Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 13
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted by Fastily (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement). Pontificalibus (talk) 08:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pharmacy Council of India[edit]
- Pharmacy Council of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Partial copyright violation from http://pci.nic.in/GeneralInformation/AboutPCI/Introduction.aspx
Language and formatting of the page seems to suggest the rest of the material (that hasn't been copied from this url) has been copy-pasted from somewhere else. Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Duplication detector report--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm sorry Tani12 but there are simply not enough independent sources right now that show that he's been taken note of. This may change in the future but right now the consensus is that he shouldn't have an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DJ King SamS[edit]
- DJ King SamS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
page creator removed PROD, concern was lack of reliable sources concerning subject's notability CanuckMy page89 (talk), 22:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 23:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all the citations are to DJ King SamS's official site, other Wikipedia articles, a press release, a press kit, with no cites to reliable sources. A search does not come up with anything usable to substantiate notability. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete This is an encyclopedia, thus it has to feature all small and big things alike. DJ King Sams might not be a famous artist but his name was mentioned even before in English and French Wikipedia, proving his existence. You need to consider to let the article be. There are several other artist here who have similar external links to support them, so why is this article being side lined? I request experienced editors like you all to make suitable changes in the article rather than deleting it (Tani12 (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)) — Tani12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - Simply verifying he exists is insufficient grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia. He needs to either meet general notability or specific criteria for musicians. -- Whpq (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete promotion, not notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have added a few external links of other artist where a mention of DJ King Sams is made. Is this not enough to stop this discussion?(Tani12 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Why don't one of you all try and edit this page to save it or send me clear suggestions for change(Tani12 (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Reply - Have you read my comment above? The two guidelines mentioned identify what criteria needs to be met in order for a subject to be included in Wikipedia. Is there coverage about him in newspapers or magazines? I cannot find significant coverage and none has been brought forward. If you are ware of such coverage then please present it. Some minor mentions and a discography on Allmusic falls well short of the coverage that is needed to meet the inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete: Here are a few links please let me know if this will be sufficient to prove the notability of DJ King Sams
http://www.booska-p.com/new-one-life-dj-king-sams-feat-nessbeal-n2218.html http://www.allmusic.com/artist/dj-king-sams-p1168570 (Tani12 (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Reply - No these are not. A very short piece from a site which may or may not be a reliable source and an Allmusic entry with no biographical information is not sufficient. -- Whpq (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Calabe1992 03:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Secrecy (book)[edit]
- Secrecy (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only source is from Random House (the publisher). No other statements of notability. Calabe1992 21:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Non-trivial review [1] and [2] and probably more if I keep looking. For what it's worth I've found that most novels by authors from notable publishing houses get enough reviews somewhere that the're near impossible to prove non-notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Belva Plain is a best-selling, major American author. It may be difficult to argue that one of her novels is nonnotable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has independent coverage, per links above/in article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In addition to the above, I'll also note that it has appeared on the NY Times bestseller list in hardcover, and paperback editions. -- Whpq (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tales of Amalthea[edit]
- Tales of Amalthea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Website that does not, at this point, pass Wikipedia:Notability (web)/Wikipedia:Notability.
A websearch has not turned up any indication that this site is of historical significance as required, I found no reliable sources at all covering it in detail.
The one current indication of significance is that Terryl Whitlatch is contributing to it. Since notability is not inherited, this is not enough. Even though I like the name. Amalthea 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The keyword for me is "not officially put together yet." As we known, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 21:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—And even when it is put together, it will need coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources in order to meet the WP:GNG. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 23:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article doesn't even clearly state what the article's subject is. "Online project"? At first I was guessing it's a video game of some sort or a collaborative book or a d20 system, but the website indicates that it's simply a "art instruction/creature design course", which the article doesn't really convey at all. The lack of reliable sources means that this article fails WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 04:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This page has few enough Google hits that it's possible to check them all and state that there are no independent references indexed by Google. With this sort of internet-based project it would be surprising to find references in print publications. So almost certainly non-notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete per others I suppose, although it may needs resurrecting later when references appear. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm sorry but the keep arguments here just don't cut it. Per longstanding consensus, blogs are not reliable sources for establishing notability. Also, one keep !voter made a mention of "numerous sources" but failed to show us any. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gerry O'Neill[edit]
- Gerry O'Neill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable former wrestler/web wrestling commentator. All but one reference are to the subject's own website. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject is notable for being the only pro wrestler to hail from Omagh, N.Ireland. Also your reasons for deletion are incorrect, as there is more than one reference to a website other than the subjects site. And the "web commentator" reference is also incorrect as the subjects show aired on several radio stations. DannoMcMahono (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. It seems like there's not enough context given in the article. I don't get it, he comes from Ireland, he hosts a radio show in Florida, yet he lives in Ontario, Canada? What's the actual story here? What is he primarily known for, wrestling or radio? What's the evidence? Why is he living in Ontario if he hosts a show in Florida? —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 21:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find any reliable sources to establish notability. LeSnail (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I dispute the fact that a Percy Pringle's Blog is not a reliable source. Being that he was employed by WWE from 1990–2002 and references the subject's radio show and website as "respected". Please indicate what additional proof you require otherwise this looks like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.49.6 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources LeSnail (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The above IP keep vote is from a likely sockpuppet of User:DannoMcMahono who has previously voted in this discussion. LeSnail (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have a reliable source for this accusation LeSnail? Or is this just your personal speculation? Regardless, this does not address the question posed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.49.6 (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no refs outside of Kokosports. Can't find anything reliable to tie him to even being a wrestler. My favourite, there is only one mention of "Garry B.Ware" on the web and that is on an archive of a geocities site. Needs more than just refs to his radio show. Bgwhite (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found numerous references with just a preliminary search. Craicen —Preceding undated comment added 18:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Reply - Could you share these references with us because I found none. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unwin Avenue[edit]
- Unwin Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A minor industrial street in the Portlands of Toronto with some abandoned buildings lining it. The places along the street may be notable, but the road itself is a local street. Delete as insignificant and failing WP:GNG (all provided references make trivial or passing mention of Unwin) ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a coutesy satellite view of this little street in a warehouse/port district.[3] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I encourage this nomination to cite an actual policy, otherwise this looks like an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Geo Swan (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Could you please offer specific passasges you feel apply here? Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
- ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
- These are probably the most applicable. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not believe I did rely on original research at any point in this article.
- Sorry, and how do you think this passage applies to this discussion? Are you suggesting this article lapses from some policy? If so I request you be specific as to which policy triggers your concern, and to how you think it violates that policy. Geo Swan (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're relying on articles you've admitted you haven't read to add pointless information to the article. Original research. Several of the sources you've added are completely trivial mentions of the street or properties along the street, which afford no notability; non significant coverage. The murder victim is WP:NOTNEWS.
- Just because you've amassed every internet mention of Unwin Street doesn't qualify it for an article; it is not presumed. The last sentence applies to the highest degree: "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not, perhaps the most likely violation being Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
- If you don't recognize these guidelines and policies, then you need to sit down and read the rules a bit before continuing to create articles on minor insignificant streets. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT to your characterization that I added "pointless information", no offense but this seems to me to be a further instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
WRT WP:Original research -- please be specific as to which passages in the article you think lapse from OR and which passages of OR you think they lapse from. As Unscintillating pointed out earlier, passages that lapse from OR is not a policy based justification for deletion. It would be an editorial concern, that should be resolved through the normal process of editing and talk page discussion.
You've pointed out that Hearn Generating Station already has an article. But the soccer pitches don't. Does the soccer pitch merit coverage on the wikipedia? Probably. They took months to construct, were built to a high enough standard for a world tournament to be held there, and will be near enough to the atheletes' villages for soccer players to use during the Pan American games. However, as the Pan Am games haven't been held yet, and that world tournament was not of one of the world class leagues we consider notable, the pitches don't merit an individual article. In such cases the Unwin article is a good place for some coverage. Amateur sports facilities in Toronto would be another candidate.
As I mentioned earlier the sentence that mentions the murder victim offers the context to the sentence that describes the monument.
- I dispute I used every internet mention of Unwin Street. I used references that enabled the addition of information that I thought was encyclopedic. The vast bulk of internet hits I did not use.
You and I seem to have vastly different interpretations of what is or isn't "an indisciminate collection of information". As I believe you have already acknowledged Unwin Avenue is heaviliy contaminated due to the use of containminated landfill and the 19th century practice dumping effluent right into the Ashbridges Bay march. If and when I come across an RS that says that, it can go into the article. Stating it now would sail to close to a lapse from OR. But using references that each have an environmental relation to the roadway.
Here on the wikipedia we use non-standard interpretations of "notable". For non-wikipedians notable is usually a synonym for "remarkable" -- meaning worthy of mention. There are documentable facts that are worthy of mention which don't rise to the level of making a topic "notable" using the wikipedia interpretation that the topic would be worthy of its own wikipedia article. I don't think anyone needs to apologize for adding information that they think is worthy of mention thus "notable" using the real world interpretation of notable, if they think the notability of the article they are adding it to has already been established.
As I wrote above, roads that simply go from A to B, for which there are no references that say anything beyond that they go from A to B, or had routine maintenance, routine traffic accidents, etc., won't merit individual articles. I have argued that Unwin Avenue is one of the minority of roadways that has RS that back up more than the routine "goes from A to B" and has had routine maintenance.
One of the other respondents here asserted that Unwin Avenue is not really different from a lot of industrial roads. And I would suggest that any industrial road that has sufficient, significant RS to back up how it differs from mundane routine roads does merit an individual article.
- Unwin Avenue has documented environmental concerns;
- Unwin Avenue has merited coverage in many guides to strollers, tourists and bicyclists -- as I pointed already one of those guides devoted over a page to Unwin Avenue;
- Unwin Avenue has facilities on it that merit coverage which have not risen to the level of being notable enough for their own articles;
- Unwin Avenue is in the first stage of a redevelopment that will remove the aging industrial buildings, and see much of it turned into parkland and amateur sports facilities.
- But you haven't even read some of the things you've found, so you are synthesizing. You've admitted this. The five points above apply to The Portlands in general, not specifically Unwin Avenue. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (most of which ARE NOT notable) has walking tour; again, these tours don't afford notability upon the street, but rather upon the various landmarks that line the street. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that there are facilities on the street that aren't notable makes it just like every other urban street on the planet. My street has facilities on it that don't merit an individual article, but that doesn't make my street notable (how could it?). The redevelopment is red herring again, as that applies to The Portlands in general. You're concept of what makes roads notable would literally allow for articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America (all of which have numerous walking tours and guides). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that I acknowledged lapsing from SYNTH, or that I have in fact lapsed from SYNTH. I request specificity.
WRT WP:Wikipedia is not a directory -- it lists 8 numbered types of directory, like "lists of aphorisms", "geneologies", "release notes" and "release notes". I don't see how this article is remotely close to the potential problems WP:Wikipedia is not a directory warns against.
Could you please make a greater effort to avoid straw arguments? Informal walking tours do not make a street wiki-notable ™, and I never asserted it did. When PUBLISHED walking tours, and similar guides, describe a roadway in some detail, then I do assert that PUBLISHED source does help establish wiki-notability. When the guide merely says "Proceed a further 400 meters west along Fubar Street to get from site of interest A to site of interest B. But please don't mischaracterize the sources I used. The Psychogeographic Stroll devotes over a page to Unwin Avenue.
Please make a greater effort to distinguish what is remarkable, notable, worthy of mention, using the real world interpretation of these terms from the non-standard interpretation of notability that merits an individual article. WP:BLP1E guides those who work on biographies of living persons to not create an article for individuals who is only notable for one thing. Rather that policy recommends that the remarkable thing about them should be covered in a broader, related article. And, I suggest, the same principle applies here. That soccer pitch is not notable in the wikipedia sense to merit its own article. But it is remarkable enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia. I feel my position is being seriously mischaracterized by your conflation of the different kinds of notability.
When a reference talks about environmental concerns on the Port Lands, in general, the main place that reference should be used to talk about environmental concerns is the article on the Port Lands. But when a reference talks about specific environmental concerns that apply to Unwin Avenue alone, and don't apply to the Port Lands, in general, I suggest this builds the wiki-notability of Unwin Avenue. Since I have used references that do apply specifically to Unwin Avenue please stop asserting that these references are better placed in the Port Lands article. The exact same principle should apply to references that specifically address redevelpment of Unwin Avenue.
Finally, your characterization of my arguments as advocating "...articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America..." -- that is an irresponsible wild exagerration. I do support an open-ness to articles on roadways where there are sufficient WP:RS to meet our standards -- regardless of the roadways' lengths. I can't say for sure what roadways you support individual articles for, but from everything I have seen you write, here and elsewhere, you seem to support articles only on highways and some arterial roads, allowing no exceptions. In fact, you have written as if that was already encoded in policy, or guideline. I have asked you to cite where your position comes from. And it seems to me you have not been able to cite a specific policy or guideline that bars the occasional exceptional roadway that is neither a highway or major arterial road from meriting an individual roadway, when there are otherwise sufficient RS to establish its wiki-notability. Maybe this is not your position? Would it be possible for you to be clear on what your position actually is? If you can agree to an article on the occasional, exceptional roadway that is neighter a highway or arterial road, when there are sufficient, significant RS, but you just don't agree that Unwin Avenue has sufficient RS, I would appreciate you clarifying that. In that case I would appreciate you clarifying what kind of RS you would require to accept that a roadway that was neither a highway or major arterial road merited an individual article. Geo Swan (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing number eight: "[Wikipedia is not] A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[3] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight."
- I was talking about published walking tours as well. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (including several very minor streets in that guide alone) is part of some tour of historical buildings and landmarks. This does not make the street notable. That you think this is the appropriate place to shoehorn details about places that you've deemed notable (yet admit aren't worthy of an article) doesn't make it so... in fact, this borders on WP:ILIKEIT, the opposite of what you have accused me of numerous times. The broader article in this case is the Port Lands article.
- "That soccer pitch is not notable in the wikipedia sense to merit its own article. But it is remarkable enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia."
- "When a reference talks about environmental concerns on the Port Lands, in general, the main place that reference should be used to talk about environmental concerns is the article on the Port Lands. But when a reference talks about specific environmental concerns that apply to Unwin Avenue alone, and don't apply to the Port Lands, in general, I suggest this builds the wiki-notability of Unwin Avenue." - What do the environmental effects of runoff from a snow disposal facility in the Port Lands have to do with the street network in the Port Lands? You are synthesizing the connection because the facility is on Unwin, but it has zero relevance to the road.
- My position is that a bunch of sources (at least one of which you haven't read anything more than the title of, and thus should not be using in the article) is one half of a unique article. Significance is the other half, and this street has next to no significance (its use as a movie set is possibly the only exceptional event). Published walking tours are common place and should not be used as an indication that a street is notable (but rather often that the buildings and landmarks are). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that I acknowledged lapsing from SYNTH, or that I have in fact lapsed from SYNTH. I request specificity.
- But you haven't even read some of the things you've found, so you are synthesizing. You've admitted this. The five points above apply to The Portlands in general, not specifically Unwin Avenue. Almost every street in downtown Toronto (most of which ARE NOT notable) has walking tour; again, these tours don't afford notability upon the street, but rather upon the various landmarks that line the street. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory. The fact that there are facilities on the street that aren't notable makes it just like every other urban street on the planet. My street has facilities on it that don't merit an individual article, but that doesn't make my street notable (how could it?). The redevelopment is red herring again, as that applies to The Portlands in general. You're concept of what makes roads notable would literally allow for articles on every 300 metre long side street in every major city in North America (all of which have numerous walking tours and guides). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 20:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT to your characterization that I added "pointless information", no offense but this seems to me to be a further instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
- Delete Completely unremarkable street. Not historical. Not a major thoroughfare. Delete entirely and do not redirect. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible for you to refer to wikipedia policy or established convention in your comments? Even if, for the sake of argument, the conclusion of this discussion were for deletion, why, pray tell, would you preclude redirection? It has been a standard practice for roadways not considered sufficiently remarkable for their own articles. [4] Geo Swan (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I agree. Redirect to Port Lands. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep -- Roadways that go from point A to point B, and don't have any references that say anything notable about them don't merit individual articles. They can be covered in articles like List of east–west roads in Toronto. But when there are references that do say something notable about the streets, other than simply listing their terminii, then, I suggest, those articles should not be nominated for deletion. Unwin Avenue had a natural history drafted about it. Unwin Avenue has more than a page of commentary in one guide to pedestrians, and shorter mentions in several others. Geo Swan (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don Peuramaki (1988). "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s".
- Shawn Micallef (2011). Stroll: Psychogeographic Walking Tours of Toronto. Coach House Books. pp. 289–290. ISBN 9781770562615. Retrieved 2012-03-13.
- A reference does not make an independent article (content does). Most of the roads at the lists have several sources as well as a paragraph or two of text. This doesn't even meet the criteria for inclusion in those lists because this is not a major thoroughfare in any respect. The first source you have provided is two pages; likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library (I use a similar source on Vale of Avoca). I sincerely doubt this text describes the road in any detail, but in any event the fact that you can't fill in any more details in the ref tells me that you do not have access to it. The second reference makes casual mention of Unwin, as it prepares to describe the actually significant Hearn Generating Station and other monuments of an industrial city gone-by. These monuments, as I've said, may be notable in their own right, but they afford zero notability upon the street that they line.
- If there was something of note here, I'd say merge it into List of roads in Toronto, but it doesn't even warrant inclusion there. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct. I do not have access to the natural history -- today. I am mystified why you do not recognize that a two page guide to the Natural History of this particular street shows an author felt that topic was remarkable enough to publish. I suggest that if the content of this guide was instead a two page chapter on Unwin Avenue, in a book on the Natural History of all streets near Toronto's waterfornt there wouldn't be any question that it would confer notability.
The Stroll reference does devote a page to Unwin Avenue. As do several other guides to tourists and strollers. You argue that it is really the monuments on the avenue that are notable. If the authors of these guides agreed with you they would mention Unwin Avenue in a different manner. Have you ever taken a pedestrian tour? I've included references to several novels that have scenes set on Unwin Avenue. While I must admit they aren't that exagerrated, I looked past the Gothic impression they felt when they drafted those passages. Cherry Street between Unwin and the Keating Channel was the site of the first infestation of termites in Toronto. That is worth remarking on. The snow dump site on Unwin Avenue has had environmental consequences, as per the reference I added to the Civil Engineering Journal. Geo Swan (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a good indication of notability when you haven't read it, for all you know it doesn't cover the street itself in any detail. All these things do not make Unwin street notable, they are a collection of events that took place at places along the street. There are passing mentions of several hundred minor streets in Toronto in the books on the heritage and walking tours (both of which I've read as well as hundreds of plaques and boards scattered about the city). This street is simply not in of itself important at all, nor is it a major road, nor does the city give it any significance in their street classification system. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've read lots of books on Toronto's streets, gone on walking tours, read historic plaques? Why that's great! That makes you well prepared to consider writing articles about some of them! You realize that one of the reasons readers consult encyclopedia is so they can find in one spot all the information you found by reading those books, going on those walking tours, and reading those historic plaques.
You speculate that the document entitled "Unwin Avenue: Cherry Beach to Leslie Street : a natural history of the area in the 1980s" doesn't cover the street itself in any detail. You speculated that the document is: "likely a historical manuscript compiled by a historian at the local library". You realize that "natural history" is not the study of history? It is an old-fashioned term for the study of plants and animals in the natural environment. Since it was written in 1988, and its title says it is about the 1980s, Peuramaki is writing about the current state.
OK, what are you going to acknowledge is a level of detail you regard as sufficient. I asked asked you if the information in this standalone document was instead a chapter of a book on the natural history of waterfront streets in Toronto you would acknowledgeit as a meaningful reference.
This is the shortest document I have seen that was turned up by google books. Without reading it I am confident the document is not patent nonsense. I am confident that google wouldn't have included it in their index if it weren't a serious document. The greenbelt that borders Unwin Avenue has been present for forty years or more. I think i came across some maps that showed the greenbelt had been part of the plan for the Portlands way back when the Ashbridges Bay marsh was filled in at the turn of the 1900s to form the portlands. So even if Peuramaki was a terrible writer, and not a particularly good naturalist, I think it would hard to screw up the document so it wasn't meaningful.
I don't know if I will have a chance to do so before the {{afd}} runs its course, but I am going to go to the dead tree library and look for a dead tree copy of this document. Geo Swan (talk) 09:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It makes me well prepared to know what in this built city is noteworthy. You haven't read the article, don't use it in the article, especially simply to write "In 1988, the author released this". Until you read it, it should not go in the article. For all you know, it merely covers the plant life in the lower Portlands, and the natural environment along the artificial lake shore. I say it is probably a local historian file because of its length. Any report or actual study would be far far longer. The length is irrelevant here; its the fact that you haven't read it and so you're entirely speculating on what it may or may not contain. Anyways, the Queen/Saulter library at Broadview is probably your best bet. Look for big filing cabinets labelled as the Local History Files.
- Right now, I've acknowledged that the level of detail is going overboard. I'm sure a linguistics expert knows the term here, but the way you use a source to describe that source in the article is very indirect. An inappropriate tone I suppose? Again, this falls on Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Also, seeing as the portlands was constructed as an industrial harbour in the early 1900s, I doubt there was ever a greenbelt plan. Those things came into being in the 1980s, which would tie in to the deindustrialization. South of Unwin near Leslie has always been unbuilt because its unstable garbage (literally!) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've read lots of books on Toronto's streets, gone on walking tours, read historic plaques? Why that's great! That makes you well prepared to consider writing articles about some of them! You realize that one of the reasons readers consult encyclopedia is so they can find in one spot all the information you found by reading those books, going on those walking tours, and reading those historic plaques.
- You are correct. I do not have access to the natural history -- today. I am mystified why you do not recognize that a two page guide to the Natural History of this particular street shows an author felt that topic was remarkable enough to publish. I suggest that if the content of this guide was instead a two page chapter on Unwin Avenue, in a book on the Natural History of all streets near Toronto's waterfornt there wouldn't be any question that it would confer notability.
- Delete - Not notable at all. Dough4872 00:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't see anything remarkable about this short street. Take a look on Google Street View at this street. It is a grimy industrial street, the kind you find in every city, down by the railroad tracks or along the waterfront. One wonders if the contributor intended the article as a memorial to the woman who was murdered there. Sadly, murders are not particularly notable either. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. On a substantial article I'd see no issue with a brief mention that "The body of foo, the xxth murder of 20xx, was found on the street. A memorial was subsequently erected at 450 Unwin.[ref]"... but in this context it falls on the line of WP:NOTNEWS. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You call Unwin a "a grimy industrial street, the kind you find in every city". I believe you are making two serious mistakes. First the article has six environmentally related references, to five different environmentally related topics. I suggest any of those "grimy industrial streets" where someone can find references to environmental concerns is likely ot merit coverage.
Second, I believe you are simply incorrect to conflate Unwin Avenue to those indistinguishable "grimy industrial streets". The Toronto Islands, the Leslie Street spit, -- and the Portlands, are part of an important flyway as migrating birds cross Lake Ontario. There is an environmentally significant greenbelt between Unwin Avenue and the shore.
- Murders may not be notable in the United States. Happily Toronto has a significantly lower murder rate than similar size American cities. This particular murder triggered significant public attention. The Toronto Star managed a trust fund when its readers were upset that the young woman's family could not afford to travel to Toronto, or to pay for a funeral. The monument I mentioned was valued at $30,000. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I mentioned her murder as a prelude to explaining the location of the monument. Geo Swan (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTNEWS still applies to Canada. Almost all murder victims lack articles. The main exceptions are child abductions or missing persons that show up weeks later (such as Miriam who was found last week in Hoggs Hollow). As for the environmental concerns, most of these regard the industrial lands throughout the Portlands, and such details are better confined to that neighbourhood article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I think you are advancing straw arguments. We are not discussing articles named the murder of Leanne Freeman, or the Leanne Freeman monument on Unwin Avenue. Rather we are discussing an article on Unwin Avenue that currently devotes two dozen words or less to a monument on that roadway.
Your suggestion that the environmental concerns were shared with the rest of the portlands would hold merit -- if none of the concerns were specific to Unwin Avenue. Geo Swan (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I think you are advancing straw arguments. We are not discussing articles named the murder of Leanne Freeman, or the Leanne Freeman monument on Unwin Avenue. Rather we are discussing an article on Unwin Avenue that currently devotes two dozen words or less to a monument on that roadway.
- WP:NOTNEWS still applies to Canada. Almost all murder victims lack articles. The main exceptions are child abductions or missing persons that show up weeks later (such as Miriam who was found last week in Hoggs Hollow). As for the environmental concerns, most of these regard the industrial lands throughout the Portlands, and such details are better confined to that neighbourhood article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a verbal road atlas: we only cover the roads and streets that are of above-average significance. Wikipedia is not a street directory, and some of the arguments presented here (e.g. Geo Swan's comments) would result in a street directory if carried as far as possible. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This minor industrial street links some noteworthy sites and has some name recognition in Toronto for being both a link to recreational sites along the waterfront and for its distinct atmosphere of industry, but is not noteworthy enough to merit inclusion as a separate article at this time. The article fails to make it clear or even possible that Unwin Avenue is significant in terms of factors such as history, geography, engineering, or urban design. There is nothing to suggest that such significance could be established in future edits. It's conceivable that some article will emerge establishing notability because it's, for instance, "the most contaminated street in Toronto" referencing the continuous vacant industrial properties along its length, but this is just speculation for the sake of example, not rooted in anything concrete at this point. A.Roz (talk) 04:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge[reply]KeepThe first item on a Google search for [Unwin Avenus, Toronto] returns a map, so it is easy to prove that this topic is not a hoax. A search on [Unwin Avenue site:en.wikipedia.org] returns 13 unique pages, so the redirect is proven to be useful. I see no argument being made, and I am not aware of any such argument, that there is something objectionable about the edit history such that we need to delete it. That leaves no deletions to discuss, and therefore, no need for a deletion discussion. In summary, this is simply an ordinary article that needs to be improved or merged, both of which are topics for the talk page of the article, not the time of AfD volunteers. Unscintillating (talk) 04:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the discussion is taking place here. Articles are deleted for far more reasons than being a hoax, having no hits on google or having an objectionable edit history. There are plenty of arguments, above, for you to object to, but ignoring them does not make them go away. You are essentially voting keep on a very weak edge-case claim of not following procedure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Well, except WP:NOTAVOTE. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; the discussion is taking place here. Articles are deleted for far more reasons than being a hoax, having no hits on google or having an objectionable edit history. There are plenty of arguments, above, for you to object to, but ignoring them does not make them go away. You are essentially voting keep on a very weak edge-case claim of not following procedure. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to merge as a compromise position, as the Port Lands article is a good target that will be strengthened with the reliable sources from the existing article. Unscintillating (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Although I'd support merging it into Port lands (or another larger region). Bunston (talk) 09:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See Port Lands#Streets. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the author of this article is desperately shoehorning every insignificant trivial mention of Unwin Street into this article. As I raised at the talk page of the article, a substantial portion of this article is WP:PUFFERY. It has quickly descended into a completely indiscriminate collection of information. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- and Coming Soon from the same fabulous producer who brought you Unwin Avenue - get ready for the new sensational User:Geo Swan/Cherry Street (Toronto) and User:Geo Swan/Blue Jays Way. I just can't wait. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Amazing that an article on an insignificant little street could generate this much discussion! •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Wikipuffery + Wikipedia:Fancruft. I also love Toronto. Torontobrad (talk) 02:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although User:Torontobrad seems quite familiar with wiki essays, this ID has only made 5 edits, here in this {{afd}}, to Unwin Avenue, and to User:Torontobrad. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate this too George. It distorts the entire discussion. Please stand up and show us who you really are. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be notable enough for a stand alone article, only mention in Port Lands is part of description of roads in the area. Doesnt appear to have any history or features that cant be mentioned in Port Lands. MilborneOne (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect. I removed some content from the article that isn't about the street in question. (If there were murders that were notable along the street, the murders should have an article of their own.) The termite infestation, while mildly interesting, has nothing to do with this street. The article states that it was along an adjacent street, and the only connection to Unwin Avenue was that Unwin was at the end of the infestation zone. What's left makes a nice tidy paragraph in total that could be added to the Port Lands article. It's all tangentially connected and doesn't rise to the level, IMHO, to satisfy notability requirements for a stand alone article. Imzadi 1979 → 20:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you should choose -- either leave your opinion at the {{afd}}, or address editorial concerns you have with the article. I addressed this issue on the talk page. My advice to those who go on record that an article merits deletion concluded with advising them to resist any temptation to make routine editorial changes to the article -- at least until the {{afd}} concluded. Geo Swan (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you have misread the termite infestation references. The parcel of land bounded by Unwin Aveneu, Cherry Street, the Keating Channel and Toronto Harbour is about 200 acres and is pierced by three slips, and has room to moor a dozen or so freighters In the 1930 and 1940 that area was all devoted to port facilities. The termite infestation entered Ontario through these port facilities. I think it is clear the entomology articles are refering to that parcel of land -- not to Cherry Street alone. During the 1930s and 40s freighters also used mooring spots along the south shore Toronto proper, whereas today the Jarvis slip alone remains in use. The authors were distinguishing the parcel it described from the several miles of alternate mooring spots. Geo Swan (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! That block is part of the Port Lands. Which is the point being made over and over. 70.49.169.254 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Please cite a policy that says I must only express an opinion in this discussion or edit the article but not both. I removed tangential content from the article and unneeded references. (Seriously, we needed three references that a street exists? Given the uncontroversial nature of that statement, no references are needed!) Once I did that, I formulated my response here. Long-winded replies that tell me I'm not allowed to edit the article (this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit after all) and have an opinion on the suitability of retaining this content as a stand alone article comes across as harassment. It's unwarranted, so please retract that. Imzadi 1979 → 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is list of some mentions of the street. Notability not inherited from all this. Martin Morin (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete GeoSwan, please go start your own Wikia. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator has changed the nomination without letting readers know that it has been changed. The result is that a following comment is now out of context. Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't effect the nomination in any way; I've added additional details. What comment is out of context (besides your contextless comment on how you believe there is no rationale)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Diff. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That editor placed their !vote well after I made that change; that change just added more policies to the nomination. I encourage you to cite any policy, guideline, or even essay which discourages this, let alone forbids it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments states,
It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your amended statement may look to others before you save it.
Removing or substantially altering a comment after it has been replied to may deny the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing. Before you change your own comment, consider taking one of the following steps:
* Contact the person(s) who replied (through their talk page) and ask if it is okay to delete or change your text.
* Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered.
** Deletion, which in most browsers is rendered as struck-through text, is coded <del>like this</del> and ends uplike this.
** An insertion, which in most browsers is rendered as underlined text, is coded <ins>like that</ins> and ends up like that.
** A placeholder is a phrase such as "[Thoughtless and stupid comment removed by the author.]". This will ensure that your fellow editors' irritated responses still make sense. In turn, they may then wish to replace their reply with something like, "[Irritated response to deleted comment removed. Apology accepted.]"
** Please do not apply any such changes to other editors' comments without permission.
* When modifying a comment, you can add a parenthetical note pointing out the change. You can also add an additional timestamp by typing ~~~~~ (five tildes).Under some circumstances, you may and should remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.
- Well, this is not a talk page (if we want to be lawyering things to the word), and a nomination is different from a comment. I adjust my rationale. Again, this doesn't affect the discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per the WP:TPG lede, "When pages in other namespaces are used for discussion and communication between users, the same norms will usually also apply." Unscintillating (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is not a talk page (if we want to be lawyering things to the word), and a nomination is different from a comment. I adjust my rationale. Again, this doesn't affect the discussion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments states,
- That editor placed their !vote well after I made that change; that change just added more policies to the nomination. I encourage you to cite any policy, guideline, or even essay which discourages this, let alone forbids it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Diff. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't effect the nomination in any way; I've added additional details. What comment is out of context (besides your contextless comment on how you believe there is no rationale)? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment No one has as much as attempted to refute my argument that there is no case for deletion. It now becomes the burden of an admin to defend policy against what is nominally a majority !vote, although looking beyond the word in bold, a decent consensus to merge this article in its entirety to Port Lands appears. Unscintillating (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is noted, but this is a community consensus, and not your opinion of how this venue works. Plenty of policy has been presented, you have chosen to ignore it by tossing it aside with a snide comment:"The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote". Hypocritical at best. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, here is the edit comment for the previous post, "You need to learn how AfD works Unscintillating, I see you trying to push this same old garbage all over AfD. Your opinion is not the community consensus, that doesn't make this a !vote)". Unscintillating (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- So? Are you attempting to discredit me, or are you going to address how I've discredited your WP:WIKILAWYERING, a problem which your talk page shows isn't recent? Or perhaps you just trying to create a WP:SOAPBOX? Regardless, can either you address your fallacious comments, or the closing admin ignore them? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the previous post brought anything new to the discussion, this is consistent with my hypothesis that there is a consensus here. Unscintillating (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- It adds that you are wikilawyering, that you have been told not to on your talk page several times, and that your vote should be ignored if you can't be bothered to respond, since its a simple case of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but can't find any actual policy, so just going to vote keep on the basis of the nomination itself." Your response above says it clearly to me "No, I cannot address my fallacious comments". Your argument that there is no case for deletion has been refuted numerous times with numerous policies. Or perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the game you're playing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that you read my !vote instead of continuing to assert obvious contradictions like no "actual policy" when two are cited. I'm not actually sure what your objective here is given that you have contributed to the apparent consensus to merge to Port Lands, and this AfD seems to be at a stopping point. Unscintillating (talk) 18:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It adds that you are wikilawyering, that you have been told not to on your talk page several times, and that your vote should be ignored if you can't be bothered to respond, since its a simple case of "WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but can't find any actual policy, so just going to vote keep on the basis of the nomination itself." Your response above says it clearly to me "No, I cannot address my fallacious comments". Your argument that there is no case for deletion has been refuted numerous times with numerous policies. Or perhaps WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is the game you're playing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So? Are you attempting to discredit me, or are you going to address how I've discredited your WP:WIKILAWYERING, a problem which your talk page shows isn't recent? Or perhaps you just trying to create a WP:SOAPBOX? Regardless, can either you address your fallacious comments, or the closing admin ignore them? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion is noted, but this is a community consensus, and not your opinion of how this venue works. Plenty of policy has been presented, you have chosen to ignore it by tossing it aside with a snide comment:"The simple summation of my response is...there is nothing wrong with my !vote". Hypocritical at best. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 01:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is no point in arguing about whether there is consensus; the closer will judge, based on the policy based comments about this particular article DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is deeply undermining since from my viewpoint I've had to be strong to find ways to bring the conversation back on track instead of responding to the personal attacks, incessant baiting, ad hominems, red herrings, and misdirections; but since keeping a steady hand in the face of abuse and being effective in turning the disruption into a consensus is now undermined; let me take a George Romney approach after the dirt slinging got to the point that he had to respond. Nominator has stated recently on a user talk page that coming to AfD was done because the previous forums didn't have the participation that he/she wanted, this is evidence of Forum Shopping and abuse of process. Nominator exhibits a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality in wanting to win. The admin asserts illogically that there is "no point" to building consensus, instead of admonishing wikilawyering disruption. This is my last comment at this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done no such thing, but thank you for your false accusations (perhaps in some cases I have gone to the talk page first, but that is certainly not forum shopping, especially when there is no response. In this case, the stuff I raised on the talk page was an aside from this and took place after the nomination) Unlike you, I don't have several sections on my talk page of people complaining about my view of how afd works and wikilawyering. This venue is for the community to discuss the merits of keeping or not keeping an article, or what to do with the article. Despite the title "articles for deletion", plenty of discussions take place without deletion as the sole objective. If responding to each point makes this a battlefield to you, then you may wish to avoid afd discussions in the future. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is deeply undermining since from my viewpoint I've had to be strong to find ways to bring the conversation back on track instead of responding to the personal attacks, incessant baiting, ad hominems, red herrings, and misdirections; but since keeping a steady hand in the face of abuse and being effective in turning the disruption into a consensus is now undermined; let me take a George Romney approach after the dirt slinging got to the point that he had to respond. Nominator has stated recently on a user talk page that coming to AfD was done because the previous forums didn't have the participation that he/she wanted, this is evidence of Forum Shopping and abuse of process. Nominator exhibits a WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality in wanting to win. The admin asserts illogically that there is "no point" to building consensus, instead of admonishing wikilawyering disruption. This is my last comment at this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now, as for the article I accept Geo's argument: there is sufficient sourced information to show notability . The discussion of the individual incidents would be relevant if the question were whether the individual elements are notable--but nobody is saying that. The arguement rather is because ofthe number of things appropriate to mention in an encyclopedia, the street itself is notable --notable because of the things that happen there. (we're not arguing whether the physical structure of the street is notable, the street is a geographical place, meaning the area consisting of the street and the properties bordering on it. that's been abundantly shown. If the street is non-notable, it could only be because there aren't sources for these things, and there are reliable sources for them. The relevant guideline in this case is the GNG--whether or not it should always be used as the guideline for notability , it certainly is appropriate to use it when it's hard to state exactly what would apply otherwise. Doing anything else is ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT, rather than policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A street does not include the properties bordering on it. If they are notable, they should get an article. Notable places do not make a street notable, the street needs to be notable in its own right. We already have an article on the cruise ship terminal and the Leslie Street Spit, so what is left is soccer pitches and a snow dump that impart notability to Unwin. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PUFFERY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR are all policies/guidelines presented here, in addition to claiming it doesn't meet WP:GNG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be Cherry Beach Sports Fields - and then there was one. 50.100.185.239 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FANCRUFT and WP:PUFF are essays -- not policies. Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A street does not include the properties bordering on it. If they are notable, they should get an article. Notable places do not make a street notable, the street needs to be notable in its own right. We already have an article on the cruise ship terminal and the Leslie Street Spit, so what is left is soccer pitches and a snow dump that impart notability to Unwin. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:FANCRUFT, WP:PUFFERY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTDIR are all policies/guidelines presented here, in addition to claiming it doesn't meet WP:GNG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 valid (in terms of our guidelines) argument for retention was made. Sandstein 20:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CPFD Software[edit]
- CPFD Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CPFD is a notable company in that they are the only simulation company to accurately model fluid-particle flows. This is accomplished through solving the coupled Eulerian and Lagrangian equations simultaneously through time sequencing. And article should be started on the software package Barracuda that accomplished this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.227.4 (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability should be demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Could you give some examples? Also, the request for another article is outside the scope of AfD; that should be done at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 01:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has anybody read the scholarly papers cited on the article? Do they reference CPFD Software in detail? Otherwise, there's not much online, just this sort of thing. Notability seems marginal. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked the full text of those sources, and can find no mention of "CPFD" in either apart from notes saying that some of the authors are employed by that company, and there is no mention at all of "Barracuda". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD § A7. Per WP:NCORP we assume organization notable once we have proof that it is discussed in independent reliable sources as company; that is, notability of company's founders, employees, products and offices doesn't affect the notability of company in terms of Wikipedia article inclusion guidelines. Still the only statement one could take for implication of this company's notability in the article is the statement about its product, so I have to conclude that the article contains no minimal claim of company's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:SNOW is a good enough reason. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shollenese[edit]
- Shollenese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable language spoken by only two people. Fails notability guidelines tremendously; Google search for it ([5]) brings up only nine results, none from independent, reliable sources. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 00:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Kern[edit]
- Arthur Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't find anything suggesting the topic would meet WP:GNG or WP:NPEOPLE CharlieEchoTango (contact) 10:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 28 February 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) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are short bios on various business websites.[6][7] However, not sure if sitting on boards of famous companies is itself notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:09, 6 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Operation 7 (video game)[edit]
- Operation 7 (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded without comment by page's author. Only one review which may or may not be reputable; no other sources found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, author left this edit summary when removing the PROD template: "If I have 2 reliable references and a reference to the game itself, some articles have a lot less then that!" —Wrathchild (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There are thousands upon thousands of independently produced, non-notable video games out there. This happens to be one of them. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as web content without assertion of notability/importance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This is a non-notable game, and I can't find any reliable sources. (This article was also created by a newbie, FWIW.) Thekillerpenguin (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - "semi-high quality game" does not even make sense. Skullbird11 (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - While expressions like "semi-high quality game" certainly make me raise en eyebrow, the game's notability is not unarguably non-existent. It's been reviewed by MMOHut, MMOBomb, MMOReviews; the reliability of the sites is questionable, however. Salvidrim! 19:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Salvidrim and I typically go through similar efforts for source hunting, so if that's the best he's got, I don't think it's got the necessary coverage... Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alessio Jim Della Valle[edit]
- Alessio Jim Della Valle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article previously deleted by prod and now recreated. The COI editor is an Italian film production company. The (now removed) biographic text, that contains some very questionable informations (as that he is an "inventor" and that his "making of Piovono Mucche" was chosen by the Italian Ministry of Work and Social Welfare for the National TV Campaign), as far as I can see, fails any verifiability and is entirely copied by the IMDB biography. The same for all the claimed honors and awards, that however in the main part seem to be very weak to support a claim of notability. The article shows only two references, the cited IMDB and the official site, that is just a blank homepage except for a link to IMDB and a "Contact me" link. Happy to withdraw this nom if someone could show some independent coverage in support of his notability. Cavarrone (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone (talk) 13:48, 5 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, not notable at this time. Google News search for the full name finds literally nothing except for IMBD. Searching without the "Jim" finds a few article in Italian (this seems to be the most detailed) but I don't think it's enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Above the City[edit]
- Above the City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fails WP:NALBUMS JayJayTalk to me 03:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Well, there's a review here which is considered reliable by WP:Wikiproject Albums, as its a staff review. I'm not finding anything else in online sources; perhaps someone else can to help get this to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Gongshow Talk 08:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of independent notability. A single review from an underground music website is nowhere near meeting general notability guidelines. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the single source is not enough; I was hopeful that since one professional source from this list was found, then additional coverage might surface. However, there just doesn't appear to be any, so I support deletion. Gongshow Talk 18:15, 3 March 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) 00:06, 4 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've added some references; its short, but enough. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AbanteCart[edit]
- AbanteCart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously Prod with rationale "The only reference is to the vendor's own site, so no evidence that this software meets the notability guidelines." Prod was disputed by article creator after adding 3 reference links. However these links (to "Ecommerce Wisdom", "HotScripts" and "Shopping Cart Reviews") don't look strong enough to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 19:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: apart from lack of reliable sources covering the subject in-depth, I see no reason to have this article at all: how is this software different from the rest of the online shopping "solutions"? The current revision of the article contains no useful information and I can't think of any way yo address this problem. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:28, 7 March 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, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Of the sources, only www.practicalecommerce.com appears somewhat reliable/independent. Created by an SPA as potentially spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. Bmusician 09:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Blake (artist)[edit]
- Peter Blake (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Articles on living persons without enough references must be deleted immediately. WOLfan112 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
#Delete, based on only 1 source and has many claims. "Articles on living persons" without enough references "must be deleted immediately".--WOLfan112 (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You don't get to != vote again for deletion. Your nomination counts as your vote. Edison (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Satisfies WP:ARTIST. The refs, footnotes and external links indicate that he has had exhibits at major galleries, including a permanent exhibit, is a member of the Royal Academy, has received honors including Order of the British Empire. An alternative to AFD nomination would be tagging an article about a clearly notable artist for reference improvement. Edison (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep geez, where to even start? One of the most important UK pop artists, designed the Sgt Pepper cover, OBE, subject of several books, etc. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST easily. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the most notable living artists in the UK. Even the quickest glance down the range of sources in the External Links should have been enough to give pause for thought before nominating. And a reading of WP:BEFORE? AllyD (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. The nominator, as a relatively new editor, would do well to reread WP:BEFORE, in order to ensure that they fully understand the steps to undertake before nominating an article for deletion. Peter Blake is a very prominent artist on both the national and international stage - he has received multiple awards and accolades, and has been the subject of a vast amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, as is required by our notability guidelines. The way to deal with concerns over referencing is to add references, not to nominate for deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and WP:SNOW. If Peter Blake is non-notable then about 90% of Wikipedia will have to be deleted. Keresaspa (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Very famous artist, subject of monographs, frequent press coverage, works in major galleries.[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] etc etc etc --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nurjan MirAhmadi[edit]
- Nurjan MirAhmadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for biographies. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources as far as I can see. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep as the subject passes WP:ATH and the article has a source (the NFL.com profile in the infobox). Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dick Farman[edit]
- Dick Farman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
ABOUT A LIVING PERSON AND HAS NO REFERENCES. MUST BE DELETED IMMEDIATELY! WOLfan112 (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously meets WP:NGRIDIRON. References should be easy to find if my quick search on "dick farman" football is any indication. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Wrathchild (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. It now has a reference. That's not a suitable criterion for deletion in any case; it's also much easier to actually go and find a reference (like I just did) and add it to the article than it is to raise it at Afd. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Carex petasata[edit]
- Carex petasata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references. There for it is not notable. WOLfan112 (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:COMMONOUTCOMES, "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid." The external links verify that this is a recognized species. (This nomination is the second recent nomination by User:WOLfan112 of verified species, along with the nomination of Polyester}. Edison (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 quorum, doing a WP:SOFTDELETE Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Al Opland Singers[edit]
- Al Opland Singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page seems nothing but a local choral group with nothing but sources directly related to the group Flygongengar (talk) 17:57, 13 March 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 March 13. Snotbot t • c » 18:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CommentDelete Some local press coverage, but it's all listings guides - this is the longest article I could find, and it's not very informative. Not notable, unless we can find more substantial coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
White-whiskered Spinetail[edit]
- White-whiskered Spinetail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very little content with only 1 reference. Does not seem that notable. WOLfan112 (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes which says that in past AFDs "All species that have a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) are inherently notable. Their names and at least a brief description must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid." If the one reference is a reliable source, the case for keeping the article is made. Edison (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paper size#Tablet sizes. Unlikely to be expanded, such that it can get an article length. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steno pad[edit]
- Steno pad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:DICTIONARY Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Zad68 (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, it's unlikely to be expanded. Bearian (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paper size#Tablet sizes. —teb728 t c 02:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above; I don't see how this could be expanded to article length. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Not sure if this could be expanded, but as one sentence like it is now, its not useful. But in looking quickly for sources, i did find the great-grandpa of the IPad[18] from 1992.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite all the SPAs (including one proxy editor), the result is to delete and not redirect. The current title of the article is not neutral and is more an opinion, or a referenced opinion. Also, this is duplicating existing topics and there is not much newly sourced information in the article. It discribes affiliations and activities, which is already covered in the other articles, or should be covered there. This is not disputing the right for the information to exist (except where previous consensus has been made), but it does need to be done in a more neutral fashion, and we can't be saying they have ties to group x and group y, so they are now supporting terrorism, as "supporting terrorism" is an opinion in itself. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism[edit]
- Inter-Services Intelligence support for terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This topic is covered well in the main article. This is a WP:POVFORK created after two RFCs ([19], [20]) at the main article's talk were closed with consensus to exclude the content proposed by the author. So this article is also in a way evading the consensus reached there. SMS Talk 18:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And to add to the above, there is already an article on the topic: Pakistan and state terrorism. This article is WP:REDUNDANT. One of them needs to go, either this should be kept and the other AfD'd, or the other is kept and the content from here is merged to there. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a fork at all, theISI are constantly described as a state within a state, the state terrorism article is an overview whilst this one goes into detail in ISI activities. They often work without telling the state what they do after all. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And to add to the above, there is already an article on the topic: Pakistan and state terrorism. This article is WP:REDUNDANT. One of them needs to go, either this should be kept and the other AfD'd, or the other is kept and the content from here is merged to there. Mar4d (talk) 08:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well sourced to academic press, highly notable topic. Stunning how long it lasted till the AFD hit home, checking my edits are we? BTW, the AFD seems to be broken? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete: I didn't notice this article's creation (till now). Certainly a POVFORK as two RFCs (where I participated) couldn't get a consensus on the ISI article talk page to even get a section in there (atleast for the content in that proposal). We also already have an article Pakistan and state terrorism. I will make no further comments but will advise the closer to see the talk page of Inter-Services Intelligence. This can simply be deleted per WP:SNOW if consensus is observed at the main article talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, topic is very notable as the ISI is noted among international experts on the region for explicitly using proxy groups as a geostrategic instrument. JCAla (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has certainly received coverage from reliable sources: [21][22][23]. Note that there are over a hundred pages about the CIA--it's not unthinkable to have multiple pages about a single intelligence agency. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not about the page, rather about WP:POVFORK as the same content could not get a consensus in the main ISI article and this article is highly biased at the moment since it circumvents that consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I ought to have mentioned: we should change the title to "Allegations of..." and adjust the text accordingly. It's a fairly short article so cleanup should be easy. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue is not about the page, rather about WP:POVFORK as the same content could not get a consensus in the main ISI article and this article is highly biased at the moment since it circumvents that consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. ISI figures in at least three Wikipedia articles on terrorism. There are many RS for the same, three examples being:
- Adm Mullen Accuses Pakistans ISI Of Treachery But Says Lets Keep Talking
- Thomas J. Biersteker; Sue E. Eckert (2008). Countering the financing of terrorism. Taylor & Francis. pp. 133. ISBN 978-0-415-39642-4. Retrieved 14 March 2012.
- Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee (2007). South Asia: fourth report of session 2006-07, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-215-03378-9. Retrieved 14 March 2012.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshLin (talk • contribs) 04:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even the article title is not conforming to NPOV to start with, how is it anything separate from the Pakistan and state terrorism article or the main ISI article which has this covered? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. A similar article was written before too. --SMS Talk 05:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism There is no need for this article when there is an article that already exists on the topic, called Pakistan and state terrorism. The content here should be merged there as this is a POVFORK; this article is basically just being used as a stick to beat Pakistan with. Mar4d (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remember the consensus on ISI talk page, the only place it is good enough to be merged to is that talkpage. The content was already covered in that article and the proposal in that form was rejected. This one currently goes against that consensus. So you might want to change your !vote to delete and redirect. A consensus will need to be formed for the inclusion there. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous recent admin closures: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. Just a WP:SNOW context for my delete comment above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speed keep: Subject of documentary 'Secret Pakistan' by BBC. 'Wiki leaks' cables talk about this allegations in detail. --200.98.197.34 (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — 200.98.197.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Also probable sock, see [29]. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism. Nearly all intelligence agencies around the world are usually accused of terrorism by other groups. I could see if there were ISI members captured and convicted somewhere for terrorism but so far its just blame games.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.36.30 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — 39.47.36.30 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete and redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism. Completely redundant topic, as the material has been covered in Pakistan and state terrorism already. September88 (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - highly notable topic of a rogue agency which supported bin laden. extensive coverage in RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KeepThe article is not a wp:POVFORK. As clearly mentioned in the last para of the policies There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is a pov fork, also i feel the editors motivated by a strong sense of nationality are suggesting to delete anything that does not support their ideology. the Article is clearly an important topic and deserves a separate article, also it should be noted that this article is fairly supported by a number of wp:RS (and obviously not a personal theory or a POV theory as is being claimed). The article should stay, needs to be elaborated with more sources, and ,may be some words can be rephrased if the editors agree for making it more wp:NEUTRAL-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Rename, obviously. Duh. When are you going to get that 'terrorism' is POV, without a well-documented statement from the group concerned that they are trying to inspire terror with their activities? Try, irregular military. Anarchangel (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article is controversial without consensus. Delete this article and first add content to ISI article by consensus of all editor community. The editors says above this does not have consensus to add there so how can this article be created. --39.41.168.9 (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)— 39.41.168.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. And based on geolocation is likely a sock of 39.47.36.30 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not another IP of any one else. Please do not remark on me. --39.41.168.9 (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete good debate every one but sorry this article has to be deleted because Pakistan and state terrorism and ISI own article are present. I looked at talk of ISI page through links in this debate this is article is a restart of that debate. This non neutral content should be deleted. SMS and lTopGunl have given interesting points to delete this. I hereby credit my own opinion to pro-delete side of debate. Thank you everyone else for showing me these wikipedia policies for future reference. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So your just going to follow me around now are you? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not understand you had other comment too. I have removed as you said. Thanks. I am not going to follow you, I wish to edit on my own behalf. I saw this debate from ISI page. It was in See also. Please do not blame me again and keep the peace deal. --Highstakes00 (talk) 15:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So your just going to follow me around now are you? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Popular Hits of the Showa Era: A Novel[edit]
- Popular Hits of the Showa Era: A Novel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe that this stub, which will probably be nothing more than a stub, is in any way notable. I have read the criteria at WP:BK, and I do not know if Ryu Murakami qualifies for the 5th criterion of "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable..." —Ryulong (竜龙) 17:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 02:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing or coverage to verify notability sufficiently to justify a self-standing article. --DAJF (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1963 Danish 1st Division[edit]
- 1963 Danish 1st Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Statistics of Danish 1st Division in the 1963 season." and nothing more than statistics. Move to Wikisource? Bulwersator (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's in need of improvement, but season articles for top-tier divisions (and indeed some lower-level divisions) are notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Needs improvement not deletion. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meaningful content could be easily found by Danish football fans, and we at WT:FOOTY] are in the process of setting up a relevant TaskForce. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:OR+WP:STATS and nothing else. Stedrick (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you mean WP:NOT#STATS. Cloudz679 23:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable. Needs work rather than deletion.Edinburgh Wanderer 18:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - according to WP:FOOTYN, "All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable". This article needs improvement, not deletion. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree, but I think the relevant section of WP:FOOTYN is referring to the notability of league articles themselves (e.g. Danish Superliga), rather than their corresponding season articles (e.g. 1963 Danish 1st Division). Mattythewhite (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep'. Season articles are usually considered notable. This one definitely needs some work, though. – Kosm1fent 18:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep'. I agree with the above comment and would like to seek the improvement in the quality of this type of article if we can get the Nordic task force up and running. (Finnish Gas(Finnish Gas 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rather than outright "keep", as two "keeps" are qualified as weak and the last opinion does not really contain an independent argument for keeping. Sandstein 20:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Florentina Mosora[edit]
- Florentina Mosora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Okay, so this article has not been improved in two years. The previous discussion was to keep it on the basis that she once won a Belgian award and starred in a couple of films - the first is the only reasonable documented part of the article; the second is irrelevant, as only trivial sources attest this, and the films themselves are marginally notable. The creator of the article probably has some connection to the subject: s/he persistently introduced info that traces to no public source - see for instance here and here. There is no ample coverage of this person, the sources that are borderline WP:RS make only very brief mentions of her, and some of the sources on which this article was based when reduced from much puffier versions are hopeless deadlinks. Dahn (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't have much to add, except to say that she fails on both counts, WP:ENT and WP:PROF:
- There's no evidence, even from the paltry sources given, that she had "significant roles in multiple notable films", let alone a "large fan base" or "unique, prolific or innovative contributions". Romanian cinema itself was not especially significant while she acted, and for all we know, what roles she had may have been little more than bit parts. There's simply no indication of significance from the evidence we have.
- Of the WP:PROF criteria, I'd say #3-9 aren't even in play. For criterion 1, I'd say no significant impact — not only are reliable sources attesting that missing, her Google scholar results are rather low
, and her h-number is just 7. Objective evidence of a significant impact is missing. For criterion 2, I'd say the "Prix Agathon de Potter" doesn't count as a "highly prestigious academic award" because the Belgian Royal Academy hands out 115 prizes. There's simply no indication that all winners of all these prizes should necessarily be considered notable. Perhaps those of Belgium's highest scientific honor, the InBev-Baillet Latour Prize, but not all of them. - Biruitorul Talk 17:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- See further down for discussion on the subject's h-number. - Biruitorul Talk 02:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The paucity of online sources doesn't much bother me, because that's not where I would expect to find the sources for this timeframe. She certainly starred in a feature movie and she certainly won an academic prize given by the Belgian royal academy only every three years, to one scientist in each of seven disciplines, since 1919 (see here for info on a more recent offering of the same prize); that makes a plausible case for WP:PROF#C2. Both cases are marginal but I think the fact that she attained some level of notability in such widely differing areas adds interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I agree with David. There's not much, but what we have is sourced. In addition, this was all pre-Internet, so online sources may be expected to be a bit sparse. Perhaps this will always stay a short article, but I have no problem with that. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced to what? If I want to source something about a Romanian film from the 1960s, I will find the relevant sources quite quickly. They're in festivals, they're discussed, they're constantly on show - the notable ones, that is. Sure, the films are pre-internet, but the very fact that there's surviving references to them today is a clue as to their relevancy. Try finding something legitimate on Mosora's film career, anywhere - whereas pretty minor film actors from the 1960s are amply mentioned to this day. Apparently, someone was able to once retrieve a mention of her name and acting career in a university journal article that deals with sports in early Romanian cinema - the link, however, is dead. I won't discuss imdb and citiwf as legitimate sources - one can just as well write an entry there and use it as "an outside source" for wikipedia. And even those two don't say virtually anything about Mosora. Now, to the scientific career: try looking over the secondary sources used. One is a deadlink to a search in a database! One is a primary source, i. e. an article she wrote! Ditto for this one! This one is a google books snippet saying that she won the Agathon de Potter award; this one is the same source, used for the same thing. This one lists her as one of the tens of researchers who organized a colloquium. And these are all, abolutely all the sources used in the article. (Also, I do believe that the point and use of google books, scholar etc. is to give us a clue as to what existed in that peculiar "pre-internet era"; well, there it is, all of it.) Dahn (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Internet Archive is our friend; unsurprisingly, the mention Mosora receives in the article on sport in Romanian cinema is quite passing indeed. - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sourced to what? If I want to source something about a Romanian film from the 1960s, I will find the relevant sources quite quickly. They're in festivals, they're discussed, they're constantly on show - the notable ones, that is. Sure, the films are pre-internet, but the very fact that there's surviving references to them today is a clue as to their relevancy. Try finding something legitimate on Mosora's film career, anywhere - whereas pretty minor film actors from the 1960s are amply mentioned to this day. Apparently, someone was able to once retrieve a mention of her name and acting career in a university journal article that deals with sports in early Romanian cinema - the link, however, is dead. I won't discuss imdb and citiwf as legitimate sources - one can just as well write an entry there and use it as "an outside source" for wikipedia. And even those two don't say virtually anything about Mosora. Now, to the scientific career: try looking over the secondary sources used. One is a deadlink to a search in a database! One is a primary source, i. e. an article she wrote! Ditto for this one! This one is a google books snippet saying that she won the Agathon de Potter award; this one is the same source, used for the same thing. This one lists her as one of the tens of researchers who organized a colloquium. And these are all, abolutely all the sources used in the article. (Also, I do believe that the point and use of google books, scholar etc. is to give us a clue as to what existed in that peculiar "pre-internet era"; well, there it is, all of it.) Dahn (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Little note: By way of courtesy I have dropped a little note on the creator of this article's talk page, User talk:Bci2, to let them be aware of this Afd and allow them a chance to address any of the concerns raised here. (Msrasnw (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep: This article seems to me a useful addition to the encyclopedia and even an example of the kind thing that makes wikipedia so nice. Notability via her role in the feature films and academically via her reciept of the awards seems achieved. My only worries were verifiability and the possibility of a very elaborate hoax but the sources, although scanty, seem sufficient to verify the facts needed (and those prosposing deletion have not questioned the facts only the notability - so I guess no-one is harbouring such doubts). I guess more could be found via archival searches in the real world (but it is not so nice out there). Most convincing to me was actually watching a bit of the feature film Dragoste la zero grade (on Youtube) where she seems to clearly share the staring caption and plays a leading role with Iurie Darie in a feature film released by Studioul Cinematografic București. I am not sure that we should easily dismiss Romanian film stars from the past. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, if the film is on youtube, I guess that must mean it's important... As for the facts: yes, the article's accuracy has been repeatedly question, which is why it was stubbed down from earlier versions, after it was acknowledged that these made egregious claims from various creatively interpreted sources. The article as it now is stands as a summery of basically everything that is publicly known about Mosora, and even it is not properly sourced - as I have shown, it is based on the interpretation of primary sources and simply non-reliable sources. A huge effort was made to preserve someone's vanity cruftpage, and we still have no possibility to detect relevancy as established by third-party sources. Other than me and you watching some films on youtube, that is... Dahn (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No - I think you may be wrong in your guess that the existence of such a film on youtube means it's important - but it may I think be useful to see for oneself that the film exists and see that she stared in it, and who she acted with and that it was made by a noted film company. I am also not sure about how useful it is but a quick look for sources does yield the Marquis Who's Who entry which lists our Florentina Mosora-Stan as a physics professor, who, for her education, took a Bachelor in Biological Sci. 1961, and a Bachelor in Physical Sci. 1967 from the University Bucharest. In 1971 she took her PhD in Biophysics, University Bucharest, Romania, 1971. For her career it lists a Research fellow post at the University Bucharest, 1967-71 - then a series of posts at the University Liege culminating in Professor, Institute Physics, (1988— ) Lecturer, Institute Physics, (1979-88) Head research fellow, Institute Physics, (1975-79) Maitre de conferences (1974-75), Research fellow (1971-74). It also lists her religion as Roman Catholic which is I think different from the Romanian Orthodox listed earlier in the article. Is this useful info. from a valuable source or is Marquis Who's Who not respected anymore -is it now (was it then) a vanity publication? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- It's borderline more than anything - self-submitted bios that, if Marquis' own account is to be trusted, afterward get churned out through some editorial process. There apparently are credible sources out there who rate Marquis as no more than vanity press. Dahn (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No - I think you may be wrong in your guess that the existence of such a film on youtube means it's important - but it may I think be useful to see for oneself that the film exists and see that she stared in it, and who she acted with and that it was made by a noted film company. I am also not sure about how useful it is but a quick look for sources does yield the Marquis Who's Who entry which lists our Florentina Mosora-Stan as a physics professor, who, for her education, took a Bachelor in Biological Sci. 1961, and a Bachelor in Physical Sci. 1967 from the University Bucharest. In 1971 she took her PhD in Biophysics, University Bucharest, Romania, 1971. For her career it lists a Research fellow post at the University Bucharest, 1967-71 - then a series of posts at the University Liege culminating in Professor, Institute Physics, (1988— ) Lecturer, Institute Physics, (1979-88) Head research fellow, Institute Physics, (1975-79) Maitre de conferences (1974-75), Research fellow (1971-74). It also lists her religion as Roman Catholic which is I think different from the Romanian Orthodox listed earlier in the article. Is this useful info. from a valuable source or is Marquis Who's Who not respected anymore -is it now (was it then) a vanity publication? (Msrasnw (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Contrary to my earlier stance, I'm now convinced she had important roles in at least two of the three films she appeared in, but that doesn't automatically translate into WP:ENT's demand for "significant roles in multiple notable films" (emphasis mine). By all means let's have articles on Romanian stars of the 1960s - Grigore Vasiliu Birlic, Liviu Ciulei, Victor Rebengiuc, etc, etc, but let's first make sure they're actually stars. And I'm still unconvinced that winning one of the 115 awards handed out by the Belgian Royal Academy necessarily makes one notable, particularly given the paucity of independent references to that prize. - Biruitorul Talk 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- H-index query: When I do a H-index search using google scholar I seem to get a H-index of 17. I searched under F Mosora and the papers seem to be hers. A H-index of 17 is clearly substantially higher than the 7 reported above and well within the scope that we have accepted in the past as enabling a pass of WP:Prof. Perhaps someone else could check this as I can easily make mistakes in such matters.(Msrasnw (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- I'd searched for her full name; "F Mosora" does indeed yield an h-index of 17. - Biruitorul Talk 01:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: First AfD seems to have closed as "meets WP:PROF as pointed out."--Milowent • hasspoken 14:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Johnstown,_Pennsylvania#Landmarks. The consensus is to delete but the suggestion for a redirect makes sense. I'll leave the history intact in case anybody thinks there is anything here worth merging. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Drive-In[edit]
- Silver Drive-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was: No indication the drivein is independently notable, no sources other than primary ones Eeekster (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:21, 5 March 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete coverage is only routine and local. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CORP says "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary." I don't see any non-local sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Johnstown, Pennsylvania#Landmarks. Being the last of its kind in the region, and having its notability limited to that region, it makes sense to send our readers to one of the few places where it makes sense to have it sourced and mentioned in context. Kudos to Milowent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6er Gascho[edit]
- 6er Gascho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced non-notable group JayJayTalk to me 02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:21, 5 March 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage. I found two sources (1, 2) both from the same date in 2009 - they read more like a press release/ promo - I see no indication of enduring notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG for lack of coverage in reliable sources. And, just judging by the text of the article, there's no reason to think this group is notable: "They sold only 300 copies around Bern." Come on. Terence7 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shabnam Dutta[edit]
- Shabnam Dutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-promotion, lacks notability and reliable sources. Expanding on these:
There are no reliable sources cited to establish notability. Cited source primarily include youtube videos (likely self-published). A google search fails to reveal any credible sources.
Majority of the content written by user "SpncerJones", whose sole contributions include creating pages for the subject of this article, her spouse, and adding their names to the list of "notable alumni" for their respective colleges.
Includes unsourced promotional quips for family members under Trivia ( none of which is verifiable by google searches ). This theme of cyclic promotion is also evident in the corresponding article for her spouse ( see Manish Sahi ).
The above, in addition to the tone of the article and the improper use of full caps to highlight "accomplishments" strongly indicate this to be a self-promotional article.
ViaOxford (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:26, 5 March 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, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Makoplasty[edit]
- Makoplasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Little appears to have changed since last nomination. The lead author of the article cited is a practitioner (see http://www.makosurgical.com/zipcode.html and search for a NYC zip code). The article on MAKO in Surgical Robotics: Systems Applications and Visions is co-authored by a founder of the company. Etc.
I confess I haven't exhausted the possible sources, but the posture of this article—recreated again as a promotional copyvio—leads me suspect that any further pursuit will have similar results. Bongomatic 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I cleaned out the copyvio and found one review on the topic, and one article mentioning that review, but was just made aware via this AFD that the lead author of this "review" works for the company. See text: "Author's Disclosure Statement: Dr. Sinha wishes to note that he is a consultant for MAKO Surgical Corp. The author acknowledges the grant from MAKO". No third-party sources, promotional, copyvio, so delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, WP:FORK One brand with minimal coverage in the medical literature is insufficiently notable for a general-interest article. The closest thing to a device specific article, the article about perioperative management is minimally about the device, but uses it as an example. ("One such device...")Novangelis (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me2Team[edit]
- Me2Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
CSD was declined. Non-notable product. One source covers the company in a different context, the rest of the sources are SPS or otherwise don't support notability. No third-party sources found. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another web based tool that integrates project, task, team and time management advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I see no secondary source I could call reliable neither in the article nor in the wild. Though the article features the references to ComputerWorld and ITWire that are often considered reliable, the name of this software isn't mentioned in these sources. That said, the half of the article is the Awards section, which mandates speedy deletion per WP:CSD § G11. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of plays in English on the Internet[edit]
- List of plays in English on the Internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's nothing notable about a list of plays that happen to have been uploaded to the Internet, I would say. Biruitorul Talk 14:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my PROD rationale: Intentionally and by nature a WP:LINKFARM. While it is potentially useful in user space or even project space, this does not belong in mainspace. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Agree with the previous two posters, WP:INDISCRIMINATE Livit⇑Eh?/What? 15:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep— or else which existing article can I include the information in? The article is meant as a guide to any person (e.g. theatre producers, educators in drama schools, high schools, or universities) wishing to find out which play is royalty-free and which is not. Although some of the plays are obscure, they may be better known once people become aware of their availability on the Internet. Appearance on such a list does not make the play notable as such, but it makes it more likely to be read, and so it serves the more general purpose of encouraging people to read plays. It is an extension of the "List of playwrights by nationality and year of birth" article created on 19 May 2006 that serves the same purpose, except for the fact that the present version of that article has no web link. Should the information on this article be shifted over to that one? User:Neojacob, orginator of this article, 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Unfortunately, this is not the sort of information that Wikipedia stores. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of links, nor is it a how-to guide. It's an encyclopedia. A list of English-language plays is one thing. A list of links to English-language plays that are available via the Internet is another. Delete. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are no grounds for special pleading here. This is an indiscriminate list defined weakly by an unimportant and evanescent attribute - whether uploaded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A "list of things uploaded to the Internet" is inherently unmaintainable. Shii (tock) 04:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per everyone else, this is not encyclopedic content. I suggest asking WikiProject Theatre if it would be useful as a project subpage. We have a similar page, although much broader in content and scope at WikiProject Opera. See WikiProject Opera/Online research. - Voceditenore (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was incubate. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/A Chapter of Men Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Chapter of Men[edit]
- A Chapter of Men (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable short film due to be released. All references are to either reliable source information on the principal's previous works/awards, or WP:SPS that don't establish notability. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why exactly is the film non-notable? As is visible on the opening of the trailer, the project was produced with Paramount Vantage, which establishes notability. In addition the director has achieved notability with several award-winning short films, of which this is his latest. The film was also co-written with an established feature film screenwriter. - JohnnyB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.245.40.227 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @ JohnnyB: Please read WP:Too Soon (films). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Having a movie produced by a notable company or group does not give it automatic notability. According to WP:NFF, the standards for a future film are that the film must have had quite a lot of coverage through reliable and independent sources to show that the production and its impending release are notable. I haven't checked for sources yet, but I just wanted to stress that notability is not inherited from any notable persons, groups, or companies that might be involved or associated in the film. (WP:NOTINHERITED) It makes it more likely that the film would have gotten coverage needed to achieve notability, but that notability is not automatically given to it through association.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is absolutely zero coverage of this film in independent and reliable sources. The sources in the article are either primary sources, IMDb links, or don't mention the film at all. None of them can be used to show notability for the short. IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source at all per WP:IMDB, although it can be sometimes used as a trivial source. Primary sources can only be used if there's multiple independent and reliable sources to show notability, which isn't out there. Sources that don't talk about the film at all aren't usable at all to show notability for the film. As said above, notability is not inherited by the film working with or under notable people. For example, Woodrow Wilson could come back from the dead just to act in the short, but that in itself wouldn't give the film notability. The resulting coverage is what would establish notability, which is what is ultimately lacking here. Maybe once it's released and gets some notice it will pass WP:NFILM, but it fails WP:NFF at this point in time. Both are strict to pass, but WP:NFF is incredibly strict in its guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Incubate article for a few weeks per WP:ATD as this one is just a tad premature. The article tells us that release is slated for March 31, 2012... after which, WP:NFF will not apply and we can then (hopefuly) expect commentary and review in reliable sources to meet WP:NF and WP:GNG... a threshold that has not yet been met. At the very least the article can be temporarily redirected to the filmmaker's article and the redirect undone and the article then expanded and sourced upon its release. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to incubate. Since it releases in a few weeks it wouldn't be a bad idea to incubate this until then. Good catch, Schmidt!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate Very sensible idea.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate Agreed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.246.219.14 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Davide Marsura[edit]
- Davide Marsura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet a professional player. A unused bench did not count as debut. Matthew_hk tc 13:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk tc 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG, and until he makes his debut fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL as has not yet made a pro appearance.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, No prejustice against recreation when he makes his fully pro debut. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nagkahiusang Kusog sa Estudyante[edit]
- Nagkahiusang Kusog sa Estudyante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has been tagged for improvement for 4 1/2 years. No references are cited at all, other than a couple of inline SPS links to defunct GeoCities pages. Check of Google News archives shows no substantive coverage that would support any of the text in the article mainspace. Fladrif (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Though Google News archives reveal sources that hint at national-level activity, there are no in-depth coverage. The article itself has nothing of value that can be retained. Everything lacks context and is unencyclopedic in both tone and content.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 17:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google Scholar and Google Books turned up no sources as well. Main hits that I found in Google links to other student org publications or passing mentions on online Filipino newspapers. A noble cause though. --Lenticel (talk) 06:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC
- Delete Personally, I have never heard of this organization, but that is not my reason for my opinion. As per above, I was not able to find enough reliable sources that prove the organization's notability. Finally, Wikipedia is not the place for spreading your noble cause. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason 4[edit]
- The reason 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I find it very hard to believe that a contestant who got knocked out in a pretty early stage of a TV talent show could be considered to be notable. I think this article is too early and seeks to establish their notability before the event. Even if the talent show appearance renders them notable, that notability is for one event only.
When they become independently and verifiably notable for more than just getting knocked out in a TV talent show then they have a place here, but not until then. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi i feel that The Reason 4 page has every right to be notable and avoid deletion. Yes they were eliminated earlier in the X Factor but still have achieved a lot including who they've supported on tour, recorded their album with and have charted with their debut single? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdaniel88 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nothing 'has a right to be notable'. It either is, or is not. I submit that this band is not. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the list of the criteria they meet alot of the required. Including 'have had a single or album chart on any country's national music chart', they also performed on many television shows, they've been placed on rotation on national radio and tv music channels. Surely this is enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdaniel88 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also they've also signed a major publishing with major Sony ATV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesdaniel88 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep as meeting GNG based on an interview with itv, charting on reverbnation, and a cover on a gay mag, as well as a fair amount of local coverage. The Steve 08:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 3 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Most of the coverage is very frothy, with gay publications, local press, showbiz media, etc (I also found stuff from The List[30], Popjustice, Sheffield Telegraph[31], Gaydar Radio, M Magazine[32], Digital Spy[33].) But it's enough to be notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per sources found by Thesteve and Colapeninsula. -- Trevj (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redwood Technologies[edit]
- Redwood Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to establish company's notability and significance for history of computing industry. Request for speedy deletion per WP:CSD § A7 declined. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—Typical corporate puffery. The references are all business listings, corporate directories, and other unreliable, trivial, source-cruft. Non-notable. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 13:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another hardware and software development company that develops systems and technologies for value added network service platforms and communication servers advertising on Wikipedia. Nothing in the article suggests that there's any reason for anyone who isn't in an IT department or an industry analyst to have heard of this business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a bit of local press coverage, but we're talking very local press. Still, I always read GetBracknell.co.uk[34][35][36] --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was obvious delete Shii (tock) 14:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MIND POWER aim for goal attainment[edit]
- MIND POWER aim for goal attainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book. WP:BEFORE check doesn't offer anything not released by the author. Sales claims are dubious (Neilsen Bookdata doesn't corroborate them). Fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage and WP:NBOOK due to lack of verifiable info. Yunshui 雲水 10:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I love being able to rescue books, but there's no reliable sources out there that shows that this book or its author are notable. I don't see where the book is available for sale anyplace other than the author's weebly site or where any of the people that have praised the book on said weebly site have been quoted anywhere other than on various primary sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Dengero (talk) 11:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Verging on WP:SPAM, no evidence of notability. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. DOn't see anything notable about it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A self-promo in all likelihood, no proper sources to indicate real notability. Lynch7 14:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hapi ® (Herb's Acoustic Playground Instruments)[edit]
- Hapi ® (Herb's Acoustic Playground Instruments) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable trademark/product just this side of G11 WP:SPEEDY due to neutral tone. (Comment says it's the creator's first entry.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Hapi article is my first attempt at adding a new item to wikipedia. I am somewhat familiar with using MediaWiki but definitely a newbie regarding submitting new content to wikipedia. I have added some additional content and several references to the article. Am I on the right track toward having the speedy deletion removed? Do I need more references and citations? Is this follow up comment in the right place? Computerjazz (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You've improved it, but the references you've added aren't very strong (see WP:Identifying reliable sources and WP:Notability). The video, for example, is about the park, and only shows the instruments in passing, without even identifying them as Hapi. This isn't a speedy deletion by the way (it's an Afd), but this is the right place to defend your article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete plain and simple WP:ADVERT created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete® per LibStar's pithy and accurate rationale. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This AfD is interesting in that it turns on an actual point of law instead of Wikipedia policy. The question is whether this list is a derivative work of the titular selection of jazz albums, and therefore a violation of its copyright. Five people affirm and three deny this (albeit one weakly). Lacking a clear numerical consensus, I must weigh the relative strength of argument. Most "delete" opinions reflect a serious and reasonably thorough examination of the material at issue and of the applicable U.S. law, and from my reading of the cited case law (disclaimer: I'm not a U.S. lawyer) their argument appears prima facie sensible to me. On the other hand, the "keep" opinions mostly do not really address the legal issues raised by this discussion, namely, whether (as discussed in the cited Key Publications case), the source work is an original selection of data (and therefore copyrighted), and whether our article exhibits "substantial similarity between those elements ... that provide copyrightability to the allegedly infringed compilation". The arguments by Franamax and Moonriddengirl make a reasonably convincing case that this is so, and the "keep" opinions mostly do not address the points the "delete" opinions raise. On that basis, I find that there is a consensus, considered in the light of the strength of argument, to delete the article. Sandstein 20:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz[edit]
- List of Core Collection albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Copyright violation, per http://openjurist.org/945/f2d/509/key-publications-inc-v-chinatown-today-publishing-enterprises-inc, as explained in User:Moonriddengirl/Copyright in lists. This list is not a simple recitation of facts: it is a reproduction of a creative work (due to the value judgment and creativity that went in to the selection process), and violates the copyright of the source work. —Kww(talk) 01:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Would it make any difference that the Penguin Guide never presented this information in a list? I constructed the list myself; the Penguin Guide flags certain reviews as "Core Collection", but does not list (or otherwise index) which albums are "Core Collection". I hate to say this, but I am afraid this could also affect List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (unless that is a different case, for some reason). In the words of Lisa Simpson, "All my efforts!" -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And some questions, is this very different from lists of Grammy winners, or Oscar winners, or categories based on those? (I'm not trying to be WP:WAXy.) If it's possible to mention in any number of articles that "The Penguin Guide included Album X in its Core Collection…", is it possible to categorize articles on that basis? If so, is it possible to derive a list (like this one) from that as well? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's one of the reasons I took this to AFD, rather than doing a speedy delete as encouraged above (and by Franamax, as well). It's clear to me that if Penguin created a single publication called "The List of Crown Albums" and this article reproduced it, we would be infringing. It's also clear to me that if Penguin sponsored an awards show, we would be free to report the results. This list lies somewhere in-between, and I'm not 100% certain how to handle it.—Kww(talk) 12:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for the explanation. (You mentioned "Franamax" and I think you meant their comments over at WT:CP#List copyright issues.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This and the other list that Gyrofrog has highlighted both proved useful a couple of years ago in putting WP:JAZZ Importance ratings onto articles, including those for the Wikipedia 1.0 Release. However it does look like the "Copyright in lists" argument takes precedence. AllyD (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Gyro, Kww meant that comment. I could only get snippet views, so I couldn't see the actual "Core Collection" section in the book(s). I think the problem here is that Penguin has set out to make the Core Collection a significant feature of their book, i.e. one reason to buy it. By reproducing the list here, we take away the value of their work, which I think is one of the main considerations in copyright law. Now it's an interesting twist that there is apparently no columnar list in the books themselves, so the question would be whether or not you have sufficently transformed the work into a new creative expression. You've consolidated 3 editions and added the notes (all sourced from the same copyrighted work) - is that transformative? Me, I don't think so - but given what you've said I'll retract my talk of a speedy delete, but leaning toward a regular delete. And side note, I think the difference with the Oscars and Grammys is that they are published and televised awards, where the intent is to communicate the entire list to the public for free and wide dissemination - for pretty blatantly commercial purposes unrelated to the content of the actual lists themselves. Franamax (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some interesting and valid comments here, and I appreciate that this is not a simple subject. Though I agree with Franamax's assertion that we should not detract from the value of the author/publisher's work, I'm not convinced that Penguin have set out to make this a "significant feature of their book", hence a "reason to buy it", as the books contain so much more than just the Core Collection ratings. It has already been noted that books themselves contain no "Core Collection section", nor any index or list making it easy to reference the various albums awarded this rating - it should also be pointed out that the "Core Collection" differs slightly across the various editions available. In the light of these points, and taking into account the fact that this list has been consolidated from various editions of the book, I am leaning towards a weak keep. --sparkl!sm hey! 09:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, given my earlier comments but also in light of Sparklism's comments and Kww's explanation. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, definitely now that I've examined an analogue of the source work, as a copyright violation, with a further argument to delete on notability grounds. I had a look at the 7th Edition (2004) of the same guide and it is apparent to me that the "core collection" is intended as a significant feature of the work. The second section of the Introduction discusses the Core Collection, after Evaluation but before Recording Quality, Layout of Text, etc. The entries (approx. 200) selected for this designation have a "Core Collection" banner before the entry itself, and a bolded paragraph of text just below explaining why the particular musical work is considered "essential listening", before the actual guide entry. Great effort and creativity has gone into these selections (obviously this is subjective stuff, not some mechanical method of selection) and for us to simply reproduce the selections here appropriates this valuable portion of the overall work. Nothing of transformative value has been added in the Wikipedia article, this is a pure mechanical reproduction of the original work, compiled by leafing through the pages in consecutive order. On the notability issue, while I can find many references to the list, they seem to be either within book reviews of the guides themselves (usually as a valuable feature and a reason to buy the work); mentions that individual works are in the list when discussing those works; and reproductions of the list itself, including, unfortunately, multiple mirrors of this article. I can find no critical commentary on the list itself, which is one of our core notability requirements. However this deficiency pales in comparison to the copyright concerns. I have not evaluated the 9th Edition (not available to me 'til at least 17 Mar), but I have no reason to think my conclusions would change, so yeah, I'm saying delete, with regret for wasting the efforts of the editor who spent all the time putting this list article together. Franamax (talk) 04:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, On pure copyvio grounds there is probably a case for deletion but as a regular contributor to WP:albums and WP:Jazz I have found this article invaluable to adding significant jazz albums to Wikipedia and noting their "Core Collection" status in the Reception section. I don't have all the Penguin Guide Editions and scanning through this massive tome for core collection albums is a difficult task (but making my life easier is no reason for copyvio). If the decision is to delete, then the List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz should also suffer the same fate for the same reasons. I hope there is still some time left for me to add in articles on the missing significant recordings that the "Core Collection" highlights and a Category for "Penguin Guide to Jazz core albums" which will create a (albeit incomplete) list but without references.DISEman (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You can copy the wikitext right now onto your own PC and preview it in an edit pane for the rest of your (or en:wiki's) life, so the existence of this particular page is not material. The Crown albums list, having looked at it recently, yes, should have the same scrutiny. As far as using a category instead, I've watched the interplay between categories and list articles over a period of years (often, if it's a category, it deserves a list article and vice versa) and at this point I have to say I would view such a category in much the same light as I do this list. In either case, it seems to me that we are doing an end-run around all the effort expended by the authors and giving people a handy way to avoid buying the creative work. But that's not our goal here, we're meant to collect and summarize the work of others, not simply regurgitate what others have already done. I'll grant that the category question is trickier, but the principles are the same. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 9 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: As we shouldn't rush this through, copyright is too important for that. I also left a note on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 March 13, so I expect some more input will be following. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretful delete. I am very much afraid that this list is likely to constitute a derivative work. :/ What a reference considers "core" is extremely creative, and even though this doesn't reproduce an actual list from the book, it seems to me that transforming their work into a list could easily be "a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted".17 U.S.C. § 101 No matter how we shake it, this isn't fact, but opinion. If this were listed at CP, I would delete the list, with true regret, on that basis. That said, if this list is deleted; I don't think it would be a copyright issue at all to list the redlinks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums. Listing only the redlinks there would not be competitive in any way, but highly transformative use. A high proportion of the articles I've written came off of that list. It was nice to see it finished, but the purpose of the list wasn't to complete it, it was to help add essential content. :) If there's newly identified essential content missing, it should be spun up again. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've ported the redlinks over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/List of notable albums. Gyrofrog , you did a lot of hard work on this! Whatever happens with the article, the list of notable albums should help increase our coverage of jazz albums on Wikipedia. I'll start working on those, if I can, this weekend. I haven't written a jazz album article on a long time. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done the same for the redlinks at List of Crown albums in The Penguin Guide to Jazz (which, presumably, will meet the same fate). Note that there is quite a bit of overlap: I didn't bother to remove duplicates (should I remove them from the "Core" list, or the "Crown" list?), but the "Notes" column already mentions if/when an album is in both lists. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A list of the contents of a book is not a copyvio of the book. This is especially the case when the list itself is never presented as s such in the book, but is --we're not copying the intellectual material in any sense at all, just describing it. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given the advice received from foundation counsel about copyright in lists I don't think there is any other choice. Although I have sympathy with DGG's position I don't think it is compatible with that advice. I suspect that the advice is deliberately conservative and courts might decide differently, and nearer DGGs position, in future however we, as a community, are not, for very understandable reasons, in the business of developing case law by testing cases like this and so we must err on the side of caution. Dpmuk (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It might not necessarily be my own opinion, but the consensus is clearly to keep the article DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Burlington derailment[edit]
- Burlington derailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
News flash; train derails in Canada, three train workers killed. Wikipedia is WP:NOT#NEWS. Event is not notable or durable, and has vanished from the news. Speciate (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For now it's just news. EEng (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable enough. While derailments aren't particularly uncommon, this one resulted in loss of life and numerous injuries, which is much less common. --Bongwarrior (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - NOTNEWSPAPER doesn't apply and the GNG is easily met. The loss of human life makes it an event of lasting significance, thereby making it not "just news". Additionally, the story has stayed in the news for several weeks and has been used as an example when talking about potential policy changes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If kept the article must be renamed. 2012 VIA Rail Train 92 derailment might be one possible name, but "Burlington derailment" will make anybody with any knowledge of trains think it relates to the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, Burlington Northern, or Burlington Northern Santa Fe... - The Bushranger One ping only 20:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trains derail rather frequently, and deaths don't make it less of news or more of encyclopedic coverage. We need coverage from far more than a couple of weeks in order to demonstrate that this is an event worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia: inclusion in a book, major governmental publication, academic journal article, or sustained newspaper coverage over many months. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and possibly renominate after some months if enduring notability is found not to have been established per User:Nyttend's comments above. This would be perfect for merger to a List of rail accidents in Canada if someone were minded to create such an article (see List of rail accidents in the United Kingdom for an example).--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pontificalibus. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 03:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above ~SpK 03:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with the same reasoning as Pontificalibus. Train derailments with loss of life are not all that common; maybe a handful in North America per year. When they happen, they generate a lot of news, lawsuits, and long term repercussions that resonate beyond the incident itself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 14:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- while derailments are common, this one triggered a wider discussion. Prior to this derailment I thought they happened every fiveyears or so, given that this is my hazy idea of when the last one made the news. It is the wider discussion this derailment triggered that brought out that there are lots of derailments, but most at low speed, in the railyard, with limited injuries and damage. So this derailment is notable for that wider discussion it triggered.
To the contributor who asserted that their were 10 brakemen killed every day in 1880, well then, if there are sufficient WP:RS to back up that assertion, and establish the wiki-notability for one or more of those derailments, someone could start an article or articles about them. The existence of more common derailments in the past is irrelevant when considering the future of this article. Geo Swan (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Purple Turtle[edit]
- Purple Turtle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If this is the most that can be said about this "organization" after seven years of an article being up (and three years of being tagged for primary sources), then it doesn't seem that there's enough "there" there to support a claim of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 04:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Note that if this article is deleted, Purple Turtle (disambiguation) will be eligible for speedy deletion as a disambig page that does not disambiguate anything (the only other link on that page is a red link for a club mentioned in this article). Cheers! bd2412 T 04:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—unsourced burning-cruft. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see nothing at all that even comes close to passing WP:ORG. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Gongshow Talk 23:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was preserve. in some way or another. Refocussing to Zhangzhou College of Science and Technology is one suggested way, merging to Ten Fu Group another. There is consensus that there isn't enough here for a stand-alone article, but none on how to deal with that exactly. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tenfu Tea College[edit]
- Tenfu Tea College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organization does not seem notable. I can't find any good sources for it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For searching also try simplified Chinese "天福茶学院" and "天福茶职业技术学院". icetea8 (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to Ten Fu Group, the parent group. Sources aren't currently good enough to justify a stand-alone article, but the group seems notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I support that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per brilliant suggestion by A.D. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search yielded an entire China Central Television article devoted to the subject, which I added a reference to. This combined with an entire China Daily article devoted to the subject is enough to pass WP:GNG easily. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually the CCT article from 2007 [38] barely says anything about the college other than, in 2007, it existed. Does not establish notability. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to its own website, Tenfu Tea College no longer exists. It has been renamed as Zhangzhou Institute of Technology. The tea studies program is one of four colleges at Zhangzhou Institute of Technology. [39] [40] Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of significant coverage per WP:GNG--there was only minor media coverage at the founding in 2007--and general lack of existence in the present day. Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' Name change, Tenfu Tea College is now Zhangzhou College of Science and Technology 漳州科技职业学院, the website, location, and material are the same. icetea8 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge into a new article on Zhangzhou College of Science and Technology. Best done by a keep and rename, and then adding content. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment okay, but do you think there is signficant coverage per WP:GNG for a standalone article? Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. joe deckertalk to me 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cristina (Gjomarkaj) Verger[edit]
- Cristina (Gjomarkaj) Verger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Non-notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person.Eiad77 (talk) 09:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. No reliable sources. Having her name mentioned in two advertisements is not reliable nor does it assert notability. Nor does a link to her page advertising her business. MathewTownsend (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with Mathew, simply being mentioned in advertisements isn't making them notable for a Wikipedia article. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Workpoint Entertainment[edit]
- Workpoint Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested by creator. Concern: Claims "multiple award-winning programmes" but gives no indication of what those awards are, no sources and doesn't appear to be notable in the article's current form. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find "doesn't appear to be notable in the article's current form" to be a rather questionable argument. Notability is dependent on external coverage by verifiable sources, not Wikipedia's own treatment. An article about a notable subject may not have comprehensive coverage of the subject's sources of notability; this is not indication that the subject is not notable, but rather that the article needs to be expanded. --Paul_012 (talk) 03:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—Efficient rescue by Paul, now has two RS references, notability is clear in the article text, and the puffery is gone. Good work! Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Livitup. Meets requirements. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Snow closure. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Michelle Le[edit]
- Murder of Michelle Le (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (events). Le's death is tragic but her murder isn't notable....William 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -...William 02:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ...William 02:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This crime meets WP:N/CA as a prolonged disappearance that authorities said was a likely criminal act. It was, in fact, a murder. The article now includes references from three of California's leading newspapers including the Los Angeles Times hundreds of miles away. Media coverage is ongoing as the trial approaches, and is likely (in part) to continue as both accused and victim are women. This murder is far more notable than most killings. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Le where consensus was that the article should be kept. I expanded the article and moved it to its current name at that time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per above and consensus on other article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -This crime meets WP:N/CA--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—This one got widespread coverage, so it meets the requirements of WP:EVENT. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 16:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article had not been updated since its creation last September, but coverage has been ongoing. I added several more recent news stories to the article. This is a notorious case and it's clear that coverage will be ongoing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; article subject meets notability requirements based on WP:N/CA and WP:GNG which has lead to coverage nationally (including on CNN). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep already meets notability requirements even before the trial has commenced.--Shakehandsman (talk) 07:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be restored if needed for mergers. Sandstein 20:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Janos Boros[edit]
- Janos Boros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In a nutshell, I believe Boros fails WP:POLITICIAN for two reasons:
- The policy calls for inclusion of "major local political figures", but neither of the three offices held by Boros qualifies.
- He was deputy mayor, but that's an unelected position that fell to him as the result of an internal rotation system, not because electors endorsed him for it. The mayor of Cluj-Napoca is presumed notable, but not the deputy mayor of this or any other Romanian city. (Indeed, it's quite rare that we have articles on any deputy mayors anywhere.)
- He was city councilor, but in a city of Cluj-Napoca's size (a little over 300,000), that doesn't necessarily qualify. For the national capital Bucharest, 5-6 times larger, probably, but not for Cluj-Napoca, at least not without ample press coverage.
- He was chairman of the county chapter of his political party. Now, there are Romanian politicians who have been county party chairmen and who are notable (Marian Oprişan, László Borbély, Radu Berceanu), but never only for that, as far as I'm aware.
- Each and every source presented in the article falls under the "routine news reporting" mentioned at WP:NOTNEWS rather than under the "significant press coverage" demanded by WP:POLITICIAN. I rather carefully analyzed them here, although I will be glad to reiterate my analysis as need be.
Previous nominations of this article were marred by canvassing and filibustering on the part of the article creator. He is now topic-banned, so hopefully we can have a more rational discussion. I will just say that one of his main claims revolved around the notion that because Boros is an ethnic Hungarian, there is some sort of conspiracy not to cover him in the Romanian press. I debunked that claim in two ways. I showed that Romanian language media do care about ethnic Hungarian politicians, even fairly obscure ones (but not Boros), and also that they don't care about deputy mayors, regardless of their ethnic background. - Biruitorul Talk 01:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At long last. There is nothing to refine in my comments on the earlier AfDs - Janos Boros is simply not a valid wikipedia entry, not per WP:GNG, not per WP:POLITICIAN, not per nothing. Dahn (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep!vote amended, see below He does appear to fail WP:POLITICIAN, but if even a few of those Romanian new sources constitute more than passing coverage of his involvement in multiple events, he does meet WP:GNG. That said, I only know one word in Romanian ("Noroc!"), so I can't ascertain what's actually in the sources. Yunshui 雲水 11:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Yunshui, I will gladly walk you through the sources (at least all but the three that are dead links) if this helps you make a more informed decision.
- This is a news brief quoting Boros saying he's unhappy then-mayor Funar would dismiss Hungarian citizens from Cluj-Napoca city hall.
- This mentions that he once did business with a Spanish company involved in dubious city contracts.
- This makes passing mention of his opinion on highway construction.
- This quotes him on the then-forthcoming opening of an apartment complex.
- This talks about his secret negotiations with an American company on a building project.
- This quotes him on what will be discussed at an upcoming city council meeting.
- This simply mentions he was part of the council's bids committee.
- This news brief mentions a criminal complaint filed against him by residents evicted when he helped restore property to the Roman Catholic Church.
- This mentions that he ordered a hole in the city center be filled.
- This mentions his opinion on where traffic police should work.
- This quotes him as looking forward to working with then-incoming mayor Emil Boc.
- Tellingly, none of these articles is from the national press. Not that local news is inadmissible, but in Romania, city-level politicians who are at all remarkable are quickly noticed by the main newspapers; this never happened for Boros during the decade he spent in office.
- So yes, he did make his local newspapers, as one might expect for a city councilor. But as I hope you can now see, the level of coverage is glaringly trivial, and there's nothing really to set him apart from the dozens and dozens of others who have served on the city councils of Romania's large cities in the past two decades. - Biruitorul Talk 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge Significant Information: I appreciate Biruitorul taking the time to provide the applicable standards and explaining the reasoning right in the head of the nomination. That did not happen in the last two nominations but then Biruitorul answered my request for more information in the 2nd/3rd nomination. My original comments are here:[41] and [42]. I agreed that there is too little significance to justify a bibliography article. Tellingly, the article remains orphaned. It is my hope that the story (and sources) that are significant in the article are used to improve other, more appropriate articles: e.g., Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania, Emil Boc, Gheorghe Funar. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sighetu Marmației explosions[edit]
- Sighetu Marmației explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this got a short burst of coverage, but there's no evidence of any more permanent significance, and the damage/casualties don't seem serious enough to warrant an article either. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Grotesque story, but no more than a passing event. Dahn (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of rising to WP:EVENT, in particular it seems rather unlikely this event will meet WP:EFFECT nor does it appear to meet WP:GEOSCOPE. --joe deckertalk to me 17:15, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rather than "keep", considering that one "keep" opinion is qualified as weak, and the one by Esc2003 does not advance a policy-based argument. Sandstein 20:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seljuks in Dobruja[edit]
- Seljuks in Dobruja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to be a fairly marginal topic, and any useful content, of which I can't tell if there's any, could easily be covered at Dobruja. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is about the passing presence of a population through a region that is now in Romania, and was then in Byzantine lands. Neither the Seljuks nor the Byzantines stayed as such: the Seljuks may be the ancestors of Gagauz people, who live further north and have since developed a distinct culture (as covered by our article on them) - incidentally, the article we're discussing seems to push that theory, which may or may not be accurate; the various stages of Islam in Dobruja are covered by Islam in Romania (which basically summarizes everything there is about the Seljuk stage); the Byzantine presence has been successively replaced by Ottoman, Russian, Romanian administrations - which is amply covered by our articles on Dobruja, Northern Dobruja etc. No reason to keep this article as such. Dahn (talk) 11:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The topic has certainly been researched in RSs and conflicting opinions exist about the veracity of the events. Yes, the events are summarily covered in Islam in Romania, Dobruja, and Sari Saltik, but this article could present a more detailed description, including background and aftermath. The title may need some change (I'm thinking something along the lines of Seljuk Colonisation in Dobruja). If consensus will decide on deletion, I hope the refs will be salvaged to the articles I've mentioned. Considering WP already has tons of articles that never were the subject of a scientific paper, I don't really see the need to delete an article on a topic that happens to be of actual scholar interest.Anonimu (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Important issue for Gagauz history. Esc2003 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the information in a form or another, especially what is properly sourced. I am suggesting two options which are not mutually exclusive:
- Rename to Turkic people in Dobruja (or even Turkic people in Romania) and treat this on a greater scale to include Avars, Pechenegs, Cumans, Bulgars, Tatars, Seljuks etc.
- Merge what is relevant to Turks of Romania and/or Dobruja#History.--Codrin.B (talk) 14:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Codrin, I encourage you to look over Islam in Romania. As for "Turkic people" in Romania, that is a slippery slope to racialism: why not "Altaic people in Romania", or "Mongoloids in Romania"? Dahn (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Islam in Romania is a good alternative to the merge with the Turks of Romania. However I really don't like mixing people with religion. I know and understand your position on nationalism and racialism but I don't really see the slippery slope here and I don't think we should get scared so easily of such topics. It is just fine to have a scientific article and group people by origin. Romania is quite unique at having a lot of Turkic peoples migrating in at different times. For the same reason that the Turkic peoples article exists, we could have the regional Turkic people in Romania only because there is enough to write about. If well written, it could be quite useful, in my opinion. But I would certainly not suggest "Altaic people in Romania", or "Mongoloids in Romania".--Codrin.B (talk) 21:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Codrin, I encourage you to look over Islam in Romania. As for "Turkic people" in Romania, that is a slippery slope to racialism: why not "Altaic people in Romania", or "Mongoloids in Romania"? Dahn (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am the creator of this article . The article is not about Dobruja nor the possible origin of Gagauz . It is about a mass migration to Romania much before Ottomans. A mass migration can't be considerd as being marginal. It is a notable topic and it is sourced. But I feel that the rationale behind the delete proposal is the Aftermath section which relates these people to Gagauz. Actually this theory, which was proposed by Paul Wittek, [43] is one among the several theories of Gagauz origin. The Aftermath section can be reworded if desired. But the article as a whole certainly deserves to be in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Catana[edit]
- Vladimir Catana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To begin with, this is a blatant conflict of interest, having been authored by single-purpose account Vcatana86. More to the point, although Mr Catana evidently believes he belongs in an encyclopedia, the evidence doesn't support that. The sources are largely marginal, the prizes he allegedly won we have no indication of their significance, and there's nothing actually discussing him in any depth. Nice promotional page, but he should set up an official website for that sort of thing. Biruitorul Talk 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just delete it ! Can you also delete the facebook artist page relied to that wikipedia page or it will delete as you delete the wiki page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vcatana86 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional article. As for the Facebook page, no it won't get deleted. Facebook ain't related to Wikipedia. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please delete also the photos. I didn't create the Facebook page, it just appeared with the informations from Wikipedia ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.255.124 (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the photos to Files for Deletion. As for Facebook send a request to Support. Wikipedia isn't responsible for Facebook content. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although this is a very promising career, it isn't far enough advanced yet for this singer to have an article. Normally what I look for in an opera singer is one of the following (1) evidence of having performed one or more leading roles (for their voice type) in several opera houses, or multiple leading roles in one major opera house. (2) multiple appearances as a soloist with major symphony orchestras (3) two or more recordings on a notable classical music label (4) Having won or placed second in a major singing competition (I don't think any of the ones listed qualifies for this). As for the Facebook page. If you are referring to this one, Facebook generates these automatically from Wikipedia articles. Although they have a disclaimer on them ("Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic."), they're misleading and several artists in the past have objected to this practice. Unfortunately, Wikipedia is powerless to stop these. However, once the Wikipedia page is deleted, these pseudo Facebook pages usually disappear as well. Voceditenore (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 after the relistings is very clear. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KNERO[edit]
- KNERO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG on my end. SarahStierch (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Standard music sites show give no hits for this artist and the only relevant results appear to be promotional. --Pusillanimous 17:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 01:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Pusillanimous. A very good point. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 02:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. I originally closed this as "delete" but the creator of this article is challenging the deletion. Since this didn't have a lot of participation, I'm reopening it to let him have his say. Further note, despite his username, he claims to not be connected with the subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - another unsourced article about an unheralded up-and-coming musician who may or may not ever achieve notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I saw a reference to NME, and thought "Great!" - but it's either an unacknowledged copy of this article, or this is a copyvio. Either way, it doesn't help matters. There's been a heck of a lot of editing on this since 2007, but there still doesn't seem to be much achieved. Some fields of music and art are harder to find RS for, but there's little claimed. A discography of one digital single isn't much to indicate notability - not even a mixtape mentioned. Performing on the same stage as notable acts doesn't give notability as a matter of course. I see no reason not to wish him luck, but the time isn't right for an article. Just looked into some more 'sources' - wearing someone's fashions also doesn't confer notability, especially when the designer hasn't an article that I can see. And so on... Peridon (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Seattle Mariners#Culture where it is already covered. Any remaining content worth merging can be pulled from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rally fries[edit]
- Rally fries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. This is an article on some random happening at Mariners games. This is not on par with the Rally cap, Rally Monkey, or Rally Squirrel. Given the branding, this appears to violate WP:PROMOTION, as it only serves as advertising for a company. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears to be a running promotional gag by the local tv guys... Has no national notability. Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article satisfies WP:GNG; the sources aren't overwhelming, but they're enough. There are Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Tri-City Herald articles focused entirely on the topic. This is really the only principle that applies. The other arguments are WP:ITSLOCAL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Melchoir (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG doesn't say that sources guarantee notability, it presumes notability unless the article is deemed by consensus to not be notable. One way that can happen is if violates what Wikipedia is not, which goes back to what I said about WP:PROMOTION, which you didn't address. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not promotional; it's a description of a topic based on independent sources. Moreover, if it were promotional, that would be cause for a {{POV}} template, a note on the talk page, and a cleanup effort -- not an AfD. The AfD process is meant to judge the topic's encyclopedic potential, not the article's present content. Melchoir (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But if it's deemed that all this is is a promotional gimmick, then there's nothing to clean up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's misleading to speak of "all this". We have to distinguish between the topic and the article. The topic can be a commercial entity without the article becoming promotional. Melchoir (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a local tv gag... mentioned in some local papers... having articles on every goofy gag the local tv guys come up with is just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This particular "gag" attracted the notice of professional journalists, which is how it came to satisfy WP:GNG. There's no slippery slope. Settling these questions by drawing a line based on our role as an encyclopedia is exactly what GNG is for. Melchoir (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Local papers might cover the county sock hop too.. doesnt make it worthy of an article here. Any coverage outside of minor blurbs in local seattle papers? Spanneraol (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this characterization. The article's strongest reference is a 28-paragraph article in a newspaper with a daily circulation (at the time) of 128,012, the 78th largest in the U.S.[44]. That's more than a minor blurb in a local paper. The other references are less significant; that's why I said that the satisfaction of GNG isn't overwhelming. The interpretation of GNG can be a judgement call in these cases, but I want us to agree that it is the relevant guideline. And local versus national coverage doesn't matter; again, see WP:ITSLOCAL. Melchoir (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanneraol's point, I believe, is not ITSLOCAL, so much as that not everything that receives coverage is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying the word "local" six times in three comments leads me to think it's significant. :-) Besides, IF not everything that receives coverage is notable, then we need to rely on other principles, and we should be explicit about what they are. If it's not ITSLOCAL, then what exactly is the problem? and can we please focus on it? Melchoir (talk) 06:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanneraol's point, I believe, is not ITSLOCAL, so much as that not everything that receives coverage is notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with this characterization. The article's strongest reference is a 28-paragraph article in a newspaper with a daily circulation (at the time) of 128,012, the 78th largest in the U.S.[44]. That's more than a minor blurb in a local paper. The other references are less significant; that's why I said that the satisfaction of GNG isn't overwhelming. The interpretation of GNG can be a judgement call in these cases, but I want us to agree that it is the relevant guideline. And local versus national coverage doesn't matter; again, see WP:ITSLOCAL. Melchoir (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a local tv gag... mentioned in some local papers... having articles on every goofy gag the local tv guys come up with is just silly. Spanneraol (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's misleading to speak of "all this". We have to distinguish between the topic and the article. The topic can be a commercial entity without the article becoming promotional. Melchoir (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But if it's deemed that all this is is a promotional gimmick, then there's nothing to clean up. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it's not promotional; it's a description of a topic based on independent sources. Moreover, if it were promotional, that would be cause for a {{POV}} template, a note on the talk page, and a cleanup effort -- not an AfD. The AfD process is meant to judge the topic's encyclopedic potential, not the article's present content. Melchoir (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG doesn't say that sources guarantee notability, it presumes notability unless the article is deemed by consensus to not be notable. One way that can happen is if violates what Wikipedia is not, which goes back to what I said about WP:PROMOTION, which you didn't address. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Melchoir above. This is the subject of multiple instances of press coverage and thus passes GNG. Stupid? Yes. Oh, well. Too commercial? Then fix it. Carrite (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have mixed feelings on this and won't vote yet, but I'll note that only one sentence of the page has a reference attached. The page needs a lot of work, and I'm leaning toward Delete or Merge (to Seattle Mariners). — NY-13021 (talk) 23:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just noticed that this article has previously been deleted, under the name "Rally Fries". See here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as a solution, based on the relative lack of sourcing and the relatively minor importance. This would really be much moew helpful with the main article on the team. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As I am pleasantly surprised by the amount of sources specifically on the topic, its a unique term to this one baseball team, and more pleasant than Freedom fries. BUT, a merge may really be the better solution, under Seattle_Mariners#Culture, keeping a redirect.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Seattle_Mariners#Culture, keeping a redirect, per Milowent. Bearian (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is about a promotion, but it is not promotional when multiple independent sources provide non-trivial coverage. In addition to sources in article, see MLB.com and Tri-City Herald. Sporting News mentions it as something to "love about" Safeco. It received a reference in a a book. There's enough sourced information to satify WP:GNG, and the number of trivial references in other sources convince me that this is suitable for Wikipedia, which expands beyond a traditional encyclopedia.—Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - As others have noted, the sourcing, while (barely) sufficient, is sparse, and has a local feel. Our readership is best served by placing this in context with the Mariners article. As the notable focus of the promotion, this is a natural home for this information. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with redirect, as the content already at Seattle_Mariners#Culture appears as complete (with the exception of the illustration), is better written, and is sufficiently sourced. Leaving two articles essentially duplicates content, and efforts towards improving both, with little benefit to our readers. (Don't delete in any case, this is close enough to GNG that keep would be a better option, in my view.) --joe deckertalk to me 17:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with redirect per Joe Decker SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 19:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus the article can be recreated once he plays his first match as fully pro level. Feel free to request undeletion at WP:REFUND at that time, or request userfication with any willing admin (like myself) Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sean McDermott (footballer)[edit]
- Sean McDermott (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, not by the author, due to fact the player had played at youth international level. However the player has not made his first team debut for his club nor has he played at senior international level therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. There is no significant coverage, the article fails WP:GNG, and since he hasn't played at a senior, let alone a fully pro level, fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He just hasn't had significant coverage nor does he meet WP:NFOOTBALL. Article can be recreated or restored when he makes his pro debut.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Though it fails WP:NFOOTBALL, seems pointless to remove an article that meets the standards with clear and reliable referrences to restore it some months later. baros1 (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL. Given that he's not actually even started a match for Arsenal reserves this season, I'd say it's unlikely he'll play first-team football any time soon....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was recently loaned to another League club. His first appearance could be for another club. And he has started two matches for the reserves (or at least played, then) this season. baros1 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.131.19.241 (talk) [reply]
- "His first appearance could be for another club" - indeed it could. And when that time comes, he will be eligible for an article, but there is no guarantee it will be within the next few months -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I see your point. I just don't see why to remove it since it was built and the information is all acording to the standards, even though it fails at some categories. 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.131.19.241 (talk)
- "His first appearance could be for another club" - indeed it could. And when that time comes, he will be eligible for an article, but there is no guarantee it will be within the next few months -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He was recently loaned to another League club. His first appearance could be for another club. And he has started two matches for the reserves (or at least played, then) this season. baros1 (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.131.19.241 (talk) [reply]
- See WP:CRYSTAL. Given that he's not actually even started a match for Arsenal reserves this season, I'd say it's unlikely he'll play first-team football any time soon....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy: Yes it is too soon for him to have a page and clearly fails WP:NFOOTY but no sense in wasting the work on it after it being pretty much ready for when he makes his 1st team debut. Put it in the creators userspace to be recreated later as and when. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY per nom. – Kosm1fent 12:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - read in the Norwegian local paper (here) that he is loaned out to Leeds to play for the reserves and the U18-team. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/userify without prejudice to recreation if the crystal ball is seeing truth. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 18:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
University Without Walls- UMass Amherst[edit]
- University Without Walls- UMass Amherst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. All Ghits are directly from UMass' website or one of their social media accounts, and the only references in the article are from UMass websites. Article might be somewhat of a noble cause as well. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- Redirect to University of Massachusetts Amherst. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or warrant an article, but maybe could garner a mention there. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added a couple of broader references into the article. As it stands, the article is lacking encyclopaedic depth, with too much focus on this institution today rather than what it was when it started, its place in the wider University Without Walls movement, and how it has changed. However that would be a matter for normal editing improvement. The key question here is whether it is notable? In that respect, see Hendra's chapter on "The devolution of the individualized degree at the University Without Walls / University of Massachusetts - Amherst". AllyD (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand in the direction suggested by AllyD. Normally we might not keep an article on a unit like this, but it does have a distinctive history DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Adequate sourcing appears available to meet WP:GNG. --joe deckertalk to me 17:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sunset International Bible Institute[edit]
- Sunset International Bible Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article on an organisation that lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - poorly sourced, but that's not grounds for deletion; meets our minimal standards for notability, although it may need to be stubbed of the primary-source fluff. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which standards? duffbeerforme (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Colleges and high schools are generally regarded as inherently notable; that's long-standing consensus. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, doesn't appear to be substantially different from other religious colleges. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian national heroes[edit]
- Iranian national heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This list is totally useless and there is no way to determine a "national hero". Americophile 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Americophile 23:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's try defining it and see if it' possible. --Tondar1 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the very problem: the topic itself is unclear; you have to figure out what a "national hero" is for yourself. I could see this page being kept if "national hero" were an official title in Iran, but it's practically impossible to define it for ourselves without violating policies such as Wikipedia:No original research. Without any objective indication of what constitutes a national hero, I say delete per nom. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this rationale. If there is a clear-cut definition of "national hero" for Iran in WP:RS, then source that definition and limit this list to people who meet it. For instance, if an editor can find a reliable source that asserts that an "Iranian national hero" is someone who has received Iranian award X, Y, or Z, that would do it. If no such definition is available (and I can't find one), delete. (I am open to revising my opinion if an RS definition is found.) - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarification, I would also revise my decision if an official definition is found. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I do not want this page to be deleted is that it contains very famous and important people and is a good "gateway" for people to look them up if you guys know what I mean, something like a portal. Perhaps the name of the article can be changed to something else? --Tondar1 (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the very problem: the topic itself is unclear; you have to figure out what a "national hero" is for yourself. I could see this page being kept if "national hero" were an official title in Iran, but it's practically impossible to define it for ourselves without violating policies such as Wikipedia:No original research. Without any objective indication of what constitutes a national hero, I say delete per nom. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's try defining it and see if it' possible. --Tondar1 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- This list seems not to pass WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. If there were some way to make the list "unambiguous" and "objective", I think the "supported by reliable sources" criteria could probably be met. But as is, I think it does not pass all of WP:LSC. Thus, I agree with Chris the Paleontologist. Hoppingalong (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Essentially subjective mix of historical and mythological figures. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agree with nom. The topic is controversial. For exemple for Irannian Bahais, Amir Kabir is not a hero at all, as he killed Bab! And I don't know how can we consider Hassan-i-Sabah a national hero.Farhikht (talk) 15:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.