Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 27
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jabir Hasan Mohamed Al Qahtani[edit]
- Jabir Hasan Mohamed Al Qahtani (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)
On a living Guantanamo prisoner with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). has 2 google book hits both mirror of wiki articles. A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists. DBigXray 23:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, and please take steps to establish this as the second nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the infobox, page was moved by the creator Geo Swan after AfD 1, not sure if anything else needs to be done--DBigXray 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. Name changes to the same article do not preclude the previous name's inclusion in the "AfDs for this article:" listing. I do not know how it should be done, or I would do it myself, but it needs to be done, and you should not have nominated this article if you did not know how. WP:BEFORE, WP:COMPETENCE. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already included the links for AfD1 as soon as it was brought to my notice, may I ask what else does his majesty wants from the slave ? --DBigXray 10:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that is an offer I do not get every day. I will be a merciful monarch, and you do not have to do anything I say; just what every nominator of the second of two nominations is expected to do. But if you feel like it, you can retract the nomination, if you find your labors are too many. Or, since there is still not a link to each of the two AfDs for this article as there should be, too complicated. Perhaps Nick D will do it, as he finds it such a simple procedure. Anarchangel (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Anarchangel, your comments are needlessly rude. If you don't know how to fix this common problem, you sure shouldn't go around abusing other editors and pointing to irrelevant guidelines. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Requiring that other editors follow WP rules may or may not be in error, but it is never rude. WP:COMPETENCE requires that we not allow other editors' incompetence to mess up WP. DBigXray was required to list this properly, and to know that requirement and WP:BEFORE. As of the time of my writing, he continues to fail in that regard, and continues to act as though he can not even tell he has made mistakes. And if you cannot understand the relevance of those guidelines, and will not fix the mistakes yourself, then you are also sailing a little too close to the wind. Anarchangel (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already included the links for AfD1 as soon as it was brought to my notice, may I ask what else does his majesty wants from the slave ? --DBigXray 10:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. Name changes to the same article do not preclude the previous name's inclusion in the "AfDs for this article:" listing. I do not know how it should be done, or I would do it myself, but it needs to be done, and you should not have nominated this article if you did not know how. WP:BEFORE, WP:COMPETENCE. Anarchangel (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added the infobox, page was moved by the creator Geo Swan after AfD 1, not sure if anything else needs to be done--DBigXray 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jabir Hasan Muhamed Al Qahtani, and please take steps to establish this as the second nomination. Anarchangel (talk) 12:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm a little surprised I could not find any sources. I agree with nom that the article lacks reliable independent secondary sources needed to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and other sections of the guidelines. Poking through the various Google searches, I couldn't find a thing. Perhaps more will be written about this individual and his case that might satisfy the notability guidelines in the future but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any source for this. Also, it lacks WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. A person held for extrajudicial detention and it is not so notable. →TSU tp* 14:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability guidelines. I see no reason to keep. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 17:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources, from the article itself, none of which are even remotely PRIMARY, let alone unusable primary:
- Andy Worthington (2007-11-11). "Innocents and Foot Soldiers: The Stories of the 14 Saudis Just Released From Guantánamo". Archived from the original on 2010-02-02.
Al-Wafa litters the story of 23-year old Jabir al-Qahtani, but none of the allegations come close to any evidence of militant activity. By the time of his last administrative review, in April 2006, all the authorities had managed to come up with were allegations that he traveled to Lahore in March 2001, "with his travel partly financed by the head of al-Wafa," that he worked in a warehouse in Lahore for six months, and that he then moved to a warehouse in Kabul...
- Andy Worthington. "The Guantánamo Files: Website Extras (11) – The Last of the Afghans (Part One) and Six "Ghost Prisoners"". Archived from the original on 2010-02-02.
Unlike Zaban al-Shammari, Jabir al-Qahtani, who was released in November 2007, appears to have had no connections whatsoever with militancy or the training camp system, and was, instead, a humanitarian aid worker who traveled to Lahore in March 2001 to work for al-Wafa, the Saudi-based charity that was regarded by the US authorities as a front for terrorist activities....
- Raid Qusti (2007-11-11). "14 More Return From Guantanamo Camp". Arab News. Archived from the original on 2010-02-02.
The father of detainee Jaber Al-Qahtani said he had received a call from an official in the Interior Ministry that his son would soon arrive from the US detention center. 'We are thankful to the Interior Ministry for all their efforts to bring the detainees home. And above all, we are thankful to Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah and Interior Minister Prince Naif,' said Hassan Al-Qahtani.
- Andy Worthington (2007-11-11). "Innocents and Foot Soldiers: The Stories of the 14 Saudis Just Released From Guantánamo". Archived from the original on 2010-02-02.
- Anarchangel (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy's Blog entry 1 and Andy's Blog entry 2 are blogs from author who has written a book on the Guantanamo prisoners WP:COI ?. arab news does not cover the subject but only gives a passing reference by mentioning name in an article about the release of Prisoners. fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP1E --DBigXray 07:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources above, while establishing that he exists and was detained, do not establish notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:44, 4 July 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 23:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khalid Malu Shia al Ghatani[edit]
- Khalid Malu Shia al Ghatani (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)
On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now Repatriated) with no independent coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. The Citations used are primary sources (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports). A list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay already exists. DBigXray 23:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claims of notability whatsoever other than being a former Gitmo prisoner, which doesn't cut it.OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A person who was a prisoner doesn't at all establish notability. Nothing notable in the article, not done anything notable nor can find any sources to support the subject. →TSU tp* 14:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given that the sources are primary, the article fails the notability guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:03, 4 July 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. Keep and rename (without redirect) to Sunbelt Publications. Largely a SNOW result, with indirect references being made to notability via GNG. j⚛e deckertalk 03:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sunbelt books[edit]
- Sunbelt books (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 publishing house. No independent coverage to be found. Some of the books they have published have won some minor awards, but none sufficient to even raise the titles to notability according to WP:NB. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, but cut down, clean up, and rename to Sunbelt Publications. The current version of the article is bloated and promotional in tone (and I note that a prior article about Sunbelt Publications was speedied in 2007 because of its advert content), but buried in the dross there appears to be a legitimately notable small publisher. The article already contains a few legitmate sources, and a GNews search [1] shows a number of articles about the company (such as this [2]), and a large number of articles with substantial coverage of books they publish. If the promotional stuff can be deleted and the basic facts kept, then the encyclopedia will be better for keeping this information about what appears to be a reasonably prolific local publisher. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Sunbelt Publications and delete the redirect As per the first reference in the article, Sunbelt is one of 9,000 "serious" independent publishers in the U.S. Arxiloxos has it straight, this article is incorrectly named. With the new name, a volunteer will have the opportunity to make dozens of Wikilinks. As per the Google Scholar search for "Sunbelt Books", there may be publishers with that name in Moore, SC and Basking Ridge, NJ, thus the need to delete the redirect. Unscintillating (talk) 03:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, why do you suggest deleting the redirect? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave evidence that there are two other publishers by that name, why complicate things if someone in the future has a use for "Sunbelt books"? Unscintillating (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just out of curiosity, why do you suggest deleting the redirect? --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, their titles are referenced numerous times here on WP. not much press coverage, of course. basically agree with Arxiloxox, including renaming and cutting down, esp list of awards and large bibliography (i believe such bibliographies should only be for books or authors who have articles). (mercurywoodrose)99.39.148.212 (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually, I'm inclined to keep it, as many of the books that they have published are online on Google Books and have their own pages here. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that Google Books lists some of their titles in a search does not establish notability, nor does the fact that there are articles on Wikipedia (a non-reliable source) have any bearing on notability.
- Keep - The Union-Tribune article is substantial coverage about the company. Other material is behind pay walls but the summaries suggest that additional coverage exists to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Sunbelt Publications and delete the redirect per above. Should be at the proper title. Seems to be minorly notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename per above. Personally I would delete the entire sections on "bibliography" and "(non-notable) awards" but that is an issue for the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 4 July 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 under WP:GNG, also WP:OR concerns j⚛e deckertalk 03:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Open Work Ethic[edit]
- The Open Work Ethic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a non-notable neologism, at least in the definition that is presented here. I found some very brief mentions of the concept in relation to the Native American origin that is claimed to be the origin of this concept, but that's it. However, this article is not even about the Native American tradition, but is instead more or less a How-To Guide for making a happier work place. No sources are present in the article, and upon searching, the only things I found were the mentioned hits that were not only not about the concept as presented in this article, but were extremely minor mentions of the term. PROD was declined with no explanation. Rorshacma (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This doesn't merit its own wikipedia article without WP:RS sources. --Artene50 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Essay, original research, unsourced. POV from the very first sentence ("The Open Work Ethic (TOWE) is a practice that has been misrepresented by a few."), also per use of first-person in the text. Nothing here to salvage. --MelanieN (talk) 19:50, 4 July 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. Notability established under WP:NB #3, concerns about reliable sourcing were addressed without rebuttal j⚛e deckertalk 03:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Sucessora[edit]
- A Sucessora (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:NB. Couldn't find any significant coverage of the book. Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. This has been here since 2006 with no reliable sources. Best to delete. --Artene50 (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have the time or the inclination to look through them yet, but there would appear to be loads of reliable sources among these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A lack of sources in an article is not a valid reason to delete an article. (Unless you've searched and can find none, then it would be a valid reason to delete, but there's a ton of results coming back on Google so I find it hard to believe that there's absolutely none.) I'm finding sources, although it's somewhat slow going because there's a huge language barrier here. (Everything is in Spanish and I'm having to use Google translate due to my comprehension being at beginner level.) However, what I'm finding shows that this is indeed notable. It is a bestseller in Brazil, spawned an incredibly popular telenovela series, and even got some controversy because of the incredibly close similarities between A Sucessora and Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca. (A Sucessora was published earlier and the general consensus in Brazil seems to say that du Maurier plagiarized the work.) The article is slow going, but it does seem to pass WP:NBOOK via it being the focus of a notable telenovela and being the focus of several news articles. (Most of them are from the 40s, but coverage is coverage.) Since it was published in the 1930s it's going to take some time to find all of the sources (some of which are undoubtedly lost to the sands of time or aren't on the internet) but this does appear to be notable. My school has a copy of the Auerbach book, so I'll check to see if I can verify that claim in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The notability of the subject is out of question (take a look also to the articles on fr.Wiki, es.Wiki, and pt.Wiki). After the huge improvements made by Tokyogirl179, we could probably suspend the proposed delation. --Checco (talk) 12:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Book has been made into TV series, satisfying WP:NB criteria 3. Criteria 1 can also be argued due to the coverage that both works received. -- Louk⟟nho≟ 05:53, 4 July 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 presented of meeting WP:GNG nor WP:PORNBIO j⚛e deckertalk 03:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal Ray[edit]
- Crystal Ray (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:PORNBIO because her award is a group scene award. Fails the general notability guidelines also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails GNG as the 3 sources listed are considered unreliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG without non-trivial reliable source coverage. Single Best New Starlet nomination is not sufficient to pass WP:PORNBIO. Scene award and nomination don't count. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nomination. IMDB etc are not WP:RS. THey are crowd sourced like wikipedia. Thus WP:N has not been demonstrated adequately. BO | Talk 07:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks WP:RS. The refs in the article are not good enough to make the article pass WP:GNG. →TSU tp* 11:05, 4 July 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 under WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 03:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul-Henri DuBerger[edit]
- Paul-Henri DuBerger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Only "source" is his own website. I found nothing in a news search on him. Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources about him. His website lists some press, but it is unclear what that coverage represents. The only coverage I can find are gallery bios like this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no evidence of notability. Vertium (talk to me) 01:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage whatsoever in WP:RS and nor can I find them online. →TSU tp* 11:06, 4 July 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 under WP:GNG or other relevant subject notability guidelines j⚛e deckertalk 03:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ikeoha I. Iwuh[edit]
- Ikeoha I. Iwuh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Almost requested speedy deletion as a hoax as I could find nothing that indicates this person even exists. Note that the ISBNs for the two books don't work in any catalog or commercial source. Bbb23 (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "II Iwuh" scholar search returns one of the books. [3] Acebulf (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't have occurred to me to use that search term. That's the third book without the ISBN. What is "Magnet Business Publishing Coy"? And what is "Enugu"?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Enugu is the capital of Enugu State in Nigeria. I assume that's where Magnet Business Publishing is based. Qwfp (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no evidence that this page meets WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR. The two references in the article are books by him, so are not independent sources. Qwfp (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I worry about systemic bias in cases like this but we really have nothing on which to base an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 29 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 Phantasy Star (video game). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phantasy Star Generation 1[edit]
- Phantasy Star Generation 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)
Fails general notability guidelines.Lucia Black (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess merge or redirect to Phantasy Star (video game). Although there's a review at 1up.com and a preview at IGN. --Mika1h (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That really isn't enough to make this article a start-class.Lucia Black (talk) 23:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Redirects and enhanced redirects are, as far as my experience goes, always a subsection of the original game's article. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- dont you mean remakes?Lucia Black (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge it to Phantasy Star (video game), and I would suggest doing the same for Phantasy Star Generation 2 into Phantasy Star II.--十八 02:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to a subsection in the original game's article. (Removing any of the "Well there's no news on it so I guess it's a Japanese exclusive now guys" type of informal speculation, of course.) I agree with the User above who suggests doing the same to PSG2 as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Phantasy Star (video game). Not seeing that much reliable coverage, probably doesn't deserve its own article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:05, 29 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 under WP:GNG, WP:POLITICAN j⚛e deckertalk 03:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rajendra Sharma[edit]
- Rajendra Sharma (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 civil engineer and Indian Legislative Assembly candidate. He was one of 20 candidates in his district of 100,000 voters. Only on ref showing he was a candidate. Unable to find any other refs, but has a common name. Prod was contested with, "Removing Proposed deletion Tag, I believe in spite of not having sufficient references on Google, the person has maintained a state level image in philanthropy , social works, infrastructure development etc, please consider, Thank You" Bgwhite (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG for the biography. --DBigXray 21:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He was a candidate who didn't succeed and this doesn't establish notability. →TSU tp* 10:57, 4 July 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 sources which would demonstrate notability under WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 03:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sicmed[edit]
- Sicmed (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 research project for which no independent sources can be found. Article itself is too full of bureaucracy speak to ascertain what the actual goal of the project is, or who might benefit from it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Unfortunately. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of WP:N and WP:RS This is a bureaucratic article. --Artene50 (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no coverage to establish notability. Note that I removed some content from the article as it was copied from the SICMED site which does not have a compatible CC license. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, there are no sources to support the content and to built notability. →TSU tp* 11:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. I found many mentions of the project but no results, no reliable sources to establish notability. If the project produces results later, it can be recreated but its not suitable as an article now per WP:CRYSTAL. DocTree (talk) 15:54, 4 July 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. A rough consensus of participants argued this article qualifies as a policy-compliant spinout. j⚛e deckertalk 03:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of converts to Christianity from atheism[edit]
- List of converts to Christianity from atheism (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)
There are several problems with this list. First, it is a content fork of List of converts to Christianity, which already covers converts from other religions and no religion. Second, it is an overly specific cross-categorization, which is in violation of WP:NOTDIR. -Scottywong| gab _ 21:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no strong feelings either way, although I've struggled to find a way to consolidate all the articles that fall into the same basic category: Former Foo, Converts to Bar, Converts to Bar from Foo, etc. I tried and have miserably failed and I'm sorry. Do forgive me. Ncboy2010 (talk)
- It is not a content fork. List of converts to Christianity links to it - it does not have a separate list of such converts. WP:OC#EGRS implies such a categorization is appropriate. This instance of an intersection is not trivial but rather encyclopedic. Hugetim (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that this is part of a serious of such lists: Template:Lists_of_converts Hugetim (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: in no way, shape or form is this a content fork. "List of converts to Christianity" is essentially a main article with few list entries. Furthermore there are no ex-atheists in "List of converts to Christianity"! Invocation of NOTDIR doesn't hold water as the intersection of Christians/atheists is in fact "culturally significant." Nomination rationale is unfounded. – Lionel (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the name is problematic, however, because it implies atheism is a religion. This is a favorite talking point among some Christians, but factually, that really can't be said to be true. I can't come up with a nice, concise alternative though. Maybe... Formerly atheist Christians? --BDD (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Atheism is certainly a belief system. One can convert to or from it. -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that Atheism is something from which one can convert. Vertium (talk to me) 01:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article does not seem to be a content fork, but rather a spinout to prevent excessive length of the parent. BDD's comment about the sometimes dubious nature of atheism as a religion is a good one, but I think the US government as defined atheism as a religion for their purposes, and that might be enough to call atheism a religion in some instances. I don't think it is necessarily ennough for this article, but, hey, I'm wrong about various things several times a day. List of atheists who converted to Christianity might be a bit better as a title, because that doesn't necessarily imply atheism is a religion. Maybe. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I reserve judgement about this article being kept, because at the moment I'm rather intrigued to know why you guys think any of these "converting" articles are notable. They all seem rather POV/trivial/non-completable IMO....--Coin945 (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of your reservations aren't particularly relevant to policies and guidelines. Indicating a person changed their religious beliefs is in many cases rather clearly non-trivial, but in some cases even vital to their notability. There might be a bit of POV in terms of which articles get created, but that is a problem all content in wikipedia faces. The fact that a list cannot be completed is also basically irrelevant to policies and guidelines. As long as people continue to exist, most lists of people will remain at least potentially incomplete, but such lists exist anyway. There might be a decent point about whether this specific list as a separate article individually meets notability guidelines, however. Regarding your own opinions, well, everyone is entitled to their opinions, but we tend to put policies and guidelines above them. John Carter (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These issues are sufficiently contentious or difficult-to-categorize I could see getting rid of all of them, as well as the categories, but I think that could be a massive undertaking and likely not worth the effort.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In order for a list to be notable per WP:LISTN, it must have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". So, can you show multiple, independent, reliable sources which specifically discuss the topic of atheists converting to Christianity (as distinct from other non-atheist converts to Christianity, and not sources which simply discuss one particular person or group of people and their conversion to Christianity). For that matter, are there sources which specifically discuss the topic of Confucianists to Christianity? How about converts to Islam from Zoroastrianism? If there are not such sources, then these standalone lists should not exist. That's not to say that there can't be a section at List of converts to Christianity#Atheism, but there should not be a standalone list for every possible combination of religions and non-religions. The length of List of converts to Christianity is nowhere near long enough that it needs to be split into multiple lists. -Scottywong| express _ 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of the books here, Who's Who in Hell and Famous Conversions, might serve as the required sources for this list. And I do note that I myself said that the lists required specific sources above. I'm not saying that these sources necessarily qualify, particular the latter one, which includes other conversions, but the first one might, particularly if Antonio Casao Ibanez, who is said to have gathered such material, published it separately in multiple sources. John Carter (talk) 00:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I lean toward upmerging this, plus the ones on Judaism and Islam, back to List of former atheists and agnostics. However I'm not making any kind of verdict or anything on that.--T. Anthony (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nom makes no sense, as this listis a sublist of List of converts to Christianity (a possible merge back to the parent list is not a matter for AfD). This list is well-referenced and satisfies list criteria, including WP:LISTN (there's plenty of sources on converts as a group). I would oppose T. Anthony's suggestion of merging into List of former atheists and agnostics, because that makes it harder to find people who converted to a specific religion (Christianity, in this case). -- 202.124.73.248 (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:CFORK states "If the content fork was unjustified, the more recent article should be merged back into the main article.". Deletion is therefore not an appropriate action and our editing policy is to handle such issues via ordinary editing. Warden (talk) 12:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would certainly support keeping this list. It is serving an extremely useful and informative purpose. As for the suggestion that this is just a fork of converts to Christianity in general, that does not really register that to have a generic list like that would not tell us the religious affiliation (if any) of the people before they converted to Christianity. So, my vote would be a very strong yes, we should quite emphatically keep this list. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- The nom is wrong on both counts: it is not a fork in the sense of a duplicate, but a properly constructed child article. Secondly, the list is quite long enough to justify its retention. If there is duplication, the right course is to purge the general article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has value. Vertium (talk to me) 01:19, 4 July 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) 03:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uni roller hockey[edit]
- Uni roller hockey (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 sport. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits and no Google News Archive search hits. I also see no way that the sport satisfies WP:NSPORT.
All reference and external links in the article are primary references to a company that seems to have made up the sport, making this article an advertisement.
I think the best option for this article will be to redirect it to Roller hockey. OlYeller21Talktome 13:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT FROM AUTHOR: It is true that uni roller hockey is not a generally recognised sport, but I wonder how it is determined by wikipedia what is considered a valid sport? Uni roller hockey is a family activity run at many venues across the UK, where two teams compete against one another in an attempt to score the most goals (just like in football, rugby and many "sports"). In every case the players use uni hockey sticks and pucks and wear roller skates, so the method of play seems consistent throughout the country. It is a spin-off of roller skating that uses uni hockey equipment (an established sport played at many schools). It exists, it has existed for many years, many people do it, many venues run it, so I do not understand how it is a "made up" sport. Normally, it is run before, after, or as part of family roller skating sessions. I have played uni roller hockey with my kids in Peterborough, Letchworth and Royston.
- What company links are you referring to? The proposed league is to be run as a non-profit making community activity. It does feature Google ads on the site, but does the fact that a couple of ads appear on the page make it a company?
- "Made up the sport"? - I first played uni roller hockey with my oldest kids in Peterough (Market Deeping) almost 10 years ago. I don't know how many years uni roller hockey has been played at Letchworth, but I've been attending with my youngest son at weekends for at least 5 years.
- The centre in Royston running uni roller hockey is a community centre. The article is not primarily about the proposed regional league, but about the activity of uni roller hockey. I'm sure it is true that the rules proposed for the league are not adopted at all venues that run uni roller hockey, but they are the only published rules that I am aware of. Most venues just hand out sticks and allow participants to try to score without any real structure.
- If you like I can ask the many people I know who have played uni roller hockey to reply to this deletion topic and validate that it is played at many different locations (and has been for many years). I am close friends with the woman that runs the sessions in Letchworth and also close friends with the man who runs roller skating at Market Deeping (and used to play uni roller hockey with me there 10 years ago). The son of the man who runs the Market Deeping sessions now plays for the national Roller Hockey team, but first got involved in Roller Hockey through playing uni roller hockey at Market Deeping with his father and I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr brian osborne (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! The issue at this point is the notability of the subject. Wikipedia defines notability with this guideline. It essentially governs what will be included in the encyclopedia. WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT are the areas of the guideline that would apply to this subject. As I covered in the nomination, the subject of this article doesn't appear to satisfy those guidelines. More exactly, it doesn't appear to have any significant coverage from independent and reliable sources and it doesn't appear to be played on a professional level in a notable league (it would only need coverage or to be used in a pro league for it to be considered notable..
- In hindsight, "Made up" was a poor choice of words. My intent was to point out that the name "uni roller hockey" is a phrase that is rarely used (it has no Google News Search hits and no Google News Archive search hits. Also, using the word "company", to me, is interchangeable with "organization". I didn't mean to imply anything about its for-profit or non-profit status.
- Unfortunately, asking people to add their opinions won't be necessary as it won't change the outcome of this discussion. WP:AFD discussion aren't ballots so the number of people who feel a certain way isn't necessarily important. It's more important that Wikipedia policies and guidelines be cited with regard to the subject's notability. In this case, if you want to prove notability, providing news articles that cover the sport itself would be an easy way. Preferably, at least one of those would be coverage on a national scale. Outside of that, the subject may just not be notable by Wikipedia's standards at this point but that's something that others can comment on. OlYeller21Talktome 15:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really have no problem if it redirects to roller hockey (or is deleted for a valid reason). My issue was the statement that it was "made up" and being used by "a company for advertising purposes". Both these statements were lies and I wonder what the motive were of the person who made them?
- Just to clarify, Roller Hockey is a variation of Hockey that is played on roller skates but with completely different sticks. Uni roller hockey is a variation of Unihockey that is played on roller skates and uses very similar sticks. There is Uni Roller Hockey equipment (which is identical to the standard school uni hockey equipment) sold at most large sports stores (such as http://www.acasports.co.uk/index.php?cPath=129_126). I know it was played at Market Deeping, Royston and Letchworth but none of these venus would have it included on searchable web-site. I believe Market Deeping is about 60 miles from Royston, so although the examples are regional, I'm not sure it is a "very small area of the UK". Maybe I should phone some national roller skating venues and ask how many play uni roller hockey and then list every UK venue on the article to show that it is not only played in a "very small area"?
- Also, the only league for the sport (that I am aware of) is currently being established. However, like Uni Hockey (played in many schools without a league existing), Uni Roller Hockey is played at many skating venues (without a league existing). If wikipedia decides that "uni roller hockey" is an invalid entry then that is up to wikipedia. It has been running for many years at many locations and just because it is not found in Google searches and has not previously had a competitive league surely does not make it invalid to be mentioned (and defined) in wikipedia? I thought the purpose of wikipedia was to inform. Sports shops sell uni hockey equipment (as I have linked to), sports centres own uni roller hockey equipment and play the sport, and attempts are at hand to set up a leagues (although I accept this has to start in a "very small area"). Does a sport need to have a nationally established league and many hits in Google before wikipedia decides it is a valid entry? — Precedingunsigned comment added by Mr brian osborne (talk • contribs) 07:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed conversation that is not pertinent to this AfD discussion
|
---|
QUOTE: "All reference and external links in the article are primary references to a company that seems to have made up the sport, making this article an advertisement." You never called me a liar? I made a post about an activity I do with my kids in good faith and I was accused of making "references to a company that seems to have made up the sport". Incivility? - I pointed out that your original statement was not true. There is no reference to a company and the sport exists (and has done so for years). I spent the time giving long responses because I wanted to make it clear that I was NOT the liar I had been accussed of being! Obviously, you will do what you want and I guess you are not accountable for the accusations that you make. Personally, I think it does not help wikipedia gain credibility when people making genuine attempts to add missing content get treated in this way. Had you just said "not notable enough for inclusion" then I would have explained where it is played for clarification, but I would not have felt that I had been accused of being dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr brian osborne (talk • contribs) 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] |
- Redirect to Roller hockey, with a couple of explanatory sentences inserted there. I can find nothing that suggests that this sport is played in any location other than a very small area of the UK and apparently has achieved no notability that has been demonstrated in arm's-length third-party reliable sources. Ubelowme (talk) 14:58, 13 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) 00:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm leaning delete on this one. Certainly an interesting topic, and I don't doubt that it will become wp:notable. But as per the nutshell of WP:N, notability requires that a topic be noticed "over a period of time", and I don't find any Google books that have discovered the topic, and I think that a topic like this would have been quickly discovered. It is part of WP:What Wikipedia is NOT to WP:Promote new ideas. The fact that the Royston City Council has an webpage on the topic might be enough to recreate the redirect after deletion, and redirect to Royston or some list of games topic. The article also appears to have WP:OR problems, and as per our WP:Deletion policy, WP:OR is a reason for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 05:35, 26 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, The Bushranger One ping only 20:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suggested above that this should be redirected but I'd also find deletion appropriate. But let's get 'er done. Ubelowme (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of WP:SPORT notability, not even sure if there's anything to merge. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:44, 29 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 per MelanieN's rewrite, which included full sourcing and content expansion (also known as WP:HEY). Should anyone object, feel free to either contact me for a relisting or bring this to DRV. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects[edit]
- Tate Snyder Kimsey Architects (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 tagged for notability and sourcing problems for several years. This architecture practice may have won a minor award, but does not seem to have made an impact in the architectural press, let alone the general news coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the coverage be about the COMPANY rather than about the works that it did? Now, suppose that the works would make the company notable: Wouldn't the works receive MAJOR AWARDS rather than just brief mentions? I lean towards Delete on this one BUT I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and leave it open for discussion. I just don't think the coverage section that the company itself aggregated(possible WP:COI ?) is significant ground for establishing notability and making it encyclopedic. -- Loukinho (talk) 08:46, 20 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) 00:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would tend to agree with Loukinho that these do not seem to be major awards, generally given by the local state or city chapter of AIA. In any case, citing the company website is hardly going to pass Wikipedia's notabilty requirements. Sionk (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Dewritech, that was exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned "Major awards". Most of these awards are about the works that the company made (which would, if anything, make its WORK notable), however the company itself does not seem to pass WP:N. Now, again, suppose that the "award winning" works that the company received are being claimed as grounds for its notability: Shouldn't the awards be major? Now, switching topics a little, regardless of the situation, notability requires "significant coverage from reliable sources" and the information has be be verifiable. See WP:NRVE. I know this is not respected de facto on wikipedia nowadays, but it is still part of the guidelines that some of us try to follow. -- Loukinho (talk) 07:08, 29 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, The Bushranger One ping only 20:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep You would never have known it from the article as written, but the company does appear to be notable. It has branches in Nevada, California and China, and it gets frequent news coverage. I just did a complete rewrite, so please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 4 July 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) 03:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Munmun Dutta[edit]
- Munmun Dutta (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)
Indian TV actress who has worked in one TV show. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - as per above --Bharathiya (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only one TV show reference on IMDB. Not notable at present to merit a wikipedia article. Perhaps in future. --Artene50 (talk) 07:51, 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 delete. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:NACTOR. j⚛e deckertalk 03:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tanuj Mahashabde[edit]
- Tanuj Mahashabde (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)
Indian TV serial actor (one TV serial). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE as per above. (Many actors in the serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah have been given the privilege of having their page in wiki. All those who have acted only in a single serial and who are not having any considerable coverage should be deleted as they do not meet wp:gng and wp:nactor) --Bharathiya (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 19:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DELETE per nominator. The info that is in the stub has already been covered in the article on the TV serial Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah. Fails WP:NACTOR --DBigXray 22:51, 29 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. Notability not established under WP:NEO j⚛e deckertalk 03:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Laggardship[edit]
- Laggardship (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)
Neologism which is hardly in wide-spread use, as far as I can see. (Note that the word was purportedly invented by the CEO of Comeback America, and the username of the page's creator is ComebackAmerica.) JoelWhy?(talk) 19:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - was deleted before and should be deleted again as a non-notable neologism that is using Wikipedia in an attempt to promote itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bushranger. It's also a clumsy buzzword. --BDD (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the previous two posters. Undeserving of an article. --Drm310 (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Bushranger. →TSU tp* 11:08, 4 July 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. Nominator doesn't make a policy-based argument for deletion, and appears to have nominated somewhat WP:POINTily. Also, WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Social (disambiguation)[edit]
- Social_(disambiguation) (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)
already another disambig page at social Bhny (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and revert Social: the only reason there are duplicate disambiguation pages is because you copied and pasted from Social (disambiguation) into Social. The correct way of handling this would have been to request a move. Plus, at least three different editors have undone your changes to Social, and you have reverted each of their changes, which strongly suggests that there is no consensus for your preferred version of these pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and revert per Russ. bd2412 T 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No reason not to keep social as it was before you changed it. In addition, the change to a disambig broke hundreds of inbound links that you didn't bother fixing, hence why I reverted. —Xezbeth (talk) 16:20, 25 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was just wrongheaded. social is the article with the severe problems, as some editors have pointed out on its talk page during the almost nine years of its existence. This article is not the problem. (I was going to say "perfectly fine", but it does seem to be disambiguating amongst things that apparently aren't called "a social"/"the social". AFD is not Wikipedia:Cleanup, of course; or even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation.) Don't go nominating social for deletion (for the second time in its history) just because I said it had severe problems, by the way. Talk:social does give an interesting pointer, if one reads it beyond the first section. Uncle G (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and come to consensus on the talk page of what should be done with these two; nominating this for deletion now seems a bit early, especially in the midst of edit-warring. --KarlB (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 10:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shopping in Hong Kong[edit]
- Shopping in Hong Kong (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 has been around for awhile but doesn't seem very encyclopedic to me. I find it more or an advertisement or promotion but I'm putting it out for AFD to seek other opinions. Eeekster (talk) 04:52, 27 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article, while it may be written like an advertisement or promotion, is still for a perfectly valid topic - Shopping in Hong Kong - and there are other similar articles, for example Shopping in Leeds. Therefore, keep. Theopolisme TALK 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable, being covered in sources such as Born to Shop Hong Kong. In any case, our editing policy would be to merge into the main article Hong Kong, rather than deleting. Warden (talk) 12:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic has the references to support it as a stand alone article. Its major problems, as pointed out by the nom, is that certain portions of the article are unreferenced and sound promotional (such as a lot of the "Highlights" section), but that material can either be removed or referenced through a standard cleanup. Rorshacma (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clean up.--Charles (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rorshacma. KTC (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PRESERVE, the topic itself is notable and covered in independent WP:RS sources, the Lonely Planet guide and Consuming Hong Kong book show the topic meets notability requirements. The article has problems but fix rather than delete.
Zad68
15:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Keep per above comments. Shopping is a major pastime, industry and tourist attraction for Hong Kong. Vertium (talk to me) 01:22, 4 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adelphikos[edit]
- Adelphikos (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 single chapter club. No third party sources to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG requirements. Having notable members is not enough: notability is not inherited from related notable subjects.GrapedApe (talk) 03:32, 23 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 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 27 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* 11:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grove City College#Groups and organizations.I really tried to find sources for this 100-year-old fraternity but was unsuccessful. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I have found some sources (although I acknowledge they are not the best, and the biog one for the "notable alumni" is a self-written blog), which I think just meets the criteria for inclusion. Not very notable, but I feel notable enough for inclusion. It would be good if more (probably off-line) sources could be found PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:17, 6 July 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi[edit]
- Institute of Management and Development, New Delhi (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)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Agmat2 (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Disinformation of the Institute hence Deleting[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 27. Snotbot t • c » 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator didn't give much of a deletion rationale, but I don't think that that should be a reason for speedy keeping, because I can't find any verification that this is an accredited college or is otherwise notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete because it is an unremarkable company, group or organisation. See CSD A7. Adjkasi (discuss me | changes) 09:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The official website of the Post graduate college is here, It claims to be recognized by Joint Committee of AICTE, UGC, DEC, Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India. And has an A+ rating in BSchool Survey - 2010. The sources prove existence and notability for keeping the article. --DBigXray 22:57, 29 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, Davewild (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a secondary school or college whose existence is verified. In addition to the accreditation mentioned, it receives some mentions in news articles.[4] --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - single reference confirms existence, nothing more. From that just another business school. Only coverage I found [5] was coverage incidental or secondary to the topic. Does not appear notable. If is notable needs some evidence.Oranjblud (talk) 01:02, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually, Oranjblud, according to Common Outcomes, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Secondary schools and beyond don't have to meet WP:ORG notability standards as long as their existence is confirmed. This is not an official policy, but it has become the usual result at AfD discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 06:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found several references to the school to demonstrate existence (and I have added 2 of the first ones I found). It may not be the most well-known of schools, but it meets the criteria for inclusion, partly as an institution of higher education which exists, and secondly for having some references at reliable independent sources PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:31, 6 July 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 sources which would establish notability via WP:GNG j⚛e deckertalk 03:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Artyom Dubovsky[edit]
- Artyom Dubovsky (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 about a reserve goalkeeper who has made a total of 9 appearances in the Russian Second League (third-tier) during his career. I searched for sources (English- and Russian-language) and found nothing except a few statistics databases (sportbox.ru and sport-express.ru). There doesn't appear to be even one secondary reliable source that covers his career in any detail. I realize that there is a view that the Russian Second is fully-pro and therefore this article meets NFOOTBALL, but let's apply some common sense here to an article that cannot possibly say more than what is in those statistics databases. Jogurney (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG, which supercedes WP:NFOOTBALL - and even if it didn't, a handful of appearances in a league of questionable notability is not enough. GiantSnowman 18:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Seasider91 (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above, fails WP:GNG Theopolisme TALK 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Actually, I tend to disagree as the one source can be considered reliable, so it can pass WP: GNG, and he also passes WP: ATHLETE and is notable even for his 9 games played, as they were played in a fully-professional league. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He still meets WP: ATHLETE, as he played in a pro league. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Nine appearances at the third level of Russian football are simply not enough – the article fails WP:GNG as it is and should be deleted. – Kosm1fent 10:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not played in a full pro league and not enough done at 3rd level game. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. →TSU tp* 11:12, 4 July 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) 03:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Randy Leach[edit]
- Randy Leach (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)
Being a missing person is not inherently notable; coverage of such an event in local press is run of the mill and does not affirm notability. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. A nicely written article, but regrettably the subject does not appear to meet inclusion guidelines. RichardOSmith (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a bizarre case, but unfortunately hasn't generated the significant coverage required for Wikipedia. There is apparently a play about it, Leaves of Words, but that hasn't got anything but local coverage either. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the author, I took the time to look at other missing person articles on Wikipedia to see if this was something that could be included here. There are many articles as part of the category that don't seem to make notability standards including Tara Grinstead, who has just local sources and a Find A Grave memorial as references; Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley who has one CNN article as a reference; Ann Gotlib, who also only has local sources as references and the only major difference is that her kidnapper was possibly found dead. There is actually a similar case to Randy Leach on Wikipedia: Disappearance of Robin Graham who disappeared in 1970. All of her references are from local sources all before 1990.
- Based on at least two dozen articles I read from the Missing Persons category, I felt the Randy Leach case met the guidelines at least on a small scale based on how long he's been missing, how law enforcement has handled the case and the bizarre circumstances. Bhall87Four Scoreand Seven 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX explains why your comparison against other articles is an invalid way of making a case. I would say that making the comparison actually supports the deletion argument:800,000 children go missing in the US each year, and Wikipedia has articles on virtually none of them. RichardOSmith (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Bhall87 and it seems to have coverage, as a simple Google search showed. Leaves of Words further demonstrates this notability. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep-coverage, notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search of Google News Archives turns up a number of articles in the Lawrence Journal-World and a few in the Kansas City Star, but nothing suggesting wider coverage. Complicating the search, I found another mysteriously-disappeared Randy Leach, who was last seen in Idaho Falls in 1980 (source). Any missing person who isn't quickly found is going to generate lots of local coverage; to me, the lack of wider coverage makes for WP:GNG failure. Ammodramus (talk) 00:25, 26 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) 18:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a horrible case, but an all too common circumstance. This does not appear to have gotten any National coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unfortunate, but not notable. Specifically, does not meet WP:NNEWS or WP:BLP1E. If BLP does not apply, then would likely need to deal with as WP:CRIME - which the article and sources also do not meet. The overall failing is that the sources are local routine coverage without large geographic scope or reliable in-depth reporting. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet WP:CRIME and WP:N. - DonCalo (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with Comment It is likely that most (if not all) the articles mentioned by the author (specifically Tara Grinstead, Disappearance of Amy Lynn Bradley, Ann Gotlib and Disappearance of Robin Graham should be deleted as well. None of these seem to pass WP:N in general and while all are indeed tragic, they would otherwise be low profile individuals and would unlikely have been covered at all if not for their disappearance. The three conditions of WP:BLP1E all apply here and therefore the article(s) should be deleted. Vertium (talk to me) 21:08, 4 July 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) 03:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beate Bille[edit]
- Beate Bille (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 seems to partially meet CSD G6 for a disambiguation page. However a speedy was declined. If you go to the page, you will only see that one of the two links work. Until there is a notable presences, I feel that this disambiguation page is not needed keystoneridin! (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles don't "partially meet" speedy deletion criteria, but either meet or don't meet them, and this one does not. And both of the links work, i.e. the links to Tycho Brahe, where there is coverage of the more famous Beate Bille, and to Beate Bille (actress). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I nominated this article because the two articles on the page should be separate. Tycho Brahe should have his own page only being born to a person named Beate Bille who does not have an active page.
- Sorry, but I find that statement totally incomprehensible. Please could you try again in clearer English? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please define the English standard that you are looking for and I will try to be clearer.keystoneridin! (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard of comprehensible English. I can just about see some meaning in your first sentence, although that apparent meaning doesn't make sense as the two disambiguated articles already are separate, but the second sentence is total gobbledygook. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, please define the standard. I searched for a "standard of comprehensible English", but found nothing. If you can define, in detail, what you want I will be glad to address your concern(s).keystoneridin! (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I give up. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect toDelete, move Beate Bille (actress) to Beate Bille, and add a hatnote to Tycho Brahe. Two entries, especially when one is a redlink, don't require a dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: dab page at base name for two people neither of whom is obviously the primary usage. All in order. PamD 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, move Beate Bille (actress) to Beate Bille and hatnote. Being Tycho Brahe's mom must have been a position to be proud of, but notability is not inherited, so the actress is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:57, 27 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) 18:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The Tycho article does not need a disambig from his mother's name, and the actress article is in no way going to pass AfD. If the page is kept at all, then simply redirect to the actress as the PrimaryTopic until the PROD or AfD (if needed) plays out. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Delete Beate Bille and move Beate Bille (actress) to Beate Bille's spot. There's no indication here that Beate Clausdatter Bille is notable and I'd rather not see an AfD for one article turn into an AfD for another subject for which an article doesn't even exist yet. If an article is created, move Beate Bille (actress) back to its current location and recreate the disambiguation page. No use is creating such a stir over a subject that doesn't even have an article let alone established notability. OlYeller21Talktome 22:40, 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. Sandstein 05:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash[edit]
- 2007 Romanian Air Force IAR-330 SOCAT crash (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:AIRCRASH for military accidents. No one notable on board. ...William 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 18:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - tragic but regrettably non-notable military aircraft crash. Military aircraft crash more often overall, and have more fatal crashes, than civilian aircraft; with no Wikinotable people killed, no WP:PERSISTENCE, and no "superlatives" (most fatalities, etc.), this doesn't rise to the level of where it needs to be included in Wikipedia as anything more than a line in the type or service article. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this was discussed already long time ago and the consensus was 'keep'. The article is a properly referenced B-class article in good overall shape and I see no reason why to delete it now. --Eurocopter (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because even properly referenced B-class articles in good overall shape can fail Wikipedia's notability standards? Which this one does. Also, consensus can change. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Alternatively, follow the precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision, which described a more deadly crash, and merge to RoAF 90th Airlift Base. --BDD (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That merge could certainly work. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd have no problem with a merge....William 22:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That merge could certainly work. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Bushranger, no reason why it cant be mentioned in related list articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, The Bushranger and BDD. Two other discussions about very similar events are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Israeli Air Force Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AH.9 Lynx crash. The former was in Romania and the latter in the Czech Republic, both articles were deleted; both events (and this crash) have mentions in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present), which is full of similar crashes around the world and which is IMO a sufficient record for Wikipedia, so no merging required. YSSYguy (talk) 06:52, 30 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. Topic fails to reach WP:CRIME j⚛e deckertalk 03:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Furino[edit]
- Anthony Furino (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'm not sure that the subject meets our notability criteria. There seems to be an element of recentism in the article. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also agree, does not pass WP:CRIME -- Rogermx (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not pass WP:CRIME, not a notable criminal. - DonCalo (talk) 07:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Looks like just another run-of-the-mill low level mobster. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:CRIME. →TSU tp* 11:14, 4 July 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. Black holes may have no hair, but this one has snow. The Bushranger One ping only 21:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quantum spacetime mechanics[edit]
- Quantum spacetime mechanics (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)
per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simplification of the spacetime continuum Morning Sunshine (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense OR. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NOR|Original research, and rather incoherent. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete OR Anir1uph (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete Original research and nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Please familiarize yourself with our criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is poorly executed crank physics. The "I will be the first." admission by the editor is by itself, even if one doesn't know enough physics to know that this is rubbish, an indicator that this is a novel hypothesis from one person's head, without expertise or formal peer review (or even publication!), in violation of our no original research policy. Being original research is not a speedy deletion criterion, by the way. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at a "voracity" approaching that of light. OR that should be dropped into a black hole. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:52, 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. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Riley Reid[edit]
- Riley Reid (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 porn star. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. The only substantial RS coverage I can find is an article in XBIZ. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, at the best WP:TOOSOON. Cavarrone (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and is just a pretext for promoting a sex blog per WP:Linkspam BO | Talk 07:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. →TSU tp* 11:14, 4 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Finn[edit]
- Matt Finn (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)
- Delete Not notable per WP:NHOCKEY Львівське (говорити) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Junior player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he meets nhockey or otherwise achieves notability. -DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Right now, he doesn't seem to be notable and fails WP:NHOCKEY, but in future he may get notable. For now, delete. →TSU tp* 11:15, 4 July 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. G12. Bad science bad enough to make Phil Plait run screaming, and a copyvio to boot. The Bushranger One ping only 21:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Simplification of the spacetime continuum[edit]
- Simplification of the spacetime continuum (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 will need review from someone knowledgeable in the field, but it appears to be original research, is probably more appropriately added to an existing article, and lacks any sources. Does Wikipedia need this article? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update -There is a related article at Quantum spacetime mechanics which is already nominated for deletion in its own discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nope, it's complete OR, and not even good OR. For example: "The electron reaches the speed of light". Electrons have mass, they can't reach the speed of light. I'd be tempted to db-hoax it, really (although it doesn't actually qualify for db-hoax). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonsense OR. I especially like the part about "the 13 dimensional sphere of electrons orbiting the singularity at the speed of light". Gandalf61 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, I kinda like the line: "This could be balanced even with all the mass in the universe as long as the electrons maintain voracity..." Look out, all the mass in the universe, the electrons are starving and trying to eat you! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could be mistaken- I'm not really following the logic- but I think he says that time has mass. So either I understand less science than I thought I did, or the universe is way more awesome than I realized. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, I kinda like the line: "This could be balanced even with all the mass in the universe as long as the electrons maintain voracity..." Look out, all the mass in the universe, the electrons are starving and trying to eat you! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedydelete More original research nonsense. CodeTheorist (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Please familiarize yourself with our criteria for speedy deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is poorly executed crank physics. The "I will be the first." admission by the editor in another, largely identical, article is by itself, even if one doesn't know enough physics to know that this is rubbish, an indicator that this is a novel hypothesis from one person's head, without expertise or formal peer review (or even publication!), in violation of our no original research policy. Being original research is not a speedy deletion criterion, by the way. And common sense tells me that this isn't a copyright violation because there's just one person writing this stuff, on both Facebook and Wikipedia. They are, after all, signed "Ryan Reschke", written in the first person, and the product of a Wikipedia account with the name Ryanr666 (talk · contribs). Delete. Uncle G (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted as G10 attack page Jac16888 Talk 14:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Elisabeth Law[edit]
- Elisabeth Law (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 created by Americasucks100 (Talk) • (Contribution History)
Check username for vandalism at other articles, unsourced and in violation of guidelines of BLP Allamericanbear (talk) 14:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This persons contributions seem to all have been reverted. This person just created their account today and is being tagged for vandal. Also this Elisabeth Law isn't notable at all. ObtundTalk 14:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have G10'd this as a wholly negative unsourced BLP. The use of "fascist" throughout the article suggests this is a deliberate attack on a member of school staff by a disaffected student. QU TalkQu 14:42, 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. No evidence of notability under WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL. j⚛e deckertalk 14:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tykwani Dublin[edit]
- Tykwani Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, no reason given. Fails criteria at WP:NFOOTY as he has not played at a fully-professional or international level of football. Could not find any sources to prove he's played for Montserrat national football team either. --Jimbo[online] 13:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --Jimbo[online] 13:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I prod'd this for lack of sources, and it doesn't look like any reliable sources have turned up since. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not able to verify notability (e.g., playing in a FIFA "A" international for Monserrat). Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Again, a article which fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. →TSU tp* 11:16, 4 July 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:CORP j⚛e deckertalk 03:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SubscriptionBridge[edit]
- SubscriptionBridge (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)
There are notable sources, such as Chrunchbase SubscriptionBridge[6] and Chrunchbase Early Impact[7]. A press release from Comodo [8]. SubscriptionBridge is also listed in the following matrix of recurring billing applications{http://saasy.com/matrix.php}. Early Impact is also listed directly on PayPal's partner page{https://www.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=xpt/cps/bizui/IntegrationThirdParty-outside}. — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 17:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable, no reliable or verifiable sources. Of listed refs, Bloomberg comes up blank (search page), the other two are press release/self-published. No GNews/archives hits that I could find (although they might be buried in the card game hits). CSD declined by IP with reason of other stuff. GregJackP Boomer! 12:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Review Again - Article Bloomberg link was fixed. Techcrunch base is a valid reference for Early Impact. Early Impact is listed as a PCI compliant product [9], which is only granted to valid companies. Early Impact has dozens of excellent reviews on Hotscripts [10]. The co-founder did not "spam" an article with comments. In the comments he actually listed several other competitors. He is a member on Quora and frequently answers questions with over 50 followers. Early Impact is also listed on PayPal's Partner page. There is also a separate Crunchbase listing for SubscriptionBridge here [11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 16:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article is not about the company, but about a service it provides. No one is saying that either it or the company does not exist - we're questioning its notability, which has still not been shown PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you for clarifying Steve. I was puzzled as to why so many were trying to delete a valid company that services thousands of merchants. You see I was just trying to add this company to the wiki as a payment provider... because people looking at the list of payment providers expect to see a full list. This company is a legitimate payment provider. It seems you are looking for companies that have made a ton of news. That's the part that still confuses me though. There really is not much difference between this listing and the other payment providers listed. Some of the other payment providers did private funding or offered a beta and that generated news, but that did not make them more important in my view. So am I correct that this article would become notable is there was more news? Is that basically what I should focus on when contributing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by O1webdawg (talk • contribs) 00:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article should have been speedily deleted per WP:A7. SD tag could have been reapplied since it was removed by WP:SPA IP with two edits. Since we're here, company fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. A Google News search produces one article with a large list of companies (no significant coverage) that includes this company. The other article makes no mention of this company but a co-founder spammed the comment section with SubscriptionBridge info. A Google News Archive search produces no independent and significant coverage from a reliable source. OlYeller21Talktome 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence that this company meets the general notability criteria or the company criteria. None of the provided references are adequate (the Bloomsberg one doesn't appear to show them on the list of companies; the PRWeb one is a press release from the company - so not independent - and the Practical Ecommerce one is not significant coverage, and appears to be wholly based on information provided by the company). PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks anything to substantiate notability. Eeekster (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 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. Fails WP:V, possible hoax. j⚛e deckertalk 14:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extra-TremeRAMA![edit]
- Extra-TremeRAMA! (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)
Likely hoax. Search returns only one link, which is another WP article. Text is copied from Total Drama with only title changes. Certainly nothing more than speculation if not a hoax. | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Hoax or not, there's zero indication of notability. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No mention of it on pro.imdb.com, and they'd have a listing for it if it were truly in production. Vertium (talk to me) 01:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - just gets away from getting G3ed. No trace of WP:N. →TSU tp* 11:17, 4 July 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, nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure.) --Lambiam 14:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TUI Travel[edit]
- TUI Travel (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 entire article is sourced only from the company's own website(s), thus it clearly fails Notability, Reliable Sources and probably also falls foul of Advertising. I'm surprised that an article about such a large company has managed to exist for so long without gathering any Independent Sources. Roger (talk) 10:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No evidence of WP:BEFORE. The Guardian has a lot of stories about it, e.g. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] - their site search indicates 168 stories mentioning the company[21]. Other papers also have extensive coverage e.g. Independent[22][23], Telegraph index[24]. It'll take work to look through all the results and create a good article, but TUI Travel is without a doubt notable. And it's not advertising, just dry business information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep – per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. This company has been reported as the world's largest tour operator: [25]. This topic fully passes WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Company is clearly notable and much discssed as per sources located above. Article can be improved by normal editing. AllyD (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable travel company, rubbish article but it should be improved not deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - company is patently highly notable, it is one of the largest travel companies in the world, in fact the largest by some measures.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC) Should add, I am sure, in this case, the AfD was well intentioned, and do recognise that the article has some major issues in terms of the failure to use third party citations in the text. There are actually a number linked at the bottom of the article, but they are not utilised within the article text. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As pointed out above, this is a very large and well established player in the tourism market, and notable by any reasonable standard. Factual information taken from company accounts, reports and websites is acceptable in WP because it is audited and subject to legal regulation ensuring accuracy. Paradoxically, independent sources are not reliable unless they can be verified against such sources for the very obvious reason that it cannot accurately be obtained in any other way. Where such information is not published, external estimates need to be qualified for that reason. --AJHingston (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Easily a large and well-known enough company for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw deletion nomination. Will somebody please use the independent sources in the article already. Comment: For such a huge and allegedly* notable company it's a really crappy article, not much more than a "directory" of corporate divisions and subsidiaries. (*IMNSHO notability is only "alleged" until such time as the independent sources are actually used in an article. Articles should not be allowed to exist indefinitely without the actual citation of independent sources. There should be a "use it or lose it" time limit for adding such sources.) Roger (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestion regarding TUI Travel. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Northamerica1000(talk) 14:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your suggestion regarding TUI Travel. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Userfy. If someone needs help userfying contact me — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of RiverClan cats[edit]
- List of RiverClan cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- List of WindClan cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- List of ShadowClan cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- List of SkyClan cats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- List of cats in the Tribe of Rushing Water (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- List of Warriors characters outside Clans (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)
Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ThunderClan cats; these articles are purely in-universe plot reiteration referenced exclusively to primary sources (the books). There is no realistic possibility of any of these being edited into a form which would alter that. There is a wikia:warriors which is ultimately a much better host for this sort of content; comments on the previous AfD suggest at least some of this content has already been transwikied there. As a followup, list of Warriors characters should be trimmed to only major characters in the series. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gongshow Talk 15:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and userfy Userfy to my userspace, please. And the term "major characters" is going to need to be defined more clearly soon. Brambleclawx 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but... with an option to transwiki and/or selectively merge the important ones back into list of Warriors characters, which itself looks to have some problems. I'm a big fan of character lists for fiction and always have been, but this number and detail is excessive and it's extremely unlikely substantial coverage in reliable sources exist for, say, "Dapplenose" or "Grasskit". Simply put, this is something for a fansite, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki and Userfy all since a primary content area editor has boldly accepted the nominator's suggestion above. I agree this material does belong on a fan site, which is why Wikia runs such content spaces. User:Brambleclawx is an experienced editor and has offered to do the work to improve this. No real argument here. Win and win. After userfication, I suggest redirecting all to List of Warriors characters. BusterD (talk) 03:17, 5 July 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. (and redirected to The Voice (U.S. season 1)) Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jared Blake[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Jared Blake (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)
Unsigned artist, no sources found beyond PR and stuff related directly to his standing on The Voice. Merely placing in a TV contest isn't enough. He has a publishing contract, but hasn't done anything with it yet. Author declined BLP Prod in October 2011 without comment. This currently seems to be a WP:TOOSOON, as I can't find anything that isn't from a PR mill. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Jared Blake has charted over 50 times on Itunes and was on a popular television show. Jared has released a single titled 'Don't Mind' since The Voice and has released the video as well that has almost 70,000 views on YouTube. He is currently working with producer Skidd Mills of Skiddco Music on his new album. All copyright problems have been resolved and I say that there is no reason to delete Jared Blake's Wikipedia page. User:TheresaStach —Preceding undated comment added 01:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NMUSIC. None of what you said is notable per the guidelines for music biographies. iTunes charts are not reliable. Being on the Voice is not sufficient if he hasn't done anything else. Getting views on YouTube is not a gauge of notability per our standards. If he's currently working on an album, then he might be notable later on, when the album's out. But right now, he's close but no cigar. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It would be helpful if anyone supporting "keep" could refer to criteria under WP:NMUSIC. There are 12 ways to be notable. If anyone thinks the subject is notable, it would clarify the discussion to refer to one or more of the numbered criteria. Logical Cowboy (talk)
- Weak keep Meets criteria 1 at WP:NM. Found couple of Blake interviews that seem reliable and not from "PR mill". The problem for me here is missing inline citations. Needs to be improved, made more encyclopedic. --Sk4170 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you suggest something be "made more encyclopedic" from crap sources? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to specify that other than "crap" sources needs to be added. Here's a couple of interviews that I googled in less than five minutes. [26] [27] Can you shoot down both of them? They're no Rolling Stone, but still something and I'm sure there's more. Blake seems to be getting some exposure on country music radios and web publications after The Voice. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it would be permissable to cite those two sources in the article, but as they are interviews they are not really independent secondary sources which are needed to establish notability per WP:GNG. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Now this is interesting. I was reading WP:NM, criteria 1 and its note, especially this sentence: "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself have actually considered the musician, ensemble, composer, or lyricist notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.", not the general guidelines. Most material you get about musicians that is not strictly self-promotion, is interviews and reviews. There are no in-depth articles available that are not even in small part interviews, unless the band or the artist is well-established chart-topping award or song-contest winning act playing arenas and stadiums. In those cases the artist most probably meets several counts of the WP:NM criteria anyway. The guidelines are very strict, if interviews don't count in establishing notability in any case. --Sk4170 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I forgot to specify that other than "crap" sources needs to be added. Here's a couple of interviews that I googled in less than five minutes. [26] [27] Can you shoot down both of them? They're no Rolling Stone, but still something and I'm sure there's more. Blake seems to be getting some exposure on country music radios and web publications after The Voice. --Sk4170 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMusic Row Magazine named Renegade Radio Nashville as the first ever Internet Radio Station to report their weekly playlist. As a reporting station, Renegade joins the Music Row Panel in determining the artists that will top the country music radio charts and has the subject (Jared Blake) in regular rotation therefore this article meets WP:MUS (Criteria for musicians and ensembles number 11)TheresaStach (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet charts are not reliable per WP:BADCHARTS. If he were on the main Country Breakout chart from Music Row, then maybe. Also, don't vote more than once. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Criterion 9 states clearly "Has won or placed in a major music competition." In Ten Pound Hammer's first statement he agrees that the artist "Placed" in a TV show. Being one of the highest ranking shows on NBC would certainly classify The Voice as a major music competition. WP:MUS Has won or placed in a major music competition. GlenerationX (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — GlenerationX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- He was a very low placer though, and hasn't yet done anything outside The Voice. Also, SPA alert. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comments. But where I come from, to "place" is to come in second place, or maybe in the top 3. If understand correctly, he was not in the top 8, but instead came out somewhere in 9th-16th place. Perhaps WP:NMUSIC is ambiguous, but I would not consider someone in 9th-16th place as "placing" for the purpose of notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 07:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In a horse race I would agree with your reference to placing, however, this was a competition in which thousands of people auditioned for, so finishing in the Top 16 would not necessarily be considered a low placer.TheresaStach (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — TheresaStach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My points are valid, calling me out on my first article does not change that.TheresaStach (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 1). He made it far enough in the competition, IMO, to justify a redirect, and it's a reasonable search term. Unlike season 2 contestant (and fellow AfD nominee) Charlotte Sometimes, it appears all of his coverage is tied to the TV show. Without indepedent notability, redirecting seems appropriate. Gongshow Talk 19:12, 25 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) 10:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the appropriate "The voice" articleSeasider91 (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above; I agree with User:Gongshow. I realize that WP:REALITY has not achieved consensus in its favour, but I find it useful, well-reasoned and a fair test. Mr. Blake appears to me not to meet criteria nos. 4 or 7 and no others seem to apply. Ubelowme (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet any criteria at WP:MUSICBIO, so would need to at least meet WP:BIO. Interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability, association with someone who won a national award does not establish notability, and trivial coverage in many show related sources does not confer notability. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - see no reason for a redirect. A random sampling of 5 of the people listed on The Voice article all have WP:N due to actually releasing albums/singles, or acting in films or on TV. At present, I don't think Mr. Blake hasn't yet achieved notability. Vertium (talk to me) 02:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for WP:BLP problems. Most bio material is unsourced or poorly sourced. Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 1) is not appropriate because that article doesn't contain bio's of other participants. For [[WP:NMUSIC, I agree with nom; WP:TOOSOON. DocTree (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I'm flabbergasted that anyone, as some do above, consider an ephemeral reality show a "major music competition." Sorry, we're talking something like the Van Cliburn competition or Eurovision; something that is renowned worldwide, with a measure of enduring notability. Ravenswing 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 1) - Blake is not currently notable enough for a stand-alone article, but it's a valid search term. If he meets notability in the future, the article can be created again. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:35, 6 July 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. WP:SNOW, and withdrawn by the nominator without any non-keep !votes The Bushranger One ping only 21:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Troll 3[edit]
- Troll 3 (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 searched and Google Books searched for the film, including its alternate titles, and no results have established it as notable. LF (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, just realised Something Awful has its own Wikipedia page, therefore that should make the film notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. LF (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgive me, but I don't entirely understand what SA has to do with the notability of Trolls 3. If by this you mean that if SA has its own article then Trolls 3 should have one as well, be aware that just because something else exists that does not mean that articles without any RS shouldn't be nominated for AfD. If SA had a hand in the production of the movie, also know that notability is not inherited by their involvement with the film.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article links to a review on Something Awful; I think LF is saying that Something Awful is a reliable source (I'm not 100% sure it is, however, because SA started off as a one-person site, and I'm not sure to what extent it is trustworthy or has proper editorial procedures). However the article on Troll 3 needs coverage in more than one reliable source. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking for reviews. Dread Central, usually considered a reliable source, has one[28]. There's a few reviews on other sites which may not be reliable sources, some listed on the article and IMDb[29]: Something Awful[30], The Cinema Snob/That Guy With The Glasses, Bad Movie Nite[31], etc. Cinemassacre has a bit on the trilogy[cinemassacre.com/2010/10/23/troll-trilogy/]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not exactly Casablanca, but there are enough reviews to keep the page, IMO. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep also reviewed, with different titles, in The psychotronic video guide, Horror Films of The 1980s (pp.431-432) and in the Italian books Dizionario dei film italiani stracult (pp.168-169) and Joe D'amato - Guida al cinema estremo e dell'orrore (pp. 49-59). Cavarrone (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. And thanks to Cavarrone for research which I don't intend to repeat since I only have access to the first two titles; this school of filmmaking is not everyone's cup of green slime, but its most significant representatives (including quite a bit of the work of Joe D'Amato) are, AFAIC, notable. Ubelowme (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think the nominator may be trying to withdraw this AfD[32], but as long as it remains open I will echo the conclusions of Cavarrone and JoelWhy: this is a bad movie, but a notable one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per WP:NRVE and WP:SNOW. While the nominator feels his level of WP:BEFORE was sufficient, others dug just a bit deeper, and their expanding searches to altenate titles proved successful. Heck this Italian film had international distribution and release in the US under 4 differrnt titles. Kudos to Cavarrone and Colapeninsula! While the article could definitely benefit from use of available sources, they do not need to be in an article on the topic for a topic to be notable. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:15, 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. Consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dāvis Straupe[edit]
- Dāvis Straupe (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 player never played in any professional competition. Ymblanter (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Because he fails WP:ICEHOCKEY as only a youth player.Seasider91 (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Delete proponents are poorly informed; Straub has played two seasons for HK Riga of the top Russian minor league, passing the 100 game mark as per WP:NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 20:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ravenswing. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject fails NHOCKEY as MHL is actually a junior hockey league in Russia. Can be re-created when he meets it. Patken4 (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject fails NHOCKEY. The MHL is a junior hockey league not a professional one so he does not meet it like Ravenswing indicates. -DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Procedural close with no prejudice against speedy renomination, given the proposed deletion rationale no long applies. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kent W. Colton[edit]
- Kent W. Colton (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)
Request community discussion for possible deletion of a page that has no content whatsoever. Was declined for speedy deletion. Basket of Puppies 06:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Page was created by administrator Hut 8.5 over blacklist with {{underconstruction}} for another user at 15:25, 26 June 2012. KTC (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep- Has not yet been 24 hours, let alone the 'day or two' suggested when speedy was declined. Dru of Id (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I created this page as a result of this request at the administrators' noticeboard. Another editor who was trying to write a page at this title was prevented from doing so by the title blacklist, so they needed an admin to create the page for them. Yes the page has no content, but it isn't going to stay that way and deleting it would serve no useful purpose (in fact deleting it would prevent someone from contributing to the encyclopedia). I'm sure the nominator is fully aware of this and I have no idea why they thought it would be appropriate to AfD the page. Hut 8.5 10:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep - If no content is forthcoming, it should be speedied away. But a little time for the content creator isn't gonna kill anyone. Carrite (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I added some information to the previously blank page, and this person appears to meet WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to Userspace This page has nearly no content. Send it to userspace and bring it back once it has been expanded. 134.241.58.253 (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - There is no assertion of notability whatsoever, this is a slam-dunk. Honestly, this is why Articles for Creation should be mandated for new users, as this kinda of non-article should not see the light of day til actual writing has been attempted. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This was created with no content because the would-be creator was having mysterious blacklist issues — he did exactly what he should have. Situations like this are precisely why we have an ignore all rules policy, because following the letter of the speedy deletion criteria is detrimental in this specific case. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete For lack of notability, not because of the process.
- However this should have gone through AfC or userspace, not created as an empty page. We don't need sub-stubs being created and abandoned, as inevitably happens. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Is this above !vote based upon a search for sources, or just those currently in the article? This individual appears to pass WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUndecided. Colton has held some positions in academia and government (e.g. special assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury),[33] butnone that appear toI don't know if they reach notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I've expanded the article and included information that asserts the significance of this individual. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Here's a list of Colton's published works from World Cat. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Summary of sources:
- Stanley, Kathleen (November 6, 2003). "More Than Bricks and Mortar: A new book by Kent W. Colton explores the housing industry's past--and its future challenges". Builder Magazine. Retrieved June 27, 2012.
- "Eccles to Speak at USU Rites". Deseret News. May 13, 1996. Retrieved June 27, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - (Associated Press) (May 7, 1994). "Rising Loan Rates Threatens Jobs: Builders". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved June 27, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) (subscription required) - "Rate Volatility Deemed Likely for Long Term". The Sacramento Bee. May 10, 1987. Retrieved June 27, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) (subscription required) - "Kent W. Colton Biography". Brigham Young University Marriott School. Retrieved June 27, 2012.
- Cardinale, Mary C. (May 5, 1999). "Inaugural Dunlop Lecture Examines Housing". The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved June 27, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
- Northamerica1000(talk) 22:52, 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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna[edit]
- Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna (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)
On a Guantanamo prisoner with no coverage at all. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. May fail WP:BLP1E as well if we consider release from Guantanamo as a single notable event. There is already a list Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay giving the same info. DBigXray 08:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After AfD nomination the article has been filled by the creator with content and primary sources related to the case proceedings of the subject (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports ), The article so far does not even have a single secondary source to establish notability and does not deserve a separate article.--DBigXray 17:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, subject does not appear to be independently notable as an individual. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BLP1E, and much of the article appears to actually be largely a WP:COATRACK attack on the broader 'judicial' process which applied to prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay (I actually agree with the criticisms of this process, but this sure isn't the way to cover them). Nick-D (talk) 11:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:COATRACK essay advances some interesting ideas. The odd thing about the essay is how often it is cited in {{afd}} in ways inconsistent with the advice in the essay. If you are interested in discussing how and where we cover the administrative process whereby the Guantanamo captive had their statuses reviewed, possibly triggering a recommendation they be cleared for release, by all means lets discuss that. An {{afd}} is not the appropriate place to discuss this issue.
Please note COATRACK does not recommend deletion as the first solution for perceived instance of COATRACK concerns. Rather COATRACK recommends deletion should be a very last resort when talk page discussion and our other means for contributors to raise concerns have failed.
You called the review process a judicial process. I corrected you, and described it as an administrative process. Captives routinely asked the officers on the Review boards why they were not allowed to consult a lawyer. They always got the same answer -- that the review boards were not judicial, that they were merely “administrative”. I know you have read many of these article. That you have misunderstood this key point seems to me to be a strong argument for changing how that aspect of the reviews is covered. Can we please discuss this general question elsewhere? Geo Swan (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:COATRACK essay advances some interesting ideas. The odd thing about the essay is how often it is cited in {{afd}} in ways inconsistent with the advice in the essay. If you are interested in discussing how and where we cover the administrative process whereby the Guantanamo captive had their statuses reviewed, possibly triggering a recommendation they be cleared for release, by all means lets discuss that. An {{afd}} is not the appropriate place to discuss this issue.
- Keep -- I am sure there are good faith reasons why this nomination contains inaccuracies. The most important inaccuracy is that “The article so far does not even have a single secondary source to establish notability and does not deserve a separate article.” After his release at least two interviews with al Bidna were published. Al Riyadh seems to have been in an important Saudi magazine. Excerpts from these interviews have been translated into English, and re-published. I cited those sources. Geo Swan (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment at creator Geo Swan. Following WP:V Please produce the secondary sources that claim his notability, the links you have added are dead links with none linking to Al Riyadh and your claims above are unverified.--DBigXray 13:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Worthington (2011-11-02). "Saad Al Bidna (ISN 337)". Cageprisoners. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
Noting that it was stated that he had "admitted to being a terrorist," he said that he made that statement when he was "frustrated and extremely mad and being sarcastic," when he "threw his hands up, and said, 'all right, you got me, I'm a terrorist.'"
- "Online Fatwas Incite Young Muslims to Jihad". American Islamic Forum for Democracy. 2006-10-26. Retrieved 2012-06-20.
- These references were in the Sa ad Ibraham Sa ad Al Bidna#Background section. Geo Swan (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the links Geo, sadly both of them are unable to establish Notability here
- [34] Primary source on Guantanamo Prisoners with its routine articles, does not establish Notability.
- [35] Dead link (unverified) .--DBigXray 15:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Worthington is a historian and journalist. If he were Guantanamo captive, reporting on what he personally experienced, or if he was a US official, reporting on his or her own activities, I would agree he would be a primary source. He is however an independent observer who read and analyzed material others wrote about Guantanamo. He is highly respected and widely quoted. I would think all experienced contributors would recognize this makes him both an RS and a secondary source.
The AIF link has gone 404 in the days since I first used it. I will look for an alternate URL. Geo Swan (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Worthington is a historian and journalist. If he were Guantanamo captive, reporting on what he personally experienced, or if he was a US official, reporting on his or her own activities, I would agree he would be a primary source. He is however an independent observer who read and analyzed material others wrote about Guantanamo. He is highly respected and widely quoted. I would think all experienced contributors would recognize this makes him both an RS and a secondary source.
- Elan Journo (2009). Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism. Lexington Books. p. 205. ISBN 9780739135426. Retrieved 2012-06-26.
Saad Ibraham Saad al Bidna was among the holy warriors swept up by U.S. forces and held at Guantanamo for four years.After his release, he explained to an interviewer what set him off on his religious struggle:
Many may find it difficult to believe, but I was not very devout, though I did pray regularly. But enthusiasm and zeal filled the hearts of many young people, and unfortunately, I followed certain fatwas that were posted on the INternet. [These fatwas] call upon young people to wage jihad in certain regions. They tempt them by describing the great rewards they will receive, the status of the martyrs in Paradise and the virgins that await [them there].
- Andy Worthington (2007). The Guantanao Files. Pluto Press. pp. 52–53. ISBN 978 0 7453 2665 8.
He said he now knew that what he did was wrong -- although he also pointed out that, when he was in Afghanistan, 'what concerned me the most was that Muslims were fighting each other, and that is why I left and went to Pakistan, for in jihad a Muslim must never fight his Muslim brother.'
- "Editorialista saudita: Evidenti le cause dellondata di jihadisti" [Saudi Columnist: Jihadist Obvious causes of dellondata]. Israele.net. 2006-10-23. Archived from the original on 2012-06-27.
Al-Riyadh pubblica anche un'intervista a Sa'ad Bin Ibrahim al-Bidna, un giovane saudita che è partito per l'Afghanistan per combattere nella jihad, è stato arrestato in Pakistan ed è stato consegnato agli Stati Uniti.
URLs to google translate expire after 72 hours...
- Andy Worthington (2011-11-02). "Saad Al Bidna (ISN 337)". Cageprisoners. Retrieved 2012-06-21.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Article subject does not meet WP:BIO, specifically notability. WP:PRIMARY sources (including interviews) do not support notability, and the only third-party sources are trivial passing coverage. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails the notability guidelines. I can find much secondary source having an in-depth coverage. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly fails WP:BIO and WP:N. Nothing else has been done by the person to make him notable. →TSU tp* 14:37, 30 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 prejudice against starting a merge discussion on the talk page. -Scottywong| babble _ 17:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hizb El Watan (Libya)[edit]
- Hizb El Watan (Libya) (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)
Content fork, article for the party already exists on this page National Gathering for Freedom, Justice and Development EllsworthSK (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These are different parties. The National Gathering for Freedom, Justice and Development was founded in November 2011, while the formation of Hizb El Watan was announced on April 16, 2012 (Umar Khan (April 10, 2012). "Three-day event in Tripoli to announce "Nation Party"". Libya Herald.). --Lambiam 02:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are still one and the same party, the name is same as well and so is membership including the leading figure, just one is in arabic and other in english. November 2011 was date when party formation was announced and April 2012 is when it was registered and established. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have searched the web to find any documentation that these two parties are one in the same, and could find none. Unless Ellsworth can come up with more than a personal undocumented opinion, namely unless he can provide some kind convincing documentation, I can see no reason to delete this article simply because of one contributor's undocumented opinion. Also, I was able to find numerous references to the "Hizb El-Watan ..." party, but scarce few to the "National Gathering...." party. If they are the same party, perhaps the "National Gathering..." article should be deleted and not the "El-Watan article. Scott P. (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The exactly same name of the leader did not give you any indication? The exactly same candidacy is also a coincidence? Or does al-Salabi have now two parties, because that is how he rolls? If I had to guess National gathering was just as name suggests, gathering, the foundation of political party which resulted in establishment of Wattan Party (http://wattan.ly/). So here is the deal, delete this article and move the second one into Homeland Party (Libya) as the names of the political parties should be primarily in English language. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After spending another hour trying to find an "in-depth" analysis of the relationship between the Hizb Al Watan (Libya) party and the "National Gathering...(NGFJD)" party, this is what I've found. I must make an educated guess here, because I was unable to find anyone who spoke with clear authority on this question. It appears that EllsworthSK is probably mostly right, and that Hizb Al Watan is probably a reformulated version of the old NGFJD party. Over the last 6 months, references to the NGFJD party have dried up, and seem to have been replaced with references to the Hizb Al Watan party. It is somewhat frustrating since there doesn't seem to be much in-depth news coverage on this topic. Still, even if our theory is correct, it remains only an undocumented theory of contributors. Until a journalist writes a news article that clears this all up, we remain here stuck only being allowed to write articles that are supported by the available documentation. So I would hope that you might not delete or create any articles related to this question until such moves can be supported with actual independent and reliable documentation. Documentation rules. Thanks. Scott P. (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The exactly same name of the leader did not give you any indication? The exactly same candidacy is also a coincidence? Or does al-Salabi have now two parties, because that is how he rolls? If I had to guess National gathering was just as name suggests, gathering, the foundation of political party which resulted in establishment of Wattan Party (http://wattan.ly/). So here is the deal, delete this article and move the second one into Homeland Party (Libya) as the names of the political parties should be primarily in English language. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I had hoped the Arabic Wikipedia might clarify this, but their disambiguation page for Hizb El Watan (ar:حزب الوطن) has a red link for the Libyan party, and no article on the other one either. I further note that a user's page on the Arabic Wikipedia with (apparently) a list of needed articles (ar:مستخدم:عبد المؤمن/مسودات) lists both parties separately (as red links). --Lambiam 21:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2. Is it possible that the new party is effectively a merger between the National Gathering and the Libyan Islamic Movement for Change, which appear to have co-existed as distinct organizations for some time? --Lambiam 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubtful, AbdeulHakim Belhaj is long-time ally of Ali al-Sallabi and he announced that he will form political party with him shortly after the fall of Sirte and death of Gaddafi. Also LIMC is not part of this party, for example Sami al-Saadi, one of the commander of LIFG, is candidating for Umma party [36] EllsworthSK (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But for example here, here and here we find Belhadj speaking for the LIMC, even using the first-person pronoun "we". Apparently, al-Saadi did not follow Belhadj in his choice for Hizb El Watan, but I don't see how this fact allows drawing further conclusions about the relationship between LIMC and Hizb El Watan. --Lambiam 14:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here the Umma party is described as "a group which separated from the Nation Party [= Al-Watan Party] to form their own party". --Lambiam 17:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doubtful, AbdeulHakim Belhaj is long-time ally of Ali al-Sallabi and he announced that he will form political party with him shortly after the fall of Sirte and death of Gaddafi. Also LIMC is not part of this party, for example Sami al-Saadi, one of the commander of LIFG, is candidating for Umma party [36] EllsworthSK (talk) 22:02, 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, Sandstein 05:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, here is my proposal. It is more or less same as before, but merge this article with National Gathering for Freedom, Justice and Development article which shall be renamed to Homeland Party (Libya). Why name it Homeland Party and not Al-Watan party? Because names of the parties are primarily in english on english wikipedia. It is established that both articles deal with one and the same party, there is not much content in the second article that is not in the first one, rest can be easily copied. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this mean you withdraw your nomination for deletion? You can't very well both delete and merge. I'd like to see the evidence for your statement that "It is established that both articles deal with one and the same party". As to the name, there is a discussion on that topic at Talk:Alwattan Party (Libya)#Al-Watan or Alwattan?. There is no general rule that we use English names for parties and such; for example, we do not use "The Base" but "al-Qaeda". The rule is instead that we use the name most commonly used in reliable English-language sources. Unfortunately, there are not many such sources at the moment; that will very likely change with the upcoming elections. --Lambiam 15:22, 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 delete. Davewild (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Brizel (boxing writer)[edit]
- Robert Brizel (boxing writer) (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)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Brizel. Non-notable subject. There is a single news story about a banking mistake, which falls under WP:BLP1E. Unless somthing has changed drastically in the last few months, the last AfD pointed out he isn't a prolific boxing writer. Ishdarian 04:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no additional notability since last deleted a couple of months ago. Recommend SALTing this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no new evidence since last delete it seems. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:23, 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. There is a clear consensus for deletion here. The arguments for deletion that the article is premature as the potential match has not happened, that the matches between the 2 teams may not be a significant rivalry and that the coverage is not significant enough to establish the notability of the topic, are persuasive with contributors to this discussion. Davewild (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Derby (A-League)[edit]
- Sydney Derby (A-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)
This future event involves notable participants, however the event itself has received no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG Hack (talk) 04:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: With a dozen improved references this article clearly passes WP:GNG, WP:EVENT and is an acceptable topic under WP:CBALL. The event in question has significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent from the subject. I also note that not one attempt was made to improve the article nor was any discussion made in the talk page before the article was put up for a deletion request. Under WP:N this is a bad faith deletion request as a deletion request should be a last resort after a good faith effort is made to find references. For this article the Refimprove tag was placed merely an hour before the deletion request was made, Oalexander-En made no good faith effort to find any references either. With so little time given to improve the page and include more references I consider the original deletion request to be in bad faith and as such the request should be cancelled and the article kept as per WP:SK. I would also move to have the article protected from further deletion requests and for Oalexander-En to be prevented from editing the article any further, as he clearly is biased against the subject and has already deleted content prior to his deletion request. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did not delete any of the content - of which there are precisely three dates - but only things like empty tables, templates and the like. May I say, there is not more content as yet. The reception of one of the football teams and the "derby" is as yet unknown. In terms of Sydney sports, association football is of fairly subordinate relevance. Established club Sydney FC has with 8000 average/match attendance in 2012 about half the average of the other ten teams in town that play in the NRL and AFL (ie. Rugby League and Aust. Football) which about describes the general relevance of association football in Sydney. An empty article about a match that has not yet taken place is in the context not really warranted - if it should be warranted in any context. Matches that have a well established notability, such as Flamengo vs. Fluminense, Boca Juniors vs. River Plate, Milan vs. Inter, Celtic vs. Rangers, which are all of a totally different calibre, have articles, and rightly so. I wish to let it be known, that I am not against association football, quite the opposite: I have created and substantially edited hundreds of WP articles on the issue in WP:EN, DE and PT and have, relevant in context, created the WP:DE article on DE:Western Sydney Wanderers FC. I have no real interest in other football codes. So much for a disclosure of potentially conflicting interests. The article on the "Sydney Derby" lacks notability, and content, the latter as there is none to be put down beyond three dates, which may be easily integrated in the articles for the relevant clubs. Oalexander-En (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:: Repeatedly saying it has no notability, context or shouldn't be included because it hasn't happens yet does not make it so. I have conclusively proven that it is notable and completely follows WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL and that this deletion attempt is invalid. Now for something of an off-topic issue, Sydney FC averaged 12,000 in the two A-League seasons before the recent one (and 16,000 the season before those two), which places it in the same level of support as Cronulla, Penrith and Canberra and only a few thousand less than Manly, Parramatta and the Roosters (when Sydney FC has similar demographics to the Roosers). The 8,000 average comes down to poor performance during the season and to use it as some kind of justification that this article should be deleted is clutching at straws and makes it clear your argument is weak and you know it. Macktheknifeau (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did not delete any of the content - of which there are precisely three dates - but only things like empty tables, templates and the like. May I say, there is not more content as yet. The reception of one of the football teams and the "derby" is as yet unknown. In terms of Sydney sports, association football is of fairly subordinate relevance. Established club Sydney FC has with 8000 average/match attendance in 2012 about half the average of the other ten teams in town that play in the NRL and AFL (ie. Rugby League and Aust. Football) which about describes the general relevance of association football in Sydney. An empty article about a match that has not yet taken place is in the context not really warranted - if it should be warranted in any context. Matches that have a well established notability, such as Flamengo vs. Fluminense, Boca Juniors vs. River Plate, Milan vs. Inter, Celtic vs. Rangers, which are all of a totally different calibre, have articles, and rightly so. I wish to let it be known, that I am not against association football, quite the opposite: I have created and substantially edited hundreds of WP articles on the issue in WP:EN, DE and PT and have, relevant in context, created the WP:DE article on DE:Western Sydney Wanderers FC. I have no real interest in other football codes. So much for a disclosure of potentially conflicting interests. The article on the "Sydney Derby" lacks notability, and content, the latter as there is none to be put down beyond three dates, which may be easily integrated in the articles for the relevant clubs. Oalexander-En (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: After the event has taken place it may be decided if it was notable. Up to now the article consists essentially of three dates. Shall articles be created for every occasion on which any local teams of notability may meet? I consider it of no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. Oalexander-En (talk) 07:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It now has a dozen references (after you failed to give anyone time to add any to the article before placing it up for deletion). As per WP:CBALL it is a notable series of events that are certain to happen. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is both notable and certain to happen. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen. (Oalexander-En)'s argument does not hold up and this deletion request should be immediately cancelled as a WP:SK. You may consider it of no encyclopaedic value but luckily your opinion doesn't mean a thing here. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Just being mentioned in a news article doesn't prove notability. Under WP:NRIVALRY a sports rivalry must meet WP:GNG and justify its importance through significant non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The article still doesn't do this. Hack (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: And as I have shown earlier in the listing, this completely meets WP:GNG and already has significant non-trivial coverage with reliable sources.Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Let's have a look at the sources.
- 1, 12 - not independent
- 2 - Only five paragraphs out of 19 relate to rivalry
- 3 - One paragraph out of 13
- 4 - Not a reliable source - fan blog
- 5 - One paragraph out of ten
- 6 - One paragraph out of 14
- 7 - Five paragraphs out of 11
- 8,9 - Not a reliable source - blog
- 10 - Three paragraphs out of 16
- 11 - duplicate of ref 6
- This hardly amount to significant coverage. Hack (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Say X out of Y paragraphs all you like, it doesn't change the facts they are non-trivial coverage and include multiple reliable sources.Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the significant coverage? All of the references amount to routine reporting of the draw (10 of 11 refs are from within a day of the draw) and the fact that Sydney FC will play West Sydney Wanderers FC on particular dates in the upcoming season. There is nothing in the article or in the cited references that attest to the importance of the rivalry. Hack (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Say X out of Y paragraphs all you like, it doesn't change the facts they are non-trivial coverage and include multiple reliable sources.Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With articles like this on artificially created marketing opportunities, all we are doing is helping out Football Australia with its advertising. This is spam. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ridiculous comment. Ignores that this article has fully justified and sourced references that completely meet WP:GNG. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Neither HiLo or Hack or Oalexander have given any legitimate reason as to why the article should be deleted. It demonstrably meets WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, the original deletion request was made in bad faith by users who failed to give the article any time at all to find better sources and as such I once again move that this be given a WP:SK speedy keep and those users involved in the bad faith deletion process be blocked from editing the page in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – because the topic clearly meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – per WP:CBALL & WP:GNG. Non existent rivalry, yes there're almost certain to play each other but that doesn't mean there is going to be legitimate rivalry. Being from the same city doesn't infer there is going to be a strong rivalry. The fact that Western Sydney haven't even kicked a ball yet nevermind played Sydney FC just enforces the fact this rivalry is fabricated. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:CBALL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is both notable and certain to happen. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen. Another vote that ignores that the article is perfectly acceptable under WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, despite statements to the contrary. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Did you even bother reading my comment, I acknowledge that the event is certain to happen so there is no need to restate part 1 of WP:CBALL. I'm not debating the fact there going to play each other (so stop going on about it) that seems be your only defence. Playing each other doesn't mean there is going to be a legitimate rivalry. Part 3 of WP:CBALL states articles that present original research in the form of "future history" are inappropriate therefore it's in violation of WP:CBALL. The only one being ignorant is you. Attacking editors isn't going to get you anywhere it's just a deflection tactic you created an article on a non-existent rivalry that you don't know if it's going to come to fruition only that their going play each other. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:CBALL: Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This event is both notable and certain to happen. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. A schedule of events is appropriate as the dates are verifiable and certain to happen. Another vote that ignores that the article is perfectly acceptable under WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, despite statements to the contrary. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy until closer to the first event. It will likely become notable enough. (I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason for keeping but the AFL has a number of these sorts of events as articles.) Mark Hurd (talk) 06:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - two teams in the same area/city doesn't automatically make it a rivalry, especially as they haven't played each other yet! GiantSnowman 07:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL says otherwise. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples: Effective rivalries are eg. Fluminense FC vs CR Flamengo in Rio de Janeiro which eg. attracted world record club crowds of five times in excess of 150,000, Celtic FC vs. Rangers FC, where people got killed. Boca Juniors vs. CA River Plate which practically always attract a sellout crowd and a record number of police. Real Madrid CF vs. FC Barcelona, which attract sellout crowds and heads of dead animals get thrown on the pitch. Zamalek SC vs. Al Ahly SC in Cairo and a number more, such as FK Partizan vs FK Red Star in Belgrade, CA Peñarol vs C. Nacional d. F. in Montevideo. They all attract extraordinary media coverage and most often sellout crowds. I suggest, WS Wanderers vs. Sydney FC may be considered notable if it attracts say 40.000 in the Sydney Football Stadium in a city of more than 4 Million, and that not only at the first occasion, but also once the novelty has worn off. There may be indeed a number of so called rivalries listed here on WP which basically aren't really more than normal interclub matches. However, it is beyond the scope the issue here to examiner all these kind of matches that may have slipped through proper vetting. Proper rivalries usually take some time beyond marketing hype to get established. It would not be wrong to revisit the pairing discussed here in a few years time once a proper evaluation can be made. I am not sure what the rush here is all about. With the Western Sydney Wanderers we don't even know if they at all going to find acceptance by the public; for years to come the club will remain in the ownership of the Australian FA, the FFA, as a private investor could not be found to take on the risk establishing a western Sydney A-League franchise. Considering the volatility of Australian association football the Wanderers might be killed off inside a couple of years if they will not start paying for themselves soon - even more so, as currently crowds generally trend downwards. Oalexander-En (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: None of that has anything to do with this article. It meets WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL as those are writte and demonstrated earlier. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Football games routinely generate significant media coverage, but few are considered individually notable. If this develops into a notable rivalry it would justify an article, but for now it fails WP:CRYSTALBALL. Given the short lifespan of A-League teams, it can't even be guaranteed that the game will take place this far out! Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: So many people completely ignoring wiki guidelines. I should hope the administrators aren't swayed by people too ignorant to read the appropriate guidelines, WP:GNG, WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL, all of which show this article is notable and should not be deleted.Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This subject fails WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article, most of which deal primarily with the publication of the fixture list for the coming season, talk quite a bit about the second Sydney club having neither a confirmed name nor a home ground as at time of publication. They do mention the word "derby" in connection with the match between the new and pre-existing Sydney clubs, but that's pretty well it. That doesn't constitute multiple independent significant, i.e. non-trivial sources for the notability of that game. Further, as has been said above, there's more to a sports rivalry than two teams from the same city playing each other, even when they've actually done so. WP:NRIVALRY requires not only general notability, but "additionally must show why the rivalry is important with multiple non-trivial, reliable sources." This article doesn't, because it can't: no derby has yet taken place. If it does, and if it becomes a "rivalry" in the true sense of the word, then there'll be plenty of sources to illustrate why it matters. As of now, there aren't. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just to appease those who aren't satisifed, I've expanded the article and included more notable references that specifically mention the rivalry and it's importance despite not having taken place yet. I think it's time to shut down this deletion debate, as it now completely and utterly satisfies all aspects of WP:GNG/WP:N, WP:NRIVALRY and WP:CBALL. Any contrary viewpoint is just stubbornness, bias and a refusal to see what's in front of them and an attempt to wikilawyer a legitimate article off the website. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - GNG or N: The first argument against the topic is in the nomination, and is that the article fails WP:GNG/WP:N.WP:GNG requires "Reliable Sources" that are ""Independent of the subject" and for there to be "Significant coverage". There are 7 references that fit this description, which is clearly enough to be considered "significant coverage". The article passes WP:GNG without a shadow of a doubt. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - CBALL: The second argument against the topic is that the article fails WP:CBALL. This guideline states that Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. As proven in the WP:GNG the article is notable. The event is certain to take place. As such this article clearly passes WP:CBALL. Macktheknifeau (talk)
- Comment - NRIVALRY: The final argument against the topic is that the article fails WP:NRIVALRY. The only thing that isn't covered by the GNG or CBALL is multiple non-trivial, reliable sources about the rivalry and why it is important. The sources are reliable. There is more than 1 source. This article passes WP:NRIVALRY. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. All three arguments raised have been systemically debunked. As no other arguments have been included, it must be concluded that the article is notable. As such the article must remain. Any other result goes against the very guidelines this site is made from. Macktheknifeau (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of articles are written on upcoming events, and we just update them when they start. Why can't we just keep this for now, and if somehow the derby never takes place, then delete it? Openskye (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 12:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this and also the numerous other non-existant derbies that are in Category:A-League rivalries. Nine derbies for a league with ten teams, its ridiculous. The Australians do actually think that these are derbies, and by Australian terms they probably are. But in footballing terms most of these are insignificant and not real derbies. Adam4267 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Some are derbies (and a rivalry), others are rivalry matches (but not local derbies). It's actually 13 teams overall, and two of the rivalry matches involve defunct teams. If you feel the need AFD the others, but based on WP:N and WP:NRIVALRY most if not all would stay. Macktheknifeau (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment could Macktheknifeau cease endlessly responding, see WP:BLUDGEON.
- Comment: First of all, I don't see why I can't comment on blatantly incorrect viewpoints that ignore all the guidelines that actually govern the site. Secondly, I've made 2 comments in the last 3 days, one of which was a response to someone trying to broaden the deletion debate. Hardly 'bludgeoning'. I've actually been waiting for an admin to lock the debate and cancel the deletion as it's been proven the article should stay. But to appease the unsigned commentator, I shall refrain from further comment of new editors, regardless of how incorrect they are. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Did you read WP:BLUDGEON, that's why you can't comment on every person. At a strectch only one national news network has given a moderate amount of coverage to this. No 2 in Hack's list, you failed to give a response to that. As he points out coverage is not significant or non-notable, just having a lot of refs doesn't mean they are good. It does not meet WP:NRIVALRY and I would bet that just about all of the A-League derbies wouldn't. Adam4267 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: First of all, I don't see why I can't comment on blatantly incorrect viewpoints that ignore all the guidelines that actually govern the site. Secondly, I've made 2 comments in the last 3 days, one of which was a response to someone trying to broaden the deletion debate. Hardly 'bludgeoning'. I've actually been waiting for an admin to lock the debate and cancel the deletion as it's been proven the article should stay. But to appease the unsigned commentator, I shall refrain from further comment of new editors, regardless of how incorrect they are. Macktheknifeau (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete as per WP:CHRYSTAL . not an established rivalry and the event hasn't even occurred. LibStar (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Looking at the references provided in the article there are none which cover the "Sydney Derby" in any kind of depth, they just saw that it will exist. As such, this fails WP:GNG. I think that Macktheknifeau has misunderstood what is meant by "significant coverage" - this refers not only to quantity of sources but the depth to which those sources cover the subject in question. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For me as a visitor who know little about abbreviations like WP:GNG - I clicked on some of them, but did not really bother reading - this article is an absolute nuisance. It says nothing. I has a table, where it says they have never played each other. There are several articles like this on Wikipedia, but this is the first one that told me I can discuss its deletion. You can tell me on the page of the Wanderers entry that they have never played against FC - you don't have to provide a link to confirm this. I indeed think, it would be a very good idea to delete this article about nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.143.50 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — 121.218.143.50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Request from the subject, concerns as to the accuracy and verifiability of the article, and as to whether the subject would meet the inclusion guidelines even if accurate, all add up to a Delete close. Davewild (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cara Saunders[edit]
- Cara Saunders (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 posting a deletion request on behalf of the subject of this article reference OTRS 2012061810009479.
This is my official request to have the article deleted due to the entire article being false. Thank you, Cara Saunders. Tiptoety talk 04:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm... what exactly does that mean? Every statement there is untrue? The references are fraudulent? --BDD (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Cara Saunders was published roughly 4 years ago under false pretenses. Ms. Saunders is indeed a native and resident of the Bahamas, and had a stellar college career from 2002 - 2005. However, any suggestion of her having participated in track and field beyond Hastings College and Gardner-Webb College is completely false. There have never been any articles published on her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crichardson2004 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't like this at all. Why does the lead say "Casey Victoria Samuel" and the article "Cara Saunders"? I'm not clear on what the Junior Olympics is, but this list of results doesn't list anyone under either name. Why is there no mention of her on thenassauguardian.com, nassauguardian.net, or thebahamasweekly.com? The Freeport News have no mention of the cited story on its website. All the web coverage about her appears derived from Wikipedia. The references are vague, without page numbers for books or publication date for the newspaper story. There's nothing that definitely says hoax but cumulatively I'm suspicious. What do other people think? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Colapeninsula that the mismatches in the article are deeply worrying; in addition to this, I can't find any coverage about her online, so it looks like she doesn't pass WP:BIO. I'm not too convinced about the sources in the article either: I couldn't find any mention of the Nassau Guardian piece online, a search of Craton & Saunders (2007) turned up no results, and I could not find any mentions of the Freeport News piece other than on Wikipedia and its mirrors. And finally, even if we were able to verify the sporting achievements in the article, they wouldn't satisfy WP:NTRACK, as they were junior events. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:20, 4 July 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. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nebraska Association of County Officials[edit]
- Nebraska Association of County Officials (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 organization, no evidence of notability, no third party sources, tagged for a year. Prod removed without comment by obvious COI editor. Hairhorn (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per nom - I don't think this one passes WP:N, and it's pretty clear that this article's issues are unlikely to be addressed. Sleddog116 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I just removed a few substantial copyright violations of the organization's website. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see lots of GNews hits and GBooks hits, but I can't see any that would really count as significant coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. This might be explained by the fact they are a lobby group and are quite vocal about giving their opinions. In the absence of any solid secondary sources though, I have to recommend deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be conclusively established. The Bushranger One ping only 23:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gene McVay[edit]
- Gene McVay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple reliable third party sources. In-depth coverage on which to base a biography is lacking: as far as I can tell, one reliable source gives mostly passing mention including where the subject speaks in his capacity as spokesperson but in coverage about something else entirely (arkansasnews.com 1: Pearl Harbor Day, arkansasnews.com 2: Pearl Harbor Day, arkansasnews.com 3...bingo!). The sole local source of non-election coverage doesn't seem to give very in-depth coverage. Furthermore, this subject does not rise to WP:POLITICIAN: the subject's candidature is covered somewhat more in-depth, however the coverage as a whole isn't substantially about the subject (AP 1AP 2) and is best included in relevant prose about the election elsewhere. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This appears to be a local vet who speaks out on political issues, mostly in his position with the American Legion, and who has dabbled in politics. In the 1998 gubernatorial primary, Huckabee got about 90% of the vote, and McVay under 10%. I don't know how McVay did in the 1972 Arkansas Senate election (the article has no source for this assertion and I found nothing to back it up - I tagged it). He doesn't meet any of the special critieria of WP:POLITICIAN, so he is essentially subject to WP:GNG, and I couldn't find enough significant coverage to make him notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete. This appears to be a local vet because of malicious vandalism which removes references and guts the listing. Gene McVay was elected to statewide office five times and serves as a national officer in the largest veterans organization in the United States. Colonel McVay's credentials would be clear if JFHJr aka Bbb23 would stop deleting 90% of the article. I don't mind him promoting Mike Huckabee but I do not appreciate the assault on Gene McVay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by F16TopGun (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The above user was blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. As to the sole nugget of notability in the comment above: elected five times to statewide office? If a reliable source or two could be found about that, the subject's notability probably wouldn't be in question. JFHJr (㊟) 19:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional on comment - Perhaps he meant statewide office in the American Legion? Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This reference appeared in an earlier version of the article, but is not available online: "Guard Colonel in the Lead", AIR FORCE Magazine, October 1995. The title suggests that it might be in-depth coverage. His book at https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=isbn:9781430325109 does not appear to be notable. The customer reviews at Amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Top-Gun-Management-Gene-McVay/product-reviews/1430325100/ref=sr_1_1_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 are not enough to prove notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An earlier version of the article said that he had received the Gallantry Cross (Vietnam). This decoration was awarded in different degrees; it is not clear which degree McVay received. It might be helpful to know what degree of the Gallantry Cross (Vietnam) and what U.S. decorations he received. It seems to me that neither his military nor political careers are enough to establish notabilty. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are there any relevant elections articles to which we could redirect this article? I couldn't find one. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised I couldn't find the two elections McVay was in as separate articles. The only other articles that mention McVay are Mike Huckabee, Electoral history of Mike Huckabee, and Governorship of Mike Huckabee. I would think that anyone typing in Gene McVay would be surprised to be redirected to a Huckabee article, but others may disagree.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO, seems to be a straightforward case of a non-notable person. Robofish (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:BIO Non-notable person. He is also soliciting votes to keep the article on Twitter ChaosEmerald 00:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaosE (talk • contribs)
- Delete - I don't believe that simply running for a political office in itself passes WP:N or WP:BIO. Anyone can run for an office. I agree with comment above, that if he actually has been awarded the Gallantry Cross (Vietnam) then it might make him notable. I know we don't use other WP articles as sources, but as an aside, on the Gallantry Cross article, Mr. McVay is absent on the list of Notable Recipients.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 presented under WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. j⚛e deckertalk 14:34, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jheel Mehta[edit]
- Jheel Mehta (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)
Indian TV serial actress (one TV serial). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – In reliable sources, I found additional coverage which was unsubstantial at best (example). Coverage is lacking for GNG, and it is WP:TOOSOON to say the subject passes WP:NACTOR. JFHJr (㊟) 12:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this child artist doesn't even have any notable role in the only series she appears in.--Adamstraw99 (talk) 05:18, 1 July 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sonarika Bhadoria[edit]
- Sonarika Bhadoria (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)
Indian TV actress who has worked in two TV shows. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 27 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* 11:01, 4 July 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, Davewild (talk) 18:23, 4 July 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). The nominator withdrew their nomination. Furthermore, no other !votes (other than the nomination) to delete were posted. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 19:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
L'Observatoire International[edit]
- L'Observatoire International (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 notability. References are self-sourced (other than a reference which does not have anything directly to do with this company.) JoelWhy? talk 16:44, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 21 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentNomination withdrawn, please do not delete. JoelWhy?(talk) 11:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Confused, why the all of a sudden change of heart, after doubly nominating this article? The article is just a list of inline links. I do not see anything pointing to any criteria for inclusion in the current state of the article. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 11:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally stumbled upon the page after nominating the Hervé Descottes page (i.e. guy who established this firm) for deletion as not being notable. Author then improved the page and demonstrated that he is, in fact, notable. Based on that information, I've seen enough that I believe the page deserves to remain. It's a mess in its current state, but I think it could be fixed. I don't have particularly strong feeling about keeping the page or anything, but since I now believe it's notable, I didn't want to be responsible for having it deleted, either. JoelWhy?(talk) 12:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ? Confused, why the all of a sudden change of heart, after doubly nominating this article? The article is just a list of inline links. I do not see anything pointing to any criteria for inclusion in the current state of the article. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 11:59, 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 redirect to Sixx:A.M.. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 16:46, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accidents Can Happen (song)[edit]
- Accidents Can Happen (song) (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 sources, appears non-notable fails WP:SONG JayJayTalk to me 01:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't make the mistake I made and assume it was the Elvis Costello song before reading the article. That one is Accidents Will Happen, and is far more notable than this one. DarkAudit (talk) 04:05, 20 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
_ Keep: I would have thought that this is a reasonably well known song. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops sorry I think I did make the mistake and confused this with a more well known song - I do not think that the reference to this song called "Accidents can happen" (or what ever it is called) is by a very well known group. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sixx:A.M.. I can't find any sources that cover it in detail, but it might be a useful redirect. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a very reasonably policy, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:37, 4 July 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fern Communications Ltd[edit]
- Fern Communications Ltd (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)
Borderline promotional but I've declined the G11 in lieu of an AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the article is definitely promotional. Its creator has only contributed to this article (usually a red flag), and it seems clear after searching that the author is personally connected to the enterprise. Anyway, notability is unproven: we have a slew of press releases/promotional pieces (a blog post from an oil industry magazine? unvarnished promotion on a commercial site?), but no in-depth independent coverage. - Biruitorul Talk 01:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: SPA is no red flag by its own and some of the given refs establish notability.-- Dewritech (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Too much notability and no need for an opinionated fact to believe it was promotional, just facts and truth on how different mannered users use it.--GoShow (...............) 03:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments:
- On Notability The primary reason that the company is "notable" is not because it is a big oil and gas service company that 'exists' and employs thousands. It is that the company's technology - the FRX-1 radio repeater - is truly innovative and unique. It is the only company in the world that produces a radio repeater that is a) ATEX-approved - meaning that it meets the European standard and is certified for use in a potentially explosive environment in an enclosed space. And b) is portable so it is possible for emergency/rescue workers or offshore workers to take with them, wherever the work or rescue operation is required.
The reason that the radio repeater technology has not been taken up by large corporations in the radio or telecommunications industries is that it is not a viable candidate for mass production.
All of the articles about use of the system in rail tunnels, sky scrapers, offshore or subsea tunnels demonstrate notability: the system made it possible for users to experience unbroken radio signals for the first time ever.
-On being 'Promotional'
The coverage in the trade press is not just in "trade blog posts." If the reference here is to www.rigzone.com or www.oilonline.com, they are established news portals that are read on a regular basis by those working in the oil and gas industry globally. They are not "blogs" written by individuals that simply paste every item of oil and gas news into a webpage.
More importantly, the articles listed appeared in respected journals in the oil and gas industry that publish technical articles about technological innovations that improve safety standards (including communications) and others. For example, the Journal of Petroleum Technology is produced by the Society of Petroleum Engineers, an international organization dedicated to engineering and innovations of interest to those in the oil and gas industry. In addition, Offshore magazine is very respected and features news of innovations, especially those that improve safety, efficiency and production.
Non-trade media coverage: There are articles about the company in non-trade regional newspapers and national business press, such as the Luton & Herald Post (UK), Business Weekly (Cambridge -UK), Lowestoft Journal (UK).
The reason there are not more in national newspapers or magazines is because the technology - a system that enhances radio communications for use with two=way radios - was considered by the company to be of greater interest to those who use the technology and work in emergency services and the oil and gas industry, than to mainstream newspaper readers.
This does not mean, however, that the company and its contribution to developing meaningful technology is not notable and does not deserve to be shared with readers of Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration. User:sharonroe (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's customary and desirable to declare a conflict of interest if you have a personal or professional involvement with the subject matter. There is reason to believe that you do.
- The {{Connected contributor}} template can be used on article talk pages, in connection with any declaration made.
- A previous account has been blocked, cf. Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2012 April 26#Review of Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fern Communications Ltd
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 01:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Too much notability and no need for an opinionated fact to believe it was promotional, just facts and truth on how different mannered users use it.--GoShow (...............) 03:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- You are only allowed to "vote" once, so I have struck the one directly above. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG. Examples: [38], [39]. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:14, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wannarot Sonthichai[edit]
- Wannarot Sonthichai (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 and no reasonable assertion of notability. External refs point to a Twitter account, own website, facebook account and own a dead-link. In line refs merely demonstrate that she has been used in adverts. Velella Velella Talk 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: English-language sources proving hard to find. Searching in Thai turns up mostly celebrity gossip news columns; most in-depth sources would be offline but this interview is scanned from ภาพยนตร์บันเทิง, a major entertainment magazine. Article badly needs to be cleaned up though. (The untranslated table indicates starring roles in nine free-to-air national TV soap operas.) --Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Comment While it appears that WP:ENT is met, sourcing will require lots of help from from Thai-reading Wikipedans. By the way... we'll also need conversion of air dates to Julian calendar. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:40, 14 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) 00:15, 20 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 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 no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Die My Darling[edit]
- Die My Darling (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 band that seems to not pass the notability requirements at WP:NBAND. This was nominated for deletion six years ago, and voted to keep, but upon reviewing the AFD from the time, none of the "Keep" votes actually cited any valid argument using Wikipedia policy. Upon investigating the band, I am unable to find a single reliable source discussing the band. The band's only claim of notability at all is that one of their songs appeared in a video game, Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. However, WP:NBAND states that if the only criteria that a band meets is number 10 (which is the case here), then that is generally not enough to support the band having its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately even criteria 10 is still subject to debate as their single-track on a GAME (which unlike TV or Movies, are not widely recognized as cultural sources for songs) is still one of multiple songs included and not particularly distinguished. In fact, I dare to say that many of the bands on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines#Soundtrack are somewhat shady. This is probably the shadiest one. I fail to see general notability or anything in NBAND that would support this article. It is, thus, unencyclopedic. -- Loukinho (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 14 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) 00:14, 20 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 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 no consensus. There are very few comments here, despite 2 relists to attempt to get more participation. I am therefore closing as no consensus, with no prejudice to an earlier nomination than would be normal. Davewild (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khadija Mushtaq[edit]
- Khadija Mushtaq (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 speedy-able because there is a weak claim of significance. Can't find any independent sources, all I can find are database entries. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:36, 13 June 2012 (UT
I will add source by Tomorrow, Significance because of public personality, article will be expanded also.
- Keep. I found enough in this citation [40] to indicate notability to me. I confirmed that she received the Yale Educator Award in 2009 and the "Tamgha-e-Imtiaz" from the Persident of Pakistan -- that was sufficient for me, but there are multiple other awards cited that could be confirmed with more effort than I felt was required. Ubelowme (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 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) 00:15, 20 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:07, 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. No evidence of notability presented under the general notability guideline (WP:GNG) or any relevant SNG. j⚛e deckertalk 14:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan Wright Jr[edit]
- Nathan Wright Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Upon reading his article I can't really see how he is notable, and I suspect that Wright himself (or someone close to him) wrote his article. The external links used as references are smoke and mirrors because they don't establish his notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 17:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This looks like a vanity piece. The article creator made several edits in creating this article in 2009 and has not made any edits before or since. There is a lack of reliable, verifiable sources indicating that the article passes WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further thoughts: From the article, it appears he was a starter in a grand total of two college football games. While college football players at FBS schools can be notable without playing pro ball, there needs to be substantial, non-trivial coverage in mainstream media sources for a college athletic career to support a notability finding. Here, there is no such coverage that has been presented or found. As Dirtlawyer noted, he also does not fall within WP:ACADEMIC. And the sourcing to his employer's web site is not independent and therefore cannot be used to support a finding of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost the entire article is unsourced BLP as well. I've removed some of the most egregious. Hard to believe something this poor survived on Wikipedia for three years. Cbl62 (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the specific notability guidelines for high school and college athletes per WP:NSPORTS and university instructors and administrators per WP:ACADEMIC, and I believe also fails to satisfy the general notability criteria per WP:GNG. Particularly, the article lacks reliable, independent sources that provide substantial in-depth coverage of the subject . . . and, yes, as Cbl said above, it does appear to be a vanity piece with probable conflict of interest issues. The article is also odd in that it begins with a recitation of the notability of the subject's father, who was an NFL player. Other editors should note that the similarity of the name of the subject's father (born 1947) and that of an apparently unrelated black minister and civil rights leader (1923–2005), which may have contributed to a conflation of the three in previous quick Google search evaluations of the subject's notability. The other two are probably notable; the subject is not. There is also a 19th Century American mayor (1785–1858), and an 18th Century English judge (1654–1721) of nearly identical name. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to agree--This looks like "Hey I have a Wikipedia article about myself!" and while there may (or may not) indeed be some notability here, it is lost in what seems to be self-promotion. Barring a major re-write, I think this particular article is better off removed. If anyone wants to userfy, that would be okay with me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 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. Wifione Message 18:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Clayborne Family[edit]
- The Clayborne Family (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 sources; also appear not very notible Mdann52 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note current discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacky Jasper. Dru of Id (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources are not sufficient to pass our music notability guidelines. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:28, 22 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, KTC (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Salimfadhley - did not chart, no sources, does not meet notability guidelines. Theopolisme TALK 21:26, 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 keep. Consensus is that this is a notable topic, with sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Natural Resources Use in Kasulu[edit]
- Natural Resources Use in Kasulu (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)
Personal essay, synthesis. All of the author's contributions to Wikipedia have been essays about poverty in Tanzania. More appropriate places for such content would be scientific papers, newspaper reader comments pages, or a personal blog. Delete. JIP | Talk 19:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Very blatant personal essay and/or WP:NOR. Specs112 t c 20:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for original research or essays; this would belong more properly in some sort of peer-reviewed journal or, as suggested above, various other fora for original thought. No reliable sources, no notability. Ubelowme (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Move to Natural resources use in Kasulu, or perhaps Natural resources use in Tanzania, with the section on Kasulu made into a subsection.
- "Natural resource use" gets a zillion hits, as the primary descriptor of a country by Category:Development scholars-:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). There are no other articles on WP with this focus, and no category by that name. By comparison, there are articles on minute details of Category:Microeconomics: Sonnenschein–Mantel–Debreu theorem, Surface Freight Forwarder Deregulation Act of 1986. Well documented start to a long overdue series of articles, one per country-not the first time the newbies have come and shown the experts what needs to be done. Anarchangel (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 20 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Meets WP: GNG. This article has many citations from reliable sources. How is this original research? Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and move per Anarchangel. See the AFD for this user's other article. He needs to spend some serious quality time with WP:MOS and WP:TONE, but there's encyclopedic content hiding behind the essay format. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The topic passes WP:GNG:
- Maganga F. P, Butterworth J. and Moriarty (2001): Domestic Water Supply, Competition for Water Resources and IWRM in Tanzania: A Review and discussion Paper, Proceedings of the Second WARFSA/Waternet Symponsium, Cape town, pp. 169 – 78.
- Kauzeni A.S, Kikula I. S, Mohamed S.A & Lyimo J. G (December 1993), IIED Environmental Planning Issues No. 3 IRA Research Paper No. 35: Land Use Planning and Resource Assessment in Tanzania: A Case Study.
- Tenga, R. (1992): Pastoral Land Rights in Tanzania: A Review. Drylands Programme: Pastoral Land Tenure Series. IIED, London. 24 pp.
- James, R.W. and Fimbo, G.M. (1973): Customary Land Law of Tanzania: A Sourcebook, Nairobi, EALB.
- World Bank (1992): Empowering Villages to Manage their Natural Resources: Rural Land Policy in Tanzania; A World Bank White Cover Paper; 33 pp.
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 20:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Kasulu and Tanzania; doesn't merit its own article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Northamerica1000.Tamsier (talk) 14:38, 4 July 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.