Jungle, headed by Gary Matzner had been the lone fund-raising voice for the village in its bid to come up with between $9 million and $12 million to purchase the property at 11000 SW 57th Ave. Pinecrest Mayor Evelyn Greer said she was waiting for Parrot Jungle to sign a lease with the city of Miami... >> Purchase complete article, of 236 words Miami Herald - April 18, 1996 - 3 NEIGHBORS KE
Many of the sources that quote him are in the Miami Herald and their archive is behind a paywall. Example of an article about how his ideas for incorporation led to many cities in South Florida making similar changes.
"METRO TO ALLOW PINECREST TO VOTE ON WHETHER IT WILL BECOME A CITY Yet another pocket of Dade County took a significant step toward cityhood Thursday when the aspiring Village of Pinecrest was given the green light to take a vote on its future. Metro commissioners, some still complaining the incorporation process was moving too fast, agreed to set aside Sept. 19 for Pinecrest voters to cast ballots on forming their own government. It's the same date commissioners set aside for people residing in the North Central Dade community some want to..."
He meets all of the following critera: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricJason (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but he simply does not meet the notability guidelines at WP:POLITICIAN, or anywhere else on WP:PEOPLE. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article seems to rely mainly on the village website and his biog on a company website. Neither of these are what could be called independent reliable sources. I can't see any significant news coverage online, apart from the couple of quotes in the Miami herald. Sionk (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm sorry you've been treated so poorly in your short time with Wikipedia, EricJason. Template:uw-delete1: The birth_date parameter about this about living person was unsourced did not have a reference. If someone disagreed with your birth_date parameter change,[20] they could have merely changed it back. Your removing the birth year was not likely to be controversial, so I don't see any justification for posting Template:uw-delete1 on your user talk page and threatening you with blocking. Template:uw-copyright: Also, the statement that you linked to copyvio works wasn't true. The commons uploaded image included the CC-by-SA-3.0 license. Another editor removing that image from the article was wrong because the image only was tagged as possible copyvio and could stay in the article until that issue was resolved, particularly since you included the CC-by-SA-3.0 license in the commons uploaded image and that is what it was licensed as.[21] I don't see any justification for posting Template:uw-copyright on your user talk page. Your adding that image back into the article via link to commons was fine and another user restored it after it was removed again. Template:uw-vandalism4: - The two external links you added to the article were to sites that contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources, so I'm not sure why those further reading links were removed when the article only was a start article level. In particular to your link to the "Matzner's Attorney Bio from Kopelowitz Ostrow," that was not a link to "a Law Firm website and qualifies as Spam."[22] If it's not his present Official Website, it certainly contains information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. Adding those two external links to the article absolutely was not vandalism or even level 4 vandalism and there was no basis for posting a Template:uw-vandalism4 to your talk page. Thank for letting me know that no one contacted you to make things right with you.[23] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary C. Matzner: As though the above wasn't enough, the Gary C. Matzner then was nominated for deletion directly after all the Template:uw-delete1, Template:uw-copyright, and Template:uw-vandalism4 posts to your talk page based on the four edits you made to the Gary C. Matzner article. The Gary C. Matzner page has been in Wikipedia since August 2006 - for more than five years. Common sense would indicted that any U.S. mayor is going to generate enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for a stand-alone article to meet WP:GNG. I've found plenty of online reliable source material for the biography and there likely is tons more in a library not online. Obviously, Keep. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unforunatly, no, the vast majority of U.S. mayors are not sufficently notable for inclusion, and the fact the article's been around for a WP:LONGTIME is not a reason to keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unfortunatly, the references proviced, while impressive at a glance, are either not independent of the subject or are passing, standardized mentions. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The subject does not meet the basic criteria given at Wikipedia:Notability (people), i.e., "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The sources cited that are independent are simple promotional blurbs, or merely give passing mentions of or quotes from the subject. -- Donald Albury 14:08, 19 June 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 is a mixture of a SNOW delete and a G11 speedy delete (promotion of an opinion). (Note: Article was moved to Kundalini Awakening.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Add to that A10: content fork of Kundalini. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kundalini Awakening[edit]
- Kundalini Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promo and soapboxing in the form of an essay. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Madam/sir,
I am the author of the article which has been published in Danesheyoga(yoga science)magazine, Tehran/I.R.Iran as I have declared in bibliography. You may take notice that kundalini itself is not a physical energy or material which can be handled or formulated through an article! Its a divine evolutionary energy in every mankind and there are many wrong beliefs about its awakening by physical techniques. I am ready to discuss the matter to anyone who nominates himself/herself an expert in kundalini to show him/her tons of mistaken knowledge about it. Anyhow I am going to change the name of the article to clarify the text.
best Wishes
S. Farahyar
17 June, 2012
- Delete as per Night of the Big Wind and the fact that many statements are in apparently direct contradiction with a whole lots of (apparently well sourced) wikipedia pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wait... is the above poster (Farahyar) basically stating that he cut and pasted a published magazine article onto a Wikipedia article? That's a copyvio and should be removed on that basis alone.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I though it might be that so I tried (and failed) to find passages form the article elsewere on the internet. Another reading is that the author above is claiming the publication of the article as authority for writing about the subject in wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... that's not really kosher either way, especially since it appears to be such a limited publication that it'd be near impossible for the average Wikipedian to locate. I'm going to go ahead and tag it with a copyvio tag or something similar, though. Since much of it does contradict the Kundalini article, we might could tag it as a G3 for misinformation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Stuartyeates. This is entirely a promotional essay by the original contributor and a potential copyvio, as he stated above that he published this same article in a magazine. Please be aware that even if you are the original writer and give permission, this might still violate WP:COPYVIO, as it could violate the copyright of the magazine it was published in. (And if you hold all copyrights, we still have to verify that you are who you claim to be- anyone can claim to be anyone on the internet. I can claim to be Mary, Queen of Scots, but that doesn't mean that I am!) Also, this is not a neutral or encyclopedic article and the research is all your own. Either way, this has no business being on Wikipedia. Assuming that this theory or magazine article is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia, it'd need a complete rewrite from top to bottom.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:03, 18 June 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 as withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) DBigXray 11:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zakir Hussain College of Engineering and Technology[edit]
- Zakir Hussain College of Engineering and Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
remarkability is not established but I don't want to tag it for CSD because I believe if it is deleted it should be with consensus. »Petiatil († talk ‡ contribs) 10:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and close Clearly notable College and among the top 100 in India as proved here [24] in references --DBigXray 10:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep upon further review I agree with DBigXray and rescind my earlier statement. »Petiatil († talk ‡ contribs) 11:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Los Angeles Research Group[edit]
- Los Angeles Research Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined speedy. Does not seem to be notable per WP:CORP, although there is a claim of importance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I nominated this for CSD. I don't see this as being notable for itself. All the google stuff is either its own marketing or around their publications, but not about the group. Spartaz Humbug! 10:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:45, 18 June 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. And as far as renaming is concerned, a request can be made at the talk page. Thanks! (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 04:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of ambassadors to Macedonia[edit]
- List of ambassadors to Macedonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly not a viable standalone list with so many non-residents without articles this is unmaintainable for lack of sources and non-notable subjects. Spartaz Humbug! 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Notable topic which would clearly meet list guidelines if the articles in Category:Ambassadors to the Republic of Macedonia were covered in it, which is an editing issue. Dru of Id (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable topic. You can't seriously suggest there are not reliable sources for the content of this list. KTC (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above; the redlinks in this case are a to do list for biographies WP should have, not an indication of non-notability. Truly a perplexing nomination. The list should probably be renamed to List of ambassadors to the Republic of Macedonia, as that's how the country's article is titled, and there are and have been other entities named "Macedonia". postdlf (talk) 13:32, 18 June 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 Redirected by User:Infobesity. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2013 in Kenyan football[edit]
- 2013 in Kenyan football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly too early for creation. Suggest redirect to Football in Kenya until nearer the time. Spartaz Humbug! 10:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Then be bold and redirect it. Doesn't need an AfD for that. Lugnuts (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. GiantSnowman 21:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per nom. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Consensus is that this article meets WP:GNG. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Andy Cook (footballer born 1990)[edit]
- Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was recently under AfD here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andy Cook (footballer born 1990) and closed as keep. However, following concerns about participation in the original AfD and this conversation with the closing admin, it is suggested that the article is re-listed to gain an representative discussion. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1fent 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – the keep !votes in the previous discussion weren't policy-based. The player hasn't played in a fully professional league, nor has he received significant coverage. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 09:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP:Are we going to keep doing this until the article is deleted? The result was keep, down to the votes cast last time. I suggest you read the original deletion discussion and copy and paste them into this one. There were some valid points made to keep this article in the last discussion, I solely think because the user who sought deletion in the first place didn't succeed in getting the article removed he is going to keep nominating it until the article goes. Sounds a tad unfair to me seeing as we have already voted, however I am fully aware that the player currently fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG, however at the rate of growth of this article how long will it be before it passes WP:GNG. As another user mentioned in the previous discussion why should this article suffer when the likes of Richard Brodie are kept. Footballgy (talk) 10:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) I nominated it this time because I was unconvinced by the close - someone else nominated it last time. (2) The result was keep, but if you actually read the conversation with the closing admin you will see that they share some of my reservations about that result. (3) If you admit that the player currently fails NFOOTY and GNG why on earth are you !voting "Keep"? Wouldn't it be better to userfy the article until the player actually does pass those guidelines? (4) Mentioning other articles that may have the same problem is not a valid rationale; if those articles do fail GNG etc. then they should also be nominated. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They do pass GNG now, as they were given sufficient time to expand. As I have also mentioned before, I have always felt a notability review should possibly come up for discussion amongst the relevant Wikipedians, as the fifth tier of English football is all but a professional league of mostly pro clubs, with 95% pro players on pro contracts. User's such as myself would have an absolute field day creating new article's which in the long run would easily pass GNG if allowed to. That's just my opinion, I'm not rebelling against the guidelines, I just feel too many article's are swiftly gunned down before they are given relevant time to grow into notability. It's unlikely that Cook will play in the Football League this year (despite being recently pro contracted to a FL team), however he is a pro at a pro club, and GNG notability will no doubt be reached if the article isn't hastily gunned down like a lot are. Footballgy (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For info, the overall proportion of full-time professionals in the Conference National is nowhere near 95% -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They do pass GNG now, as they were given sufficient time to expand. As I have also mentioned before, I have always felt a notability review should possibly come up for discussion amongst the relevant Wikipedians, as the fifth tier of English football is all but a professional league of mostly pro clubs, with 95% pro players on pro contracts. User's such as myself would have an absolute field day creating new article's which in the long run would easily pass GNG if allowed to. That's just my opinion, I'm not rebelling against the guidelines, I just feel too many article's are swiftly gunned down before they are given relevant time to grow into notability. It's unlikely that Cook will play in the Football League this year (despite being recently pro contracted to a FL team), however he is a pro at a pro club, and GNG notability will no doubt be reached if the article isn't hastily gunned down like a lot are. Footballgy (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NFOOTY could be a case of WP:TOOSOON the article can be recreated when he passes the guidelines which won't be anytime soon.Seasider91 (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with user Footballgy the BSB prem is a league full of former league teams with many a professional player and full time managers at pretty much every club.Seasider91 (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I won't be voting to Keep or Delete this time, I spent probally 10 hours+ of my time looking for info and citations to expand this article, one thing I have learned is I will NEVER again contribute to any football articles again, until I am certain in my own mind it wont get deleted like this one and the others which will now be found. Nelly_1975 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like setting up self-fulfilling prophesies to me... - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect- To Grimsby Town F.C.; since the title is unlikely to be preempted by anyone else, redirect until he meets guidelines, unless an involved editor requests userfication. Dru of Id (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as the original nominator. I agree entirely with the renomination. Given the level of participation and the arguments made by each side, it was procedurally incorrect to close. That being said. I am now satisfied that the article now meets the general notability guideline. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP: as per last conversation. FishyPhotos (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I must say I had a bad gutfeeling when I saw the previous AfD closed as keep, with 3 possible meatpuppets voting KEEP without any good reason to keep. But after reading through the article I'm confident that this article now passes WP:GNG, even though it fails WP:NFOOTY. I would encourage the closing admin to read through the previous AfD, as this is more or less just a relist of the previous discussion. Mentoz86 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Sir Sputnik and Mentoz8; the article now appears to pass WP:GNG with sources like [25], [26] and [27]. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article meets GNG. Eldumpo (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets and passes the WP:GNG. Let's not fall into the trap of saying 'it fails the specific guideline so let's not bother with the general one". - The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 25 June 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. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 07:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Halliwells LLP[edit]
- Halliwells LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable company. Only seeming claim to notability seems to be the assertion that it was the largest English law firm to go into administration, but otherwise it is just a small law firm that spent too much and went bust as a result. Biker Biker (talk) 09:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - multiple national and regional newspaper articles already cited in the article. Regardless of the reasons why they are notable, they are notable all the same. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Biker - as the author I thought I should explain why I think it's notable. This isn't intended to be personal or defensive, just to explain to people who are perhaps not familiar with the issues why they're of interest. First, there's an issue of consistency. Have a look at List of largest UK law firms, and you'll see that Halliwells is number 46. Most of the top 100 have an entry on the basis that they are notable. A firm going bust in unusual circumstances is, in my view at least, more notable than one half its size just getting on with things. Second, there's the point about the pre-pack sale. Pre-packaged insolvency sales really are controversial (and in fact the article on them is a bit out of date and short, and needs updating - google "pre-packaged administration" for proof of this). This is a rare example of the High Court approving a sale which gave little or no benefit to the creditors, and that in itself is significant in the context of the pre-pack debate. Third, there's the litigation against the former partners. I think that probably speaks for itself - how often do you see corporate lawyers going bust and getting sued? It's unusual, and my own view is that this makes it notable. Finally, there is the size of the insolvency. The citation as evidence that it's the biggest law firm failure in British legal history comes from the Law Society's Gazette, ie the official publication of the professional licensing body for the solicitors profession, so, with very great respect, it's not simply an assertion. There has been another big failure of a US firm with a London office in the last few weeks, so the article makes it clear that the "biggest failure" description is limited to the date of Halliwells' failure. I hope that puts the article into context, and I appreciate that it's for others to determine if it's truly notable. And thanks to Biker and to Sionk for taking an interest, and I do hope I haven't broken any rules in this post - If I have, it's inadvertent! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Papinian123 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per reasoning above. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Imaginary relativity[edit]
- Imaginary relativity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, unreliable sources, original research, fringe science. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC) Snow delete - not notable (has made zero impact on the scientific community), based on a single unreliable source (an obscure, poorly regarded journal), contains original research, is fringe science, is most likely wrong, the article may have been created by the author of the paper (possible conflict of interest) and the article also contains text copy-and-pasted from that paper. I had a quick look at the paper and wasn't very impressed; if it were true then the following theories would need to be heavily modified or scrapped: special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, QED, QCD, the conservation of energy etc. CodeTheorist (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A theory advanced by one person that's never been cited or picked up on. The term throws up some Google Books and Scholar results, but only fleeting mentions and in a totally different context. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG since there isn't enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the imaginary relativity subject for a stand-alone article. Also, Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. Perhaps post the content one of our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. New article by one person with only one relevant reference as a source, written by him. Not notable, conflict of interest, delete is the remedy. --DThomsen8 (talk) 10:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, OR, but mostly utter nonsense which flies in the face of relativity, perhaps the most understood and confirmed branch of modern physics.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG. AstroCog (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hmmm... How to put this as gently as possible?... Why do math and physics attract so many crazy people? EEng (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because this is not a stand alone subject derived from reliable sources and is therefore not notable. Also this appears to be fringe science and is not notable in that area either. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:14, 19 June 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 Drabble. The arguments for keep do not hold water. Three of the sources provided by Northamerica1000 do not meet the criteria of WP:RS. Many of the sources in the article also fail WP:RS or do not cover the subject. 55 Fiction appears to be a shorter variation of Drabble or Flash fiction. v/r - TP 20:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
55 Fiction[edit]
- 55 Fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability. Recently added sources show only minor local interest in this topic. At best they give justification for mention on a Wikipedia article about the general topic, certainly not a whole article about this specific topic. DreamGuy (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Flash fiction, or some other page where it would fit. --—Hahc21 [TALK][CONTRIBS] 20:59, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for passing, less or more weakly, GNG. In addition to cited sources, the subject received coverage in St. Paul Pioneer Press, Language Magazine and Orlando Sentinel. It is also mentioned in some books, such as Michael L. Wilson's Flash Writing and George J. Bryjak's The Power Of The Dark Goddess. Maybe it could be merged somewhere, but I'm not sure where... maybe to Flash fiction, maybe to Steve Moss, maybe somewhere else. But it is just an editorial issue and does not require deletion.Cavarrone (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - topic is meeting WP:GNG, per: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:25, 11 June 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 06:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is notable and does pass WP:GNG as there are enough WP:RS on the article as well as available online. →TSU tp* 04:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps a Merge to Drabble might be in order, as this appears to be a shorter variation on it? - The Bushranger One ping only 07:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is just enough coverage here to meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:13, 25 June 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. Even after discounting the few SPA votes, there is still no strong agreement on whether this is a notable neologism, although the "keep" side of the argument seems to have ever so slightly stronger arguments. Would recommend taking some time to clean up the article, get rid of bad references, clarify the definition, and then take another look at what it has become. -Scottywong| comment _ 17:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum fiction[edit]
- Quantum fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of a deleted article as a vanity sop to a notorious spammer. Still a neologism without any substantial presence outside her spamming. Orange Mike | Talk 02:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I saw the recreated article and undeleted the history so that editors can compare the current version to the version that was the discussion of the last AfD, and in fact the old version was userfied at User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction. Comparing the two shows that the result of the first AfD cannot apply to the current version which has been considerably enhanced. This article now has 51 references, and I would say that there is more than enough material to keep. Ronhjones (Talk) 17:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - take a closer look at those "references", Ron: many of them never mention the phrase; some are blogs; and at least one of them is either a copyright violation of the recreated article, or the recreated article is a copyright violation of the blog post! This thing reeks of bad original research and synthesis plus "referencing" by Google results dump. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we delete every article that used blogs as references there wouldn't be much left. I just tend to browse the refs to make sure that are more reliable, and see if the ref includes the data - a quick re-look gives velocityebooks.com, www.publishersweekly.com, www.changingplanes.net and plenty of others to more than satisfy WP guidelines for inclusion. Some may be small sites, but they are not all blogs. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that User:Tlogmer is now, sadly, deceased. Should this AfD result be keep, then I suggest a history merge with User:Tlogmer/Quantum_fiction to keep all the attributions together. I can do that if the community is in agreement. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we delete every article that used blogs as references there wouldn't be much left. I just tend to browse the refs to make sure that are more reliable, and see if the ref includes the data - a quick re-look gives velocityebooks.com, www.publishersweekly.com, www.changingplanes.net and plenty of others to more than satisfy WP guidelines for inclusion. Some may be small sites, but they are not all blogs. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - take a closer look at those "references", Ron: many of them never mention the phrase; some are blogs; and at least one of them is either a copyright violation of the recreated article, or the recreated article is a copyright violation of the blog post! This thing reeks of bad original research and synthesis plus "referencing" by Google results dump. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep What's new here is the name, and the author's presumption that she's invented a new superset that includes science fiction. This (quantum effects in reality) is an old idea (cf. The Coming of the Quantum Cats; I'm not at all sure that was the first science fiction work to riff on this idea using this method.)htom (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Take out the blog references (which are not WP:RS) and the references not about the topic, and there's not much left. There's the novel by Vanna Bonta, and the use of the term by Charles Platt and a few others, but that's all. Furthermore, those things are not related, since Platt and the others write after Bonta, but never mention her novel. I can only conclude that the term is being used with different meanings, and therefore that there is no topic here and that the article is pure WP:SYNTH. -- 202.124.73.133 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This article shows a cultural emergence of 'quantum fiction' and documents and reflects the genre and its usage as a cultural evolution over more than a decade. Usage, interest and the cultural expansion of the subject 'quantum fiction' as a genre is evidenced by citations that include: major newspapers, academic institutions, various authors, art critics, and multiple publishers. Verifiable sources include Publishers Weekly, The St. Petersburg Times, The Alexandria Gazette, Panorama Magazine (Mondadori), Rodopi Publishers (Amsterdam - New York), NBC Television series, Scholarly Book Services, Avon Books, Cosmos Books, various University publications, as well as published books, both fiction and academic. Additional citations of the term's usage include numerous authors (Ranse Parker, Wilson Harris, Audrey Niffenegger, Charles Platt, Vanna Bonta, Laurie Brenner, Jean-Philippe Toussaint among others) citing their published books as quantum fiction, and critics and reviewers have described a new NBC network television series with the term, calling the genre 'quantum fiction.' Citations list book reviews that describe books and televisions as a 'quantum fiction' genre. A doctoral thesis was presented by a PhD on quantum fiction as a new genre and how it affects the marketplace. Several university dissertations on the term quantum fiction from various sectors, independently exploring an emerging genre; college courses. Numerous citations in this subject reflect the coining of the term and over a decade of cultural, professional and academic development. Tracking the usage of the term shows the development of usage and a genre that happened without the persons involved necessarily knowing or mentioning one another because a cohesive view of the emergence of the genre was not yet visible. This is an interesting social study in and of itself -- how various authors and academics within years and time-frames of one another, used the term and explored the genre as pioneers. Citations are provided evidencing the chronology of the emergence and cultural usage of the subject and genre 'quantum fiction' over more than a decade, a global occurrence, and the term appears globally in newspaper, books and other media (usage in US, Spain, Guyana, Caribbean, Italy etc). Since knowledge is the point of Wikipedia, this is a valuable resource. IMC.esq (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: IMC.esq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion that these unrelated uses of the term form a "genre" is classic WP:SYNTH. -- 202.124.73.13 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- The topic is clearly notable and this article itself is wonderfully researched. Marcus Qwertyus 02:44, 12 June 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 06:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, with considerable edits.
The Quantum Fiction article provides an overview of the use of the term “Quantum Fiction” as a developing classification for new works that explore unique narrative relationships with the reader as an observer. As written, the article attempts to prove that Quantum Fiction is a distinct genre. While this proposition is well supported by decent sourcing indicating that the term has been used in a variety of different places to mean a number of different things, nothing is presented which distinctly codifies Quantum Fiction as a distinct school.
According to the List of Literary Genres page, “Literary genres are determined by literary technique, tone, content and by critic definitions of the genres.” While the specific technique, tone and content aspects of Quantum Fiction as presented by the article are nebulous and therefore hard to establish, the references in the article itself definitely indicate the existences of a body of critique recognizing the term as appropriate for describing the character particular works. For this reason alone, an article should exist; Wikipedia lists over 45 different genres in its section on christian writing alone ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_genres .)
The ambiguity surrounding the meaning of the term is, perhaps, not a bad thing. The root definition of the word quantum, from the 1610s, is “one’s share or portion.” ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=quantum&searchmode=none ) Thus, the term Quantum Fiction could be understood to mean any fiction which presents the world through the unique share of the perceptive apparatus allotted to the individual narrator. This idea, however, is never fully presented in the article itself. Likewise, the article presents a litany of different physicists who typify the type of thought embodied in Quantum Fiction, but fails to make any mention of Max Planck, the physicist who introduced the term quantum into the lexicon of the physical sciences (in 1900.)
I would edit the article to remove length, to better summarize the unpredictable nature of the term & its application, and to provide proper recognition of Max Planck as the grandfather of quantum theory. Also, I would remove any occurrences of WP:SYNTH that came about from the original author’s attempt to prove the immutability of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen_a_ferguson (talk • contribs) 16:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC) — Owen_a_ferguson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Quarantine (Greg Egan novel) is another example of this, predating the work pretending to the invention. Several of Egan's works probably would fall into this category (I'm not going to call it a genre.) Still keep, but weakest possible. Article needs lots of work. htom (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comment: Regarding title you suggest predates the one listed, verification shows the author of Quarantine would not agree; category is "hard science fiction" (premise is built on a physical device in people's brains). In fact Egan writes: "That Quarantine's central premise is far from any mainstream view of quantum mechanics is excusable; every science fiction novel is entitled to one outrageous hypothesis." IMC.esq (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The article is obviously relevant, there are numerous sources and it is being updated constantly. We should really keep this. 86.40.108.14 (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — 86.40.108.14 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KeepIn my opinion, this article is obviously relelvant, there are several links, the page has a wealth of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultimatedriver (talk • contribs) 12:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC) User has since been blocked for disruptive editing.[reply]
- Delete as a non-notable neologism unsupported by sufficient reliable sources. The closing moderator should please note that a number of the 'keep' !votes are from new or nearly-single-purpose accounts, including a now-blocked editpr. - Dravecky (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And some keep votes are from Admins. I would suggest that Dravecky lets the closing admin make his own decisions based on the arguments put forward and not on the users - this is supposed to be a discussion on the article, even a WP:SPA can make a comment, it's up to the closing admin to how much weight (s)he gives those comments. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - It's definitely an emerging genre and well written (most of it). Doesn't fit deletion criteria at all, not exclusively promotional at all. Its definitely informative and useful for other readers. Articles of this kind are very helpful to new authors, who very much rely on web. I came across this while I was browsing for information on a similar genre.Pilot03 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC) — Pilot03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- reply Ah-ha! It's WP:UPANDCOMING, the next big thing! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you seriously think that's what Susan Strehle means when she talks about the 'emerging genre' in her book Fiction in the Quantum Universe? Or are you just being silly? IMC.esq (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pointing out that "emerging" can be a euphemism for "I think it's gonna be notable someday". As to Strehle: I've never heard of her or her purported publisher, and rather doubt that either can be considered a reliable source, although of course I could be wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you seriously think that's what Susan Strehle means when she talks about the 'emerging genre' in her book Fiction in the Quantum Universe? Or are you just being silly? IMC.esq (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply Ah-ha! It's WP:UPANDCOMING, the next big thing! --Orange Mike | Talk 02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Closing admin: I have been trying to find explanations why this AfD starts with a personal attack by User Orange Mike on author Vanna Bonta (one of the first to publish and lecture about quantum fiction). New ideas are revolutionary but the reaction of silly nonsense accusation and hostility seem extreme. This user posted this AfD on User:Coredesat page - the admin who deleted Quantum fiction 5 years ago? but who has been retired 4 years. Back then, 5 years ago, (2007) Coredesat deleted an article on this subject, bypassing a Keep consensus, while this current AfD nominator Orange Mike was simultaneously calling for deletion of a Vanna Bonta article and posted patently false silly nonsense like this back in 2007 -- and was recorded in other forums encouraging others to dislike, harass and vote delete. Is this NPOV? With a group of identified friends (some with COI in genre publishing circles) who have become notorious for trying to discredit, it fits a pattern of cyberstalking, including delusion he "knows" his target. It's perplexing and seems out of place. Now -- to get back to the topic here: I just took a look at Wiki's list of literary genres. That article seriously needs some attention by non-vested interests and experts. I added a lead and some substantial info to the article. I was astonished at how biased to science fiction and lacking the article is and how many unsubstantiated, unsourced "genres" are listed in the scope of this User's Wiki Science Fiction project, as well as non-notable persons. The problem may be lack of understanding and non-professionalism or experience outside of a community at the root of this. Hope to contribute more in the future. There's no need for anything else here but an inspection of the subject, the article, the resources, and the citations, and NPOV. IMC.esq (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - It's both WP:NEO and WP:SYNTH, made worse by (as IMC.esq and htom demonstrated above) the fact that it doesn't have a clear definition. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Don't speak on my behalf. I demonstrated a very clear grasp of the definition. And htom, who actually voted Keep, brought up an interesting point where a distinction was necessary. I also demonstrated a grasp of Literature and genres (see my contributions to list of literary genres. Compare what it looked like before my contribution). Very important distinction: just because one person is not clear on the definition or does not understand the article does not equal that it and all the secondary verifiable sources do not exist. IMC.esq (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- note to closing admin - the involvement of s.p.a. and new accounts in this matter is symptomatic of POV pushers and fringe enthusiasts; but then, you probably figured that out already. The idea that this is all a conspiracy by myself and other people actually familiar with publishing and fiction genres will be evaluated by you for what it's worth; I plan to ignore the ad hominem elements in favor of discussing the topic on its lack of merits. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dipankan (Have a chat?) 07:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of MeSH codes[edit]
- List of MeSH codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating this page and all of its subpages for deletion because they undermine the purpose of having wikipedia articles. Sure, we could group lots of related links to a national database instead of writing articles on things, or we could use wikipedia to write articles that link to related articles. Athleek123 20:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 21:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the nominated subpages:
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Hopefully editors who have more knowledge of the subject matter will weigh in, but I don't feel that these articles add much value to the encyclopedia. They are just large groups of external links which could be found with a search engine like Google. Generally, lists on Wikipedia are made up of wikilinked articles in a similar subject area/topic. So I agree with User:Athleek123 here. Also, while not as relevant, these articles are a mess in terms of overlinkage. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the list and all of its sublists. Wikipedia is not a repository for this kind of primary information. Someone who wants to see the actual lists should be able to find an appropriate external link at the MeSH article; including all of them here is just clutter. In any case, the codes are updated yearly, according to MeSH, and I think it's unlikely that anyone is updating these lists on Wikipedia to keep them current. --MelanieN (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least on the summary level; I consider this valid, as being a major way of classifying information. The main headings rarely change. Even if we kept the minor ones, we can handle annual changes in something. Probably at least half of Wikipedia's articles need changes and updates at least that frequently. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification of my comments above: the need for regular updating was not my primary reason for deleting. I agree that is true of many articles and is not a reason for deletion; I probably shouldn't even have mentioned it. The reason for my "delete" !vote was WP:NOTREPOSITORY. --MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 17 June 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 06:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- strongest keep I don't have a problem with it. Wikipedia is not a directory, but this isn't the same sort of thing as a list of phone numbers. If you look at WP:NOTDIRECTORY, it really doesn't violate anything there. In fact, it PROVES that this article is OK: Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Roodog2k (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has said it was a directory, so WP:NOTDIRECTORY is irrelevant. The relevant objection is WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which says: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: 1) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is completely relevant, as a list of codes is acceptable per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Your objection is to the extra content of the list, i.e. the links, which can be removed. If you think the links are inappropriate, then remove them. WP:SOFIXIT. Roodog2k (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The codes and the links are inappropriate. The codes are only useful to a specific audience and can easily be located using the MeSH code database. One can see that the MeSH tree and the Wikipedia pages for MeSH codes are the same. Anyone who is looking for MeSH codes can and should use the MeSH code database, because that is what the database is there for. Thanks, Athleek123 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything on Wikipedia is "useful to a specific audience." That's not a valid argument. -- 202.124.75.132 (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the code are inappropriate at all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Please state policy how the codes are inappropriate. The links are bad, I grant you that. But, at the very least, there is no reason to delete the highest level MeSH code page. Roodog2k (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I have with leaving the MeSH article is that it isn't cohesive as an article. The classification of geographical locations is unrelated to the classification of foods, health care terms, etc. Thus, it might seem that I am advocating to split up each section into its own article (e.g. List of Geographical Locations). It makes no sense, however, to have a List of Geographical Locations or a List of Foods, because it isn't notable. If we started making lists of everything, Wikipedia would be filled with huge, useless lists. Regards, Athleek123 00:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, there is a difference. The list examples you give are bad examples of lists, because they're ill-defined and open-ended, making them unmanageable. Per policy, this appears to be OK, although I do sympathise with your argument. I'm OK with the top-level list, but not so much so for the lower-level lists, because the lower you go, the less manageable they are. So I do see your argument. If we were only discussing the lower-level list article, I would be more inclined, maybe even likely, to vote delete based on policy. But, the top-level article is completely fine. Roodog2k (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem I have with leaving the MeSH article is that it isn't cohesive as an article. The classification of geographical locations is unrelated to the classification of foods, health care terms, etc. Thus, it might seem that I am advocating to split up each section into its own article (e.g. List of Geographical Locations). It makes no sense, however, to have a List of Geographical Locations or a List of Foods, because it isn't notable. If we started making lists of everything, Wikipedia would be filled with huge, useless lists. Regards, Athleek123 00:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The codes and the links are inappropriate. The codes are only useful to a specific audience and can easily be located using the MeSH code database. One can see that the MeSH tree and the Wikipedia pages for MeSH codes are the same. Anyone who is looking for MeSH codes can and should use the MeSH code database, because that is what the database is there for. Thanks, Athleek123 20:32, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is completely relevant, as a list of codes is acceptable per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Your objection is to the extra content of the list, i.e. the links, which can be removed. If you think the links are inappropriate, then remove them. WP:SOFIXIT. Roodog2k (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has said it was a directory, so WP:NOTDIRECTORY is irrelevant. The relevant objection is WP:NOTREPOSITORY, which says: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: 1) Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." --MelanieN (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think these pages are useful encyclopedic content like many lists we have on Wikipedia - they are useful for both classification and navigation. Concerns about WP:NOTREPOSITORY are better addressed by removing the numerous external links (which I don't think are particularly necessary) rather than by deletion the pages entirely. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the lists were complete (take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_MeSH_codes_(J02), for example), they would contain thousands of items, making them completely useless. In their incomplete state (as they are now), they are also completely useless because they are incomplete. Athleek123 00:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Essential encyclopaedic content, satisfying WP:LIST. For a taxonomy like this, WP:NOTREPOSITORY does not apply. The external links are fine too, as we generally accept external links for this kind of code. -- 202.124.75.132 (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is it a list of? I might me missing something, but this "list" seems very general; it's just a list of random things. If the lists were broken up into "List of Anatomical Terms", for example, I would be more ok with leaving them. Athleek123 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a list of MeSH codes. -- 202.124.74.48 (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But what is it a list of? I might me missing something, but this "list" seems very general; it's just a list of random things. If the lists were broken up into "List of Anatomical Terms", for example, I would be more ok with leaving them. Athleek123 06:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all – The material is inherently an encyclopedic reference that benefits the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:18, 23 June 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 per WP:SK as the nominator fails to advance a reason to delete. This is like the close of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (7th nomination) which was also an improper proxy. Every nomination has closed in a clear Keep and so some strong argument is needed for us to reopen this. Warden (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide methods[edit]
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (3rd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (4th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (5th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (6th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (7th nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Suicide methods (8th nomination)
- Suicide methods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Adding for user Roambassador as he feels this article encourages people to commit suicide. Strong Keep per WP:CENSOR, subject is clearly notable. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀
- <3 ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 06:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This is not an endorsement of the proposal by myself.
- Keep I'm afraid WP:NOTCENSORED controls here. But for the love of God please remember WP's part of the real world and along with such problems as the grotesquely overdetailed discussion of country-to-country variations in popularity of the various modes of railway-related suicide (subway vs. mainline, sitting on tracks vs. jumping as train approaches -- multiple heading levels being provided lest the reader lose his way in this labyrinth) there's something inhuman about the inclusion of a sentence beginning The automobile lends itself admirably to attempts at self-destruction because... It might be best to omit details on which methods are more or less painful, or likely to succeed. EEng (talk) 07:42, 17 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Medusa (band)[edit]
- Medusa (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band (although, apparently, somewhat notable as a group of pranksters, based on the references provided). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This page is definitely potentially useful to some due to their continual presence in the media and publicity stunts. --Colinslosthisglasses (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The FMV source looks like one we can use, but I'm not sure the others pass Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources. As for the Sun and Star tabloid mentions, I don't think we can really claim these are significant coverage, and I don't think Medusa meet any of the other criteria at WP:BAND. I could see this band becoming notable enough for an article in the future, but for now it is probably too soon. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:17, 3 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 June 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, →TSU tp* 06:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - tend to agree with Mr Stradivarius, the FMV source seems to be the only one of note. I can't see anything online to suggest the band have been at all successful, even failing on their gnome-theft skills. Sionk (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Primack[edit]
- Jeff Primack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject doesn't seem to be notable per WP:BIO. As near as I can tell, the publisher of the books authored by Primack is owned by Primack himself which makes them essentially self published. References are either primary or produced by companies that promoting Primack. Dismas|(talk) 06:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam. All citations found are self-referential. Google News Archive finds press releases. His books aren't even indexed at Google Books. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 18 June 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. Substantially the same as the previously deleted version PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 05:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
J Angel[edit]
- J Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing but a name and a few production/songwriting credits. Statυs (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not realize this page was previously deleted until this nomination was created. I placed the article with a speedy instead. Statυs (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Francis E Mensah[edit]
- Francis E Mensah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lecturer, almost no publications= or citations. Earlier prod removed. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very promising young academic. Check back in 10 years. EEng (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, currently no indications of notability in the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very promising, but too soon. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- probably much less than 10 years at the rate he's advancing, but not yet. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above - and, as per WP:USUAL, if at some point Mr. Mensah becomes notable, then an article may be appropriate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:10, 21 June 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. Opinions are roughly divided about whether Elizabeth Mackay is notable enough for inclusion. Assessing the number and quality of sources is a matter of editorial judgment, so I can't clearly say that one side's arguments are stronger. Although there are more opinions favoring deletion than retention, there is no consensus for deletion and so the article is kept by default. Sandstein 05:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elizabeth Mackay[edit]
- Elizabeth Mackay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a 19th century New Zealand settler, which says only that she "was a homemaker." The cited source gives more details about her life, but doesn't indicate any notability other than being an early European settler in New Zealand. That doesn't seem to me to meet WP:N. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Non-notable, as per nom. C(u)w(t)C(c) 18:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Context: I created this as part of a mass-creation of biographies of people in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, which is the New Zealand version of the Dictionary of National Biography (and there's a clear consensus that DNB people are notable). There was extensive dicussion at the time and there was no suggestion that these people were not notable. I believe that there is a consensus that these people are notable, but I'm happy to test this consensus, see my agrument below. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her DNZB entry has a bibliography with two clearly independent books, one a biography of her daughter (a famous New Zealand poet of the time, but whose fame has since faded) which covers her parents and upbringing in detail and a compilation of biographies in which she features in her own right. Jessie also wrote about her in writings such as The Tragedy of the Mackays but this fails the independence test. I can get physical access to the hard-copies of these books for page-ranges and the lengths of coverage if people are skeptical, but it'll take a few days. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, per Stuartyeates. The article certainly needs expansion. New Zealand editors are slowly working through these DNZB articles (I worked on Marion Hatton about an hour ago). My !vote is only "weak", because her notability is more marginal than most of the DNZB entries.-gadfium 04:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not a notable subject, especially since the artcle is a stub. Andrei.smolnikov (talk) 10:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you care to put foward a position based on policy? Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, as per Gadfium's argument. This case is indeed more borderline thank anything else that I've seen on DNZB. I fully support the DNZB initiative; thanks to Stuartyeates for giving the context. Schwede66 21:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite her being in a DNZB article, and I do agree these are usually people of note, there does not appear to be anything in the article that makes her notability. Her notability seems to come solely from association, which is inadequate. NealeFamily (talk) 08:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: for anyone else looking for sources, this is a different person to the party in New Zealand's first divorce case. They may be notable, but that's another kettle of fish. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if this is not kept, could it please be userfied to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/NZ/Dictionary_of_New_Zealand_Biography/Elizabeth Mackay or similar ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 May 2012
- Or it could possibly be incubated, if it's felt there's more biographical info available. -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are defintely other sources, but they probably print-only and need to be interloaned. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After re-reading Wikipedia:Incubate, I agree that incubation would be more appropaiate "Sufficient reliable sources which deal with the subject in depth may be found, though they may not be readily available online at the moment" seems to be a pretty good match here. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are defintely other sources, but they probably print-only and need to be interloaned. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Or it could possibly be incubated, if it's felt there's more biographical info available. -- Trevj (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I read the entry in the DNZB, and still believe she is not notable. Her life was typical for the era, which makes it interesting for NZ history (and that's why it is included in the DNZB), but not as a biographical article in WP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. People who feature in the DNZB or any other national dictionary of biography are inherently notable. We have entries for many thousands of people who would never make it into these works in a thousand years, so including everyone with an entry in such a work is a no-brainer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 28 May 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, Monty845 15:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is established policy that DNB entrants pass the notability test, and whilst there is nothing about her story that makes her inherently notable the fact is that she has made it. If it was her daughter that made her so that does not matter - WP:NOTINHERITED does not mean that a subject is disqualified if their notability came about because of a relationship, just that a relationship does not in itself confer notability. There are actually quite a few entries in WP for foundation settlers and the like who would never make it if they had lived a similar life back home, but that is in the nature of things. --AJHingston (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Inclusion in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is sufficient to establish notability. Early settlers can be held notable by being early settlers and it appears that this is the case here. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am not willing to accept the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography as a source for notability. I know we normally accept national biographies, but we accept them on the ground that they are discriminating sources. The penchant of NZNB to include entries for people of this degree of unimportance as , apparently, characteristic figures of their period, is not sufficiently discriminating selectivity. It may seem odd to say we're a more carefully encyclopedic source than such a publication, but it seems to be the case. There is no need to lower our standard. Perhaps this source needs a discussion on RSN,because we might want wider consensus for a change in one of our usual criteria. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is at the forefront of dictionaries of biograhy attempting to combat Systemic bias. Doesn't excluding them simply reinforce Wikipedia:Systemic bias? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I share Stuartyeates' view here. Men tend to be remembered, correctly, for achievements within wider society. At most times, and in most places, women have been largely excluded from the public sphere and so are mainly remembered, if at all, either through the men they are associated with or for lives lived within a domestic or family context. The vehicles through which that memory is transmitted tend to be autobiographical or biographies recorded by family members. Probably because I am a man, such things tend not to interest me but I acknowledge that there is an enormous appetite for such material and that some of its subjects become widely known as a consequence. It may sometimes be the 'ordinariness' of their lives that appeals because it is representative and something readers can empathise with. WP inclusion criteria are not based simply on objective 'merit' - once you are well enough known, and if in a DNB you will be, that is enough. --AJHingston (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If deleting this article means the entire Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is at question because of this discussion then I am happy to change my stance to Keep. However, I do not accept that because one item in this Dictionary is called into question, it affects the whole work to the extent DGG suggests. I can not find anything that makes Elizabeth Mackay any more notable than most of the pioneer women of her day, and therefore, can not support keeping the article solely because she is listed in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. No one has suggested that she has any other form of notability. I also have difficulty with AJHingston's argument around 'ordinariness'. Extrapolating it would leave you with Wikipedia including everybody and everything. Where would you draw the line? NealeFamily (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Dictionary of New Zealand Biography is at the forefront of dictionaries of biograhy attempting to combat Systemic bias. Doesn't excluding them simply reinforce Wikipedia:Systemic bias? Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 3 June 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, REPLY TOW talk 04:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the reasons articulated by Stuartyeates and AJHingston. I don't think we'd gain much by starting to carve out exceptions from the general notability of subjects in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography, and certainly not enough to justify the cost of undermining the NZ project and potentially unleashing additional AfDs aimed at other figures in the DNZB. I'd note, though, that in this case there may a satisfactory, if ad hoc, compromise: if there's really only a couple of sentences to say about her, would it be sufficient to merge and redirect this to Jessie Mackay? --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If it's good enough for the Kiwi Dictionary of National Biography, it should be good enough for Wikipedia. That said, I wish people wouldn't start shitty little stubs like this. If you wanna write a biography, write a god damned biography. We've already wasted about 4 times as much effort fighting over this as the creator spent launching this and putting a dubious notch in their "pages started" belt buckle. Carrite (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per DGG. The inclusion of the bio of this random person who was someone's mom in the NZ bio compilation is an indication of a lack of editorial judgement on the part of the editors of that compendium, and a reason to reject inclusion there as satisfaction of WP:BIO. Sorry, but we are the editors of Wikipedia, not some group of editors of the DNZB. Our standards are higher, apparently, than theirs. That compendium sounds more like a phone directory than a selective listing of notable persons. It is sufficient to mention her in her daughter's bio. Edison (talk) 13:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - let's be clear about this: the criterion is whether she's notable in her own right. Being someone's mother does not make her notable; being a woman and from New Zealand do not exclude her from notability, but do not of themselves guarantee inclusion: WP:N, WP:NOTINHERITED etc etc must take precedence over any automatic assumption of the total accuracy of the DNB, DNZB or any other DNxxxB - they might get it wrong occasionally. Unfortunately, it seems the DNZB's criteria are not always as strict as the DNB's (and even that could surely make a rare mistake), so simply being in there isn't sufficient: it has to be a good hint that a person might be notable, and a source of information; and telling us she's a homemaker and wrote about her daughter wouldn't cut the mustard from any country, sorry. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - parents do not generally inherit notability from their better known children. I don't want to underestimate the difficulties of settling on the other side of the world and bringing up a family, but there is not a lot said about Elizabeth in her own NZB entry, and that is the only strong source about her. The obituary is a routine announcement. Sionk (talk) 14:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per the above, espec. comments by Edison. By our standards there is no evidence of notability and we are not here to create a Directory of all New Zealanders regardless, even if DNZB may be. Ben MacDui
- Comment: A number of editors have questioned the rationale for inclusion in DNZB. The second paragraph of the DNZB article lays out the reasons: to give a representative gender and racial balance across the period of coverage—which are broadly equalivent to the reasons and motivation behind Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. My reading is that filtering such articles out from otherwise presumed-notable encyclopedias we are actively working to increase wikipedia's systemic bias. Which seems like a bad thing. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me if I'm wrong, and for broaching a delicate matter, but while that may be an excellent policy in NZ for their dictionary, it isn't the same as the Wikipedia policy of treating all topics and people equally. Positive discrimination is an important political mechanism and has its place in many walks of life, but just because DNZB has decided to include a quota of less-notable or barely-notable women, that doesn't mean we have to do the same. We have to decide on grounds of notability. Which means we must be prepared, now and again, to exclude some article subjects that DNZB chose to include. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Stuartyeates's comments regarding the DNZB. I think inclusion there and in comparable texts for other countries imply notability and would be equivalent to having an encyclopedia in print format. If there was better digitization of New Zealand newspapers, I'm confident you would find additional references to her. --LauraHale (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That a person is "unremarkable" or "ordinary" is a subjective judgement on the part of a Wikipedia editor, and notability is not subjective. Notability is an objective standard, based upon how much a person has been noted by the world at large. The problem here is that the biographical sources are themselves a bit of stretch, in that they don't focus so much upon this person as upon her daughter and husband, even those that are nominally about this person, and when they do they don't supply much in the way of factual content. The source depth is not particularly good, in other words.
I had a look around for more sources, and even Macdonald's and Penfold's The Book of New Zealand women only mentions this person in the entry for Jessie Mackay. I'd like to see the information that was promised in this discussion a month ago but that has not yet been supplied: what and how much is in Brave days: pioneer women of New Zealand. about this person. If it's an extensive biography that concentrates upon this person, rather than her husband and daughter, then it along with the very weak DNZB entry are enough to convince me that enough sourcing exists for a proper biography to be written, and that this person is properly documented in her own right rather than as an ancillary to her daughter.
But on the other hand if it's just all-about-the-famous-daughter again, that's still on the borderline for me, since the DNZB really doesn't provide enough knowledge of this person for a non-permastub encyclopaedia article to be written.
Notice: It's all about the depths and provenances of sources. No subjective judgement of the subject itself involved.
Uncle G (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Was the 'promise' you mention my statement 'There are defintely other sources, but they probably print-only and need to be interloaned.' ? If you read it carefully, there was no promise. I've not interloaned this material since there's been no indication that the AfD would still be open when the materials arrived (to be honest, I'm surprised it's still open). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I of course never intended to imply that people in the DNZB are necessarily non-notable. Most of them certainly are, and the project to add missing articles from there is a very good thing to do, if carried out with judgment. But reference books vary in purpose. Most national biographies intend to include the most important people in the country; this one aims to include also representative people from ordinary life; that's a perfectly good purpose, but not the one that we had in mind in adopting our guideline. . Therefore, we must check its entries against the availability of additional reliable secondary sources. Just as Uncle G says, if there turn out to be such sources, then indeed the person is notable. But in this case nobody has found them. If the reference book inspires somebody to write them, then certainly it will be another matter--for example, if someone should produce a notable fictional book or film based on the character. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inhereted. Her daughter is notable, but she isn't and therefore, it should be deleted as per WP: NOTINHERETED. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:NOTINHERITED covers most of the presented sources. As DGG and Uncle G point out above, it is possible that someday someone will either find or create additional sources that would allow a revisit. It looks like Stuartyeates is will to take a userfied page on and look for sources at some point (yes, I know no promises were made), that is the appropriate result at this time. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As a side note, many of the Keep recommendations above seem to hinge on some form of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I invite those who have recommended keep take a look and see if they may want to expand their comments. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Emily Tilson[edit]
- Emily Tilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This non-notable actress isn't widely known and hasn't appeared in anything widely known either. It cites no sources except an external link to an IMDB page for the actress which contains close to no valuable information. Delete and maybe recreate if and when the actress becomes notable. Creativity97 (Talk) 22:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Closing Admin This AfD nomination was malformed and never listed in the deletion log. I have refactored it and added it as of today's date. Please consider this comment's time stamp as the start time for the nomination when deciding to close the discussion. Monty845 15:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This individual doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. I investigated the list of three roles and found nothing to make me think that these roles were "significant". For instance, the extensive entry at Mr. Nobody (film) doesn't mention this character by name. I suggest this is too soon; as the nominator notes, there is nothing preventing recreation if and when notability is achieved. Ubelowme (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article does not meet WP:NACTOR, I agree. Delete is still my opinion, the article is useless. Creativity97 (Talk) 03:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ubelowme. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:01, 21 June 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 Keisha Buchanan. There is consensus to merge to the biography article. If editors feel strongly that it should be redirected to a specific section of the article, that would be best discussed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keisha Buchanan's debut album[edit]
- Keisha Buchanan's debut album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like a clear violation of Crystal to me and there isn't enough verified information to hang an article on. I suggest that we redirect this to Keisha Buchanan and cover the subject there until there is more to say. Spartaz Humbug! 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteper WP:CRYSTAL under CSD A7 without redirect.Merge and redirect; while it may be proper to include the subject within Keisha Buchanan's BLP, it is not possible to predict notability for stand alone status unless there were significant pre-production sales. My76Strat (talk) 04:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Merge and redirect Don't think it qualifies for a speedy. I created the article because it meets the GNG, but I agree that it should be redirected (for now). There is no reason to speedy delete it. Till 04:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Merge and redirect to Keisha_Buchanan#2010.E2.80.93present:_Solo_career_and_reforming_Sugababes This information can fit perfectly in her main article. That section specifically. The redirect could come in use if someone were to look up the term "Keisha Buchanan's debut album". Statυs (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper WP:HAMMER. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Putting aside that 'law', what benefit is gained from deleting the whole article? What's wrong with a simple merge and redirect to the artist in question? Till 03:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair point. Merge and redirect. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside that 'law', what benefit is gained from deleting the whole article? What's wrong with a simple merge and redirect to the artist in question? Till 03:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zipota[edit]
- Zipota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I PROD'd this May 12th on Notability grounds and that was contested a few days later. It was just PROD'd again. Submitting to AfD to get some broader consensus. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the headsup Peter. As I said on the talk page, I don't have any personal stake in the topic other than my general interest in Basque culture which brought me to this article when it was in pretty odd shape. I agree that it needs expanding with reliable sources but I don't have them (i.e. beyond what I've already used in the article), I've already done the best I can in that regard. My take on it is that it's a rather marginal sport with a mythologising terminology. But on the other hand it seems to be prominent enough to keep cropping up, including some printed sources. So in the interest both of general information and preventing misinformation, I'm for keeping this article. Wikipedia is the first place a confused cybernaut is going to come. Given the number of pages for schools in Malaysia and sports pages such as Cow tipping, I think that's reasonable. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything to show this is a notable martial art. All but one of the article's sources deal with the etymology of the words, not the art itself. The article's only source about the art is the 2001 version of Green's 'Martial Arts of the World' and I couldn't find zipota or zipote in the 2010 edition. I couldn't find any independent reliable sources that show this art meets the notability criteria of WP:MANOTE. Jakejr (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In a way that's my fault. When I first came across the article, it made excessive use of martial arts websites to reference material, if you look at this old version [32] there's at least two "items", the International Guild of Danse De Rue Savate (pass as to notability) and the obituary of this Isidro Chapa guy. As I wasn't sure about how such martial arts sites were seen as sources on Wikipedia and as the article was full of crazy claims and no inline cites, I stripped a lot of that. Perhaps I shouldn't have stripped it all. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on Comments: I just saw I hadn't actually deleted the links. I just haven't used them to ref anything. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any significant independent coverage of this martial art. People in online fourms keep saying it's Basque, but I'm unaware of a strong Basque culture in Texas. The use of similar terminology is not enough to show this is a notable martial art. In fact, it makes it look like an attempt to obtain notability from an established art (WP:NOTINHERITED). If there are solid independent sources linking zipota and savate, then perhaps this article could be merged into Savate. Papaursa (talk) 01:28, 18 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Gilliam[edit]
- Christian Gilliam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable Pitcairne (talk) 03:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Why non-notable? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per WP:POLITICIAN item 1. Not an international, national, or state officeholder. DarkAudit (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - insufficient notability. Many borough/city/county-level councillors are notable, but he is not one of them. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:11, 24 June 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. Davewild (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dion Waiters[edit]
- Dion Waiters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
dePRODed by creator. Concern was: Not a professional player. Fails to meet criteria at WP:Athlete. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the article is spartan, but the subject is notable. One doesn't have to be professional to be notable. At WP:ATHLETE, college athletes can be notable if they: 1) Have won a national award (such as those listed in Template:College Football Awards or the equivalent in another sport), or established a major Division I (NCAA) record, 2) Were inducted into the hall of fame in their sport (for example, the College Football Hall of Fame), or 3) Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. Waiters was an honorable mention All-American and received significant national press coverage this year - he meets notability on two counts. And while this doesn't make him notable now, he's a lock to be selected in the 2012 NBA Draft, which is less than 2 weeks away (which would make him notable a third time). Rikster2 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rikster. Article just needs a lot of improvement, but the person is notable.--Yankees10 17:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Dion Waiters is already notable for being selected as an honorable mention All-American and he will be selected in the NBA Draft soon. I will also work to improve the article. NBA Fan44 (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now. There's a 99% chance he'll be selected in the upcoming 2012 NBA Draft. If for some inexplicable reason he doesn't get drafted, then I might entertain a delete !vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Waiters has pulled out of all workouts because it is widely believed he has a guarantee that the Suns will take him with their lottery pick. There is a 99% chance he goes LOTTERY, and 100% chance he is drafted (assuming no catastrophic event prior). I'd still argue he was notable as a college player, but to delete him so close to the NBA Draft would be crazy IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My main point is that deleting him prior to the draft is crazy, I agree. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes zero sense to delete this article, as the subject will be drafted and barring catastrophe play in the NBA or the NBADL for at least two years. Even players who do not get drafted and play overseas seem to have articles. Waiters is currently more notable than that and likely to remain so.70.231.225.147 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Waiters has pulled out of all workouts because it is widely believed he has a guarantee that the Suns will take him with their lottery pick. There is a 99% chance he goes LOTTERY, and 100% chance he is drafted (assuming no catastrophic event prior). I'd still argue he was notable as a college player, but to delete him so close to the NBA Draft would be crazy IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to all of the above, he has more than a thousand GNews hits: common sense tells us this guy is notable now and there's virtually no chance he won't remain so. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:44, 24 June 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 Amol. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moalagh Bridge[edit]
- Moalagh Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by a sock of an account with a known history of creating copyright violations (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. As per WP:Copyright violations: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately."
Additional evidence that this article is a copyright violation: the external link used in this article (a website which is currently down) was the main source used by the sockmaster for their copyright violations. Singularity42 (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on. Judging by the picture, this bridge certainly looks like it could be notable. We have many smaller bridges than this in Wikipedia. Also the French Wikipedia has this article. Let's see if we can find some info on this bridge. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Farsi wiki has it too. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with the article being re-written. But as it currently stands, it must be presumed that the current version is a copyvio. WP:G5 may also apply. Singularity42 (talk) 02:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:54, 8 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I hate writing this, as I am the one who usually tries to improve articles on architectural structures, saving them for deletion. However, here we have to face three facts: (i) there are no English reliable sources in the internet that even confirm the existence of the bridge, not even talking on proving notability (note that there are sources for Davazdah Pelleh Bridge in the same city); (ii) both Farsi sources in the article are dead; (iii) the article creator is not a trusted user and has a record of introducing copyright violation to the articles. Therefore I do not see any other solution but to delete the article ant to write another one once sources are available.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see evidence of the article creator being involved in a copyright violation. There is a clue on the user's talk page that an article with which he/she was associated was later deleted as a copyright violation, but the deletion removed the edit history. Even if further evidence can be produced, this is still only one copyright violation, which does not establish an "extensive history" suggested by the nomination. Further the nomination claims that this article was "created by a sock of an account". Evidence was presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی, but the SPI did not confirm that the article creator is a sock. Unscintillating (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at the archive for the SPI investigation, you will see that initially, the administrator thought more evidence was required to connect Mirasir with the sockmaster. However, that admin changed his mind when the next SPI case was brought, as the latest sock added another connection between the two. Personally, I think there is no doubt they are one and the same, but I would be happy to file another SPI if you want an admin to block on behavioural evidence (due to proxies, Checkuser cannot confirm).
- I've started a new SPI on Mirasir at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. Given the behavioural evidence, I would be surprised if anyone thought Mirasir was not a sock. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, you are wanting us to !vote delete as a potential copyright vio. Why should we find that this is a potential copyvio if no admin is willing to speedy delete the article as a copyvio? Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the policy I quoted with my nomination. If an editor is a known copyright violator, than their contributions can be assumed as copyright violations without further evidence. I'm not the first to say that about this editor. See, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton, which was an AfD for an article written by another sock (which this user then tried to re-create under a different article name). Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it work to put a speedy delete request on the article? Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if it G12 applies, since it is not an obvious copyvio. However, now that the latest SPI has resulted in the creator of this article being blocked as a sock of a user who was indef'd prior to this article being created, and there has been no other substantial edits, I have tagged it for speedy deletion under G5. Singularity42 (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it work to put a speedy delete request on the article? Unscintillating (talk) 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of the policy I quoted with my nomination. If an editor is a known copyright violator, than their contributions can be assumed as copyright violations without further evidence. I'm not the first to say that about this editor. See, for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower Tomb Sayyed Se Ton, which was an AfD for an article written by another sock (which this user then tried to re-create under a different article name). Singularity42 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, you are wanting us to !vote delete as a potential copyright vio. Why should we find that this is a potential copyvio if no admin is willing to speedy delete the article as a copyvio? Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started a new SPI on Mirasir at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/پارسا آملی. Given the behavioural evidence, I would be surprised if anyone thought Mirasir was not a sock. Singularity42 (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- have nearly identical clouds. One possibility is that the same person took both pictures. Note that the Panoramio picture provides a geo-location. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Amol without prejudice to recreation Created by sock puppet of a blocked editor known for copyright violation with the current version failing WP:V, so nothing is lost to start fresh. Unscintillating (talk) 04:02, 18 June 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The article sure is a mess though. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Durham County Cricket League[edit]
- Durham County Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unverified despite being tagged for one year; dubious notability (i.e., appears not to meet WP:CRIN criteria); possibility of original research; tagged last year for multiple issues around wikification, style, structure, etc. Brian (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference to WP:CRIN is irrelevant, because WP:CRIN does not include any criteria for notability of leagues. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Yes, it does. Under clubs it states:
for Great Britain, those clubs which have competed in the Minor Counties Championship or are included in the List of English cricket clubs do meet the notability requirements. The essence of the latter group is that the clubs belong to one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues.
- and this Durham league is not an ECB Premier League. The conclusion has to be that it is not notable. --Brian (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That section is about the notability of individual clubs playing in those leagues, not of the leagues themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the logical conclusion is that the league is not notable if it is not an ECB Premier League. --Brian (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in no way illogical that a league can be notable without its individual member clubs being notable, just as a club can be notable without its individual players being notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the logical conclusion is that the league is not notable if it is not an ECB Premier League. --Brian (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't yet looked for it. I only made the obvious point that your invocation of WP:CRIN was invalid, and you chose to argue about that point rather than think about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a discussion, not an argument. Don't be defensive. You've made a fair point about CRIN which is flawed because they don't specify league status (neither, incidentally, do they cover clubs outside England and Australia). I'll raise it at the project forum. --Brian (talk) 04:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - A search for sources doesn't turn up much, but I think there's enough out there. This league will have an interesting history, being a feeder league for Durham CCC in its minor counties days (and I think it was directly connected to Durham CCC). Some history to uncover, but needs plenty of work. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 15:08, 5 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We frequently have articles on leagues in all sports where the individual teams are not notable. That sort of article on the overall subject is an excellent way of handling sub-notable topics that yet can reasonably be mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 24 June 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 IROKO Partners. The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IROKING[edit]
- IROKING (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability of the group and of the website, andadvertising. Callanecc (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:34, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the articles IROKING and IROKOtv to the main article IROKO Partners. I don't think the branches are independently notable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:15, 3 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the parent article IROKO Partners. Agreed with Vejvančický. Cavarrone (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ayya Dharmalinga Swamighal (Siddhar)[edit]
- Ayya Dharmalinga Swamighal (Siddhar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability issues. The subject of the article is unclear. Seems to be a non-notable guru, but it also talks about the Siddhar tradition, the god Bhairava and an ashram. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
The page about Ayya Dharamalinga Swamighal is authentic and i already added more videos about His speech in television channels.
Would you please help me what can i do more to keep that page, Thanks.Arulraja (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Redtigerxyz, Thank you for your reply.Based on your feedback we had edited the information on our page and subsequently adding the necessary resources from the dailies The Hindu and New Straits Times, Malaysia (http://conf2010.agastiarpeedam.org/english/images/nst_fwcsp_190507.jpg) of national newspapers, videos from popular Indian Television networks (SUN TV,Jaya TV), which are later published in www.youtube.com. From 2004 to 2009, Our Guru composed, recorded and even sang several songs of Thiruvarutpa for Thiruarutpa Deiva Isai Amutham project of www.vallalar.org (http://www.vallalarspace.com/ThiruArutpaAudio). Is these information enough to support to retain our page ? Thanks Arulraja (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Arulraja[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Does not meet GNG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:49, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 05:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brad Spitz[edit]
- Brad Spitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, only a single passing mention in the Boston Globe. I added that, but the article has been otherwise unsourced for seven years and ten months. joe deckertalk to me 17:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 3 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 02:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article seems to be active, but isn't getting the non-trivial coverage required to establish notability. #10 of WP:MUSICBIO may apply, but I couldn't find any sources for the claims in the article--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 04:10, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:46, 17 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of 2012 Songs in the Top Ten[edit]
- List of 2012 Songs in the Top Ten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't get the purpose of this page. We already have separate lists for UK/US charters ViperSnake151 Talk 06:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Replace content with links to individual countries' top ten articles: as it stands it's redundant with List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2012, List of UK top 10 singles in 2012. Other countries also have articles, e.g. List of top 10 singles in 2012 (France), List of Romanian Top 100 top 10 singles in 2012, etc. Not duplicating fast-changing content is obviously a good idea for maintainability, so having links to individual top tens is far better. Maybe rename as well? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it, says the page's originator. I created the page under discussion, not knowing about the aforementioned articles. I had looked for something similar before I started--not thoroughly enough, it seems. Since the information was already out there, I am a little embarrassed about having created it in the first place. Go ahead and nuke it, says I. Listmeister (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:21, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Colapeninsula - the best thing to do here would be to convert the article into a list of the various "top 10 in 2012" lists, and rename it to something like Lists of top 10 singles in 2012. It's halfway there already, so it would probably be quicker to rewrite it than to delete it and write a "lists of" article from scratch. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:SPEEDY#G7. --→gab 24dot grab← 20:07, 26 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best of Luck (Punjabi Film)[edit]
- Best of Luck (Punjabi Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NF and possibly WP:NFF. The article says that shooting began in May (without a source). I did find one article dated May 18 that said shooting would begin in a week, but I didn't find any article that said that shooting actually began. Couldn't find any significant coverage of film otherwise. Bbb23 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. On May 17, Times of India made the report found by the nominator.[33] No other coverage found. Simply TOO SOON. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per MichaelQSchmidt. I too found no other sources. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:03, 17 June 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. Choungui Kéli will be merged here. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Choungui[edit]
- Choungui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any reliable sources confirmed this village's existence. Google Maps simply cites this article. —Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 03:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nom. The Google Maps link the nom provided confirms its existence as a village. That there's extraneous text citing the Wikipedia article does not negate that. The provided map of the location and its streets (along with a sports ground) is not a citation of this article. Here's a satellite view. --Oakshade (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Choungui Kéli. Wikipedia's geographic notability guidelines states the following: "Populated, legally-recognized places are, by a very large consensus, considered notable, even if the population is very low." However, this article appears to be a duplicate of Choungui Kéli. Looking at Google maps, the two[34],[35] appear to be the same town. The geographic coordinates for Choungui appear to be more accurate than those for Choungui Kéli. NJ Wine (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say merge Choungui Kéli into Choungui as the Chongui Kéli article appears to have errors. Not only, as you pointed out, do the coordinates seem incorrect, but that article claims there are over 12,000 inhabitants there which is four times more than the entire commune of Kani-Kéli in which Choungui/Choungui Kéli is part of. Something is amiss there. No map seems to use the designation "Choungui Kéli."--Oakshade (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. It's better to merge Choungui Kéli into Choungui. NJ Wine (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per this reference from INSEE. Comte0 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 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 08:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the merger proposal above needs more discussion. Sandstein 08:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator- I can see that there is a consensus merge, but there seems to be a slight disagreement in what to merge. It seems that the vote to merge Choungui Kéli into Choungui has both a stronger argument and is the dominant opinion, but before I would like to delay closing this AfD to see if anyone in support of merging Choungui into Choungui Kéli can attempt to sway the consensus in their favor.—Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 15:04, 11 June 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, →Bmusician 02:44, 17 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
O Logos Sou Spathi[edit]
- O Logos Sou Spathi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears too soon for this article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the song has yet to chart / receive the in-depth coverage required by the GNG. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There may be some notability in the future for this song. It could have an article at that time. Until then, the crystal ball seems appropriate. Stormbay (talk) 01:28, 5 June 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, →Bmusician 12:06, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Stub for a future release, sourced by a single "upcoming" notice. Let's have this article back if and when there is content and evidence of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's nothing of use in this article in it's current form. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:23, 19 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
HESOPHIA HC12[edit]
- HESOPHIA HC12 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no evidence of notability, failed WP:NALBUMS *Annas* (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree. --Merbabu (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 3 June 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, →Bmusician 12:15, 10 June 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, →Bmusician 02:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This 6-week-old EP is the first release by this non-notable artist. Article is completely unsourced, and I didn't anything usefully WP:RS from web searches. Makes a claim that the album charted for a week on...something--some random website? It's not clear. Unfortunately, WP:Record charts lists nothing for Indonesia. Article claims that first track "Hesophia" is the most popular, and I did find it on Youtube, where it has racked up 38 total views. If decent sources can be found, happy to look again, but as it stands, not even close to being notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:21, 17 June 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 Disney Channel. No one favored retaining this article, or even merging its content. There is a split as to whether the article should be deleted or redirected, but policy favors redirecting so I have given greater weight to this argument. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DisneyChannel.com[edit]
- DisneyChannel.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a mess. Does not assert notability aside from that inherited by its main article. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
Meets WP: NOTABILITY for web content.Electriccatfish2 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- How so? There is no verifiable sources claiming this notability. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am changing my vote to Delete, as WP: WEB states that there is no inherent notability. While WDW has notability, there are no verifiable sources, and it should be deleted. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Should've been deleted long ago, it's just a long WP:ADVERT in article form and cruft that the network's article already talks about much better. Nate • (chatter) 03:48, 11 June 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, →Bmusician 02:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either redirect to Disney.com or delete. This article is barely sourced at all and does not assert notability for this web site. The fact that a business is very notable does not necessarily imply that we need to have a separate article for that business's web site. In some cases it's appropriate, but in this case I don't see a great need. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't delete. No opinion on keeping or deleting the content currently on the page, but this should be a blue link: either it should stay an article, or we should redirect it somewhere. I'd prefer redirecting to Disney Channel, but I wouldn't complain if we took Metropolitan's suggestion. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Disney Channel. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Manners[edit]
- Matthew Manners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet criteria of WP:NMMA as he has only fought one professional fight and it was not the highest title. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 12:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appears to be an autobiography. Rotorcowboy talk
contribs 02:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete There's absolutely nothing to show this fighter is notable. There is also no significant independent coverage of him. Sherdog shows that he was knocked out in 8 seconds of his only fight. Papaursa (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Vassallo[edit]
- Anthony Vassallo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at AfD in March 2007 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Still hasn't played in a fully pro league, still no significant coverage, still not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. – Kosm1fent 10:00, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - haven't played in a fully professional league, or represented his nation at senior level, and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY KEEP. Nominator does not even propose that the article should be deleted, therefore this is the wrong place. For renaming requests, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. JIP | Talk 10:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Luka Magnotta[edit]
- Luka Magnotta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luka Magnotta (3rd nomination) result appears to have been keep with "rename" but this was not respected. Page was kept, but not renamed. Seeking enforcement of previous AFD consensus, or a compromise split of article to Murder of Lin Jun. Regards, Stevertigo (t | c) 01:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - The result of the AfD on June 1, 2012 was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus in that discussion was keep. The consensus in a subsequent talk page discussion to move the article to Murder of Lin Jun was closed with a result of not moved. Stevertigo has been attempting to continue these actions despite multiple consensus decisions against it. He has indicated in this comment that he feels justified in attempting to usurp prior consensus by relisting this in AfD. My comment in response is here. I find his actions are now bordering on disruptive, and the motivations seem POVish. Taroaldo (talk) 02:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Taroaldo wrote:
The result of the AfD on June 1, 2012 was speedy keep per WP:SNOWBALL.
- This is true, but note that Taroaldo in his entire comment fails to address the "rename" issue: It appears that most votes at the AFD stipulated a "rename" in their comments. I'm not making this up. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- A quick perusal of that AfD shows that the majority of !votes were "keep" (not keep and rename), and that the result was speedy keep. Subsequent discussion in the talk page resulted in an even stronger consensus as more information about Magnotta had continued to come to light. Taroaldo (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive just done a quick count of AFD 3, and it appears that there were 28 votes, with 14 explicitly stating "RENAME" in their comment. A couple explicitly stated "don't rename." Regards -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately you seem intent on attempting to mislead other editors. There were seventeen explicit keep !votes (some citing SNOW), and only nine "explicit" keep and rename -- one of which !voted to rename the article Luka Rocco Magnotta. Subsequent discussion on the article's talk page reinforced the consensus to leave things as is. Pursuing such a blatant agenda and attempting to mislead editors should result in sanctions. Taroaldo (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ive just done a quick count of AFD 3, and it appears that there were 28 votes, with 14 explicitly stating "RENAME" in their comment. A couple explicitly stated "don't rename." Regards -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick perusal of that AfD shows that the majority of !votes were "keep" (not keep and rename), and that the result was speedy keep. Subsequent discussion in the talk page resulted in an even stronger consensus as more information about Magnotta had continued to come to light. Taroaldo (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Taroaldo wrote:
- Speedy Keep per criterion 1: nominator does not make an argument for deletion, and splitting or renaming does not require an Afd. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Im arguing that the previous AFD consensus should be enforced - and that those who reject the rename of the article have done an end-run around AFD process. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close as WP:POINT. The AfD from 2 weeks ago is about as relevant as the 2008 ones. Nom can't be arsed to as much as read the arguments directly above him. Skullers (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Bad faith nomination. We get that you don't like the title, and we get that you don't like how the requested move didn't go the way you wanted. But this is just a WP:POINT disruption. Resolute 03:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember to AGF. This is not a "disruption" for sake of making a POINT. This is to see that a recent (two weeks ago) AFD consensus ("rename") be enforced, and to inquire as to why said AFD was not enforced according to the consensus at that AFD. By my count, it appears that more than half voted to "rename," and yet that stipulation was not respected. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - and anyone who sends this to AfD again before the end of 2012 should be blocked for disruption. This is becoming absurd. The Garbage Skow (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Total bullshit. Close AfD, keep article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "there is a degree of support for a rename , discussion for that can and should continue on the article talkpage" from 3rd AfD.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - This guy, especially right now is quite notable, but even before the tragic crime I have seen him on TV and remember those kitten cruelty controversies, although I didn't know at the time that it was him. He is a rather interesting character and I don't see why in spite of all the recent spark of notability that he shouldn't be properly documented on Wikipedia.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The result of the move request was: not moved, with no opinion on whether the article can or should be split. The citations in reliable sources prior to the murder indicate that this article is about Magnotta more broadly than his association with the murder." from the closed move.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and do not rename. Biography is of a notable suspect charged with several high-profile acts that have received heavy news coverage within Canada. and quite a bit internationally for a while when Magnotta was in hiding. Perhaps there should be a limit on repeated AfD noms for the same article within a short timeframe like this, it seems like an 'abuse of process' in my eyes.OttawaAC (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. It's a serious subject. Whatever happened, it was a murder, and all murders are publicly notable even if not for an encyclopedia. There are a number of RS saying the case was sensationalized or the media hasn't focused enough on the victim (Huffington Post, Winnipeg newspaper). Psalm84 (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspect is more or less a notable celebrity. I don't mean to disrespect the victim or his family, but Lin Jun was a nobody.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But he wasn't a nobody. Even if WP doesn't include most murders, it also doesn't ignore the reality that all murders are important and publicly notable (should always be investigated/prosecuted) and will get local news coverage. Calling the article "Murder of Lin Jun" only makes it about the crime, which is what the media coverage is mostly about. Without the crime, there would be no coverage of Magnotta. Psalm84 (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? Magnotta had notoriety before the murder, albeit not international.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He did have international notoriety, gave UK interviews. Separate articles for Luka Magnotta and Murder of Lin Jun could both be justified IMO at this point. Magnotta was getting international press coverage and giving interviews for the animal abuse videos well before the murder case. Also, getting notoriety for rumours about dating Karla Homolka when she was released from prison. He's also being investigated for possible connections to homicides around the US and elsewhere due to his constant travelling. He warrants a biography article. The Murder of Lin Jun, due to the exceptionally bizarre circumstances and heavy press coverage, warrants a separate article as well, IMO, since it will be discussed and remembered for years. Also, the posting of the Lin Jun video in Canada will probably set some legal precedents here, still lots of fallout from the murder.OttawaAC (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The suspect is more or less a notable celebrity. I don't mean to disrespect the victim or his family, but Lin Jun was a nobody.--50.99.218.140 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Community consensus has demonstrated, overwhelmingly, that this should be kept. With over 100+ instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties, this should be obvious. The nominator shows a gross lack of understanding the AFD process, this is not the correct forum for renaming articles. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 04:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It was my impression that a majority had voted in favor of a rename, but on second look it appears that the split was about even at 14 rename to 13 don't rename. Hence it was not improper to leave the discussion of a rename to the article talk page. I withdraw my suggestion for a review and enforcement of the previous AFD. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This AFD is irrelevant and not related to the issue of whether the article should be renamed "Murder of Lin Jun" as some users have suggested. The case easily meets WP:GNG, so tagging the article for deletion at this late stage looks nonsensical. Please consider withdrawing the nomination--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename Maractus (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, Do not rename. No need to delete the article. Luka Magnotta is notable because of a chain of alleged events that he was linked to and was brought to the media's attention in the past several years. No need to rename the article. Luka Magnotta is notable for more reasons then being linked to the murder of Jun Lin. --70.120.83.126 (talk) 06:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep but rename The murder of Lin Jun is notable but WP:BLP1E. The fabricated nonsense about an affair with Karla Homolka is not, nor is most of the other attention whoring that's found its way onto this page. If notability exists for one event only, the article should be named for the event, not for a suspect who has neither been charged nor tried for the WP:BLPCRIME. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep. Despite my feelings on whatever the article should be named, this is not what AfD is for. I'd opened up a rename debate on the article talk page, which was closed with the consensus that it shouldn't be renamed. While most of the talk on the previous AfD was to rename, that doesn't mean that it is a mandate that has to be followed. Disputes over article titles is more something that should be brought up on the administrator board, which it has been. If the previous dispute was closed and you feel that you need to bring this up to the admins again because it should be moved, make another thread on the admin board. I'm honestly not sure if I think the page needs to be renamed or if the murder should be split into another article, but I don't think this needs to go up for AfD again and this is stuff that needs to be kept on the talk page. Yes it's a very messy debate process so far and there's a lot of opposing opinions, but the fact remains that this is not what AfD is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - (1) reopening a debate on talk would be unconstructive as a recent consensus has already been reached; (2) the statement that "most of the talk on the previous AfD was to rename" is incorrect, as I have outlined above. Taroaldo (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My point in saying that is that even if there were a lot of people saying that the article should be renamed, that doesn't automatically mean that the article should be renamed. I'm pretty much agreeing with you. The last AfD wasn't closed as "rename" and even if it had been, that doesn't automatically mean that the article should necessarily be renamed. That's what the discussion on the talk page was for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - (1) reopening a debate on talk would be unconstructive as a recent consensus has already been reached; (2) the statement that "most of the talk on the previous AfD was to rename" is incorrect, as I have outlined above. Taroaldo (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and do not rename, this AfD starts by a false assumption by the nominator, the results of the previous discussion was not Keep and rename but only Keep with an invite to discuss an eventual renaming in the talk page of the article. There was a discussion and the result was a clear majority for keeping this name. AfD is not the place to discuss this result. Cavarrone (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and allow spinout article: Each attempt to create a separate article on the notable crime is reverted. Allow creation of an article on the notable event, and let this article then stand on its merits. 8nate (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Previous AfD closed as Keep, with note "there is a degree of support for a rename , discussion for that can and should continue on the article talkpage". That discussion happened, and was closed as "not moved". It seems an abuse of process to bring this back again so soon. PamD 07:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and do not rename same as Cavarrone Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Articles for Deletion is not the place for article renaming requests. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves. JIP | Talk 10:03, 17 June 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 Speedily deleted by Amatulic. (CSD G3: blatant hoax). This seems a case where an IAR closure, despite my having commented in the discussion, seems reasonable, but anyone who disagrees is welcome to reopen it. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diego 2/X[edit]
- Diego 2/X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A hoax. Another editor removed the CSD tag saying it was "not a significant enough deception." There is no record in Japanese or in English that this show even existed. As a hoax, it is a poor one because the Japanese title given is incorrect (it actually says "San Diego" not "Diego") and the number of episodes is far too many for a TV Tokyo year-long show. Should be speedily deleted. Michitaro (talk) 01:55, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I tend to agree that it's a hoax, my searching isn't turning up anything. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Given that I edit the Anime News Network encyclopedia, moderate the forums for FUNimation and live in the UK I think I have the confidence to say without a shred of research that no such thing exists, at least not as the infobox presents it. There's also the little fact that 4Kids went bankrupt before this is supposed to have started airing. Shiroi Hane (talk) 00:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unverifiable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As a Google search fails to find any relevant hits whatsoever (even those oh-so unreliable speculation), I can pretty much say that is article is a complete hoax. As such, I recommend that we speedy delete this article. If not speedy, then as snow delete, since I just can't see how this (possible) hoax has a snowball's chance in hell of lasting on Wikipedia. We don't needs hoaxes here, except for articles about actual hoaxes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Callum Flanagan[edit]
- Callum Flanagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted at AfD in November 2006 as the subject had not competed in a fully professional league. This is still the case, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets requirements for WP:GNG as he has received significant media coverage with regards to his involvement in a incident involving Mads Timm. Please look at article references.Simione001 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL by not having played in a fully professional league or at senior international level. As to WP:BIO, a conviction for dangerous driving from eight years ago doesn't confer notability. It was reported at the time because the people "responsible" were Manchester United youth-teamers, but there isn't any lasting coverage. Struway2 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - haven't played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, despite the incident with his team-mate. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - His current team does not play at a national level, nor are they a pro team. – PeeJay 19:55, 22 June 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra Tigchelaar[edit]
- Alexandra Tigchelaar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
tag for deletion due to non-notability (column citations should go to Now and Eye Weekly wiki pages, 3rd citation only promotes her show) Jojopsychicpower (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 10. Snotbot t • c » 03:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 11 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete non notable. Seems more like advertising than true Wikipedia. Plus it's a stub and no one cares to improve it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sobriquet37 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TOOLITTLE, WP:NEGLECT. Being a stub and having "nobody caring to improve it" are not reasons to delete. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete States that she was a columnist for a now defunct free weekly paper. Any colunmist references should be merged with the wiki pages of the respective weeklies. What's left is one statement that she is a burlesque dancer. How is this worth keeping on wikipedia? Jojopsychicpower (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 24 June 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vivecon[edit]
- Vivecon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only ref is broken, no WP:MEDRS sources found, not even a chemical structure. Seems to be discontinued. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Research into this drug appears to be ongoing; mentioned in three papers published this year available at [36], as well as several from 2010 and 2011. JulesH (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Actively researched compound, multiple reputable sources discuss, this article should be expanded, not deleted. Bryan Hopping T 15:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Bryan, thanks for adding refs to the mechanism section -- but the reliable ones (i.e. all but the one from the Myriad homepage) seem to mention neither "vivecon" nor "MPC-9055". Did I overlook something? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete. There is no evidence that this is an actively researched compound. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov for Myriad reveals that Myriad currently has no HIV maturation inhibitors in clinical trials. Searching the Myriad Genetics web site for vivecon or MPC-9055 (the research code for Vivecon) yields no hits. The google scholar citations are to patent applications by competitor companies who only are listing Vivecon as prior art and are not developing the compound themselves. If the chemical structure of the compound were disclosed by Myriad Genetics, then I would be opposed to deletion. But Myriad Genetics has disclosed so little information about the compound, there is no point in keeping the article. Boghog (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This announcement seem very relevant: Myriad Genetics Suspends Its HIV Maturation Inhibitor Program Bevirimat is a different maturation inhibitor, but it appears that Myriad Genetics shut down their entire maturation inhibitor research program in favor of oncology drugs. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if research into the compound were suspended, the article would still be noteworthy. Commercially-unsuccessful research is just as noteworthy as research that leads to commercialized products.Bryan Hopping T 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this Myriad Genetics 8K filing, Vivecon (MPC-9055) was a clinical backup compound to Bevirimat (MPC-4326) and the two compounds work through similar mechanisms. Bevirimat has also been discontinued, but in contrast to Vivecon, a substantial amount of data has been published on Bevirimat in reliable sources. I agree with you that even failed drugs are noteworthy but they must also be backed up by reliable sources. Bevirimat passes this second test while Vivecon does not. (note: this meeting poster gives more detail on Vivecon, but it has not been published in a peer review journal and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source). Boghog (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if research into the compound were suspended, the article would still be noteworthy. Commercially-unsuccessful research is just as noteworthy as research that leads to commercialized products.Bryan Hopping T 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This announcement seem very relevant: Myriad Genetics Suspends Its HIV Maturation Inhibitor Program Bevirimat is a different maturation inhibitor, but it appears that Myriad Genetics shut down their entire maturation inhibitor research program in favor of oncology drugs. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. As stated above, Vivecon is a discontinued drug candidate whose chemical structure has not been disclosed. Furthermore very little data has been published about the drug in reliable sources. Failed drugs can be noteworthy, but only if they continue to be used as research tools or enough information has been disclosed about them to indicate why they have been discontinued. Neither applies to Vivecon. Boghog (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is never any reason to vote twice. Anarchangel (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient information for an article. The delete arguement is that there should be yet more, but enough work wa done to make this notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Sorry for being anal, but the whole information of this article is just two sentences, which isn't much more than a dicdef. The "Mechanism of action" section is about maturation inhibitors in general. I've added the relevant information to that article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Just to be absolutely clear, this article does not contain a single reliable source that specifically mentions Vivecon. Furthermore "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify this article have failed". Boghog (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 07:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Arena 1[edit]
- Royal Arena 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was the first event for a new MMA organization and the only coverage of it is WP:ROUTINE. There is also nothing to show it has long term significance and no major titles were awarded--thus failing WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT.
I am also nominating the following related page because it hasn't happened yet and there's no reason to believe this event will be any more notable than the first.
- Royal Arena 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Jakejr (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 18:59, 10 June 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both I don't see any indication that these events have any long term significance or anything but routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable events from a non-notable organization. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 06:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anton Nugent[edit]
- Anton Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kept at AfD in January 2007, on the basis that he had played in the Football League for Doncaster Rovers. However, further investigation (which has taken place five years down the line...) shows he never actually played for Doncaster, per this and this. As such, the article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in Scottish task force's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nugent seems to be absent from the list of previous Doncaster players. He's played in the Scottish Third Division but, apparently, this isn't a fully professional league, so doesn't count towards meeting WP:NSPORTS. Sionk (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - haven't played in a fully professional league and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:48, 19 June 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. Then redirected to Drama, Greece as a school. The Bushranger One ping only 00:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Koletsou School of English[edit]
- Koletsou School of English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
dePRODed. Non notable, unaccredited, private English language cram school not providing mainstream education to school leaving age. Article is little more than a directory entry (advert) and fails at WP:ORG. Also possible COI (possibly created by the business owner). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete clearly non-notable, just another of hundreds if not thousands of such foreign language schools in Greece. Constantine ✍ 06:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, nor any assertion made otherwise. Whouk (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - completely run of the mill, unaccredited school. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 18 June 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.