Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 4
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LIFE (church)[edit]
- LIFE (church) (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 page in church. No independent references after three years. Cannot find anything independent in google (but name makes this very hard). If a few independent refs can be found, but not enough to meet WP:GNG, merge to a note in the related Hillsong Church article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom. Looks entirely self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per DerbyCountyinNZ. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent sources, needs considerable work. NealeFamily (talk) 04:09, 9 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. Sources were looked for and not found. Shii (tock) 07:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FAITA Award[edit]
- FAITA Award (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. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Having trouble finding anything that meets WP:N in independent sources. --Pusillanimous 23:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:33, 5 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. While there hasn't been a lot of participation in this discussion, the last AFD was closed a little over a month ago and there's enough to show that consensus hasn't changed. Let's wait at least 3 months before beating this horse again. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh Darwen[edit]
- Hugh Darwen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May not meet the notability criteria UKWikiGuy (talk) 20:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The arguments for the Keep on the January 2011 nomination still look persuasive. In addition, a look at the Google Books link turns up a wide variety of books covering Darwen's work, for example "The relational model was originally conceived by Dr. Edgar F. Codd and subsequently maintained and developed by Hugh Darwen and Chris Date as a general model of data."[1]. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, definetly keep. This is the third time the same user nominates the same article for deletion, without adding any reason whatsoever. I guess some disciplinary action would be in order, because such an obnoxious behaviour denotes a personal grudge. The article is still more solid than last time, with more information, more references and better formatting. — 189.61.94.90 (talk) 03:29, 6 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Old Flame Records[edit]
- Old Flame Records (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 label. Was created by User:Oldflamerob, who one could surmise to be the owner of the label. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not appear to have significant coverage specific to the label itself. --Pusillanimous 21:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:PROMO. Created by apparently WP:SPA. -- Trevj (talk) 12:23, 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 redirect to 4 Non Blondes. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wanda Day[edit]
- Wanda Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Multiple dispute over speedy deletion. Proposed for deletion as non notable musician. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not appear to satisfy WP:BASIC. She does not seem to have been covered outside of articles on 4 Non Blondes or forum sites. --Pusillanimous 21:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing more here than redirect fodder. Hairhorn (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete! There is no place on the internet where this information could be found centralized. Also, one of the official members of the band contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.55.88 (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you have a substantive argument to persuade the community that Wanda Day is notable and that this notability has been verified in reliable sources please add those sources as citations to the article and notify us here that this has been done. Oratory will not save the article. Verifiable and notable facts will. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The information in the article in question is relatively minor. Perhaps we can add subsection to 4 Non Blondes that would include information on the band members, including Wanda Day, and add a redirect as is the case with Christa Hillhouse? --Pusillanimous 23:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree. I will move the data to 4 Non Blondes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.55.88 (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The contents of the page have been moved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romtoc (talk • contribs) 07:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've restored the page over the redirect. Please wait until the AfD is over before taking it upon yourself to delete the article. —SW— confer 16:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the only editor who made any contribution to the article other than tagging for AfD, wouldnt this follow "Speedy delete by author request?" -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think at this stage the discussion should run its course. A redirect is a valid outcome, but it should not be left hanging as a "chaps, someone should merge this one day", it must happen as an outcome of the discussion (assuming that is the consensus) and merge-able text can be rescued from the history of this article, or from userfication. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tried to merge the pages and redirect Wanda Day, but someone has removed every edit I have made. Romtoc (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the only editor who made any contribution to the article other than tagging for AfD, wouldnt this follow "Speedy delete by author request?" -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am the person who removed the content from 4 Non Blondes because it came with no reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 4 Non Blondes. There does not appear to be enough significant coverage for this person to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO; per the latter guideline, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article". Gongshow Talk 17:42, 7 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) 00:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moyes Litespeed[edit]
- Moyes Litespeed (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 for lack of notability. One mention in a directory of leisure aviation does not confer notability. Much, if not all, of the information in the directory was supplied directly from the manufacturer. There appears to be no independent coverage, not to mention any significant independent coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) all aircraft types are notable because they are all written up extensively in standard references such as Janes All The World's Aircraft, which established notability. I do not have access to Janes on a daily basis, but I can get access and add sufficient refs to clearly show notability on that basis alone. Furthermore the notability of this particular hang glider design is not even close to in doubt. The Lightspeed has won dozens of world, national and regional championships and has been extensively written up and reviewed in the aviation press. I have already started adding operational history text with refs that show the clear notability of this aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have now added accounts of many Litespeed record flights and championship wins to the article from the respected European hang gliding magazine Cross Country's website. They have about 100 more articles online about other wins and records by Litespeeds that I can add, but I think you get the idea from the text that I have added so far. These hundreds of articles were very easy to find with a quick web search. I didn't even have to go downtown to the public library to pore through Janes. It seems pretty clear that in starting this AFD you missed the required steps at WP:BEFORE. Can you now please withdraw this AFD? - Ahunt (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly an extensively used competition glider, article still needs more work but that is not a reason for deletion. No reason to doubt that a directory is independent of the manufacturer with its own editorial content. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any directory, that particular directory: World directory of leisure aviation published by the Societe Des Editions Retine. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was refering to that directory which is published in three languages and is a well known guide to leisure aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not any directory, that particular directory: World directory of leisure aviation published by the Societe Des Editions Retine. --Bejnar (talk) 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Each individual type/family of aircraft is notable per the aircraft notability standard and per long-standing consensus. Once an aircraft model is verified using reliable sources that it exists, it is notable and deserves an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is not a guideline or a standard, it is an essay, and it deviates rather widely from the general notability guideline. It has not received general consensus. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA is also an essay, but nobody raises "just an essay" comments when it is referenced at AfD. More to the point, when I referenced "long-standing consensus" I was not referring to Notability (aircraft) in the least. WP:CONSENSUS is not attained solely through discussion - it is also attained through the normal process of noncontroversial editing. And the normal process of noncontroversial editing has estabished consensus that all types of aircraft that can be reliably verified as independent types are, indeed, notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, as it now stands, has many reliable third party refs that clearly show that this is a notable subject to any required standard, including WP:N and WP:GNG. I think it is pretty clear that you didn't do your homework and ensure that you had complied with the requirements of WP:BEFORE in starting this AFD. As a result I would suggest that you stop wasting everyone's time on this flawed nomination, admit that you made a mistake and withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article cites reliable third party sources, unfortunately most of them do not discuss the Moyes Litespeed. It is merely mentioned in passing as the vehicle that the winner flew. The only one that discusses the Moyes Litespeed is a significant way is Evgeniya Laritskaya's blog. Can't you all find significant discussions of the vehicle itself in independent, reliable third party sources? Or is the only data from independent, reliable third party sources is that it was used to win this or that race? (As indicated above, I question the independent status of the information in the Societe Des Editions Retine directory.) --Bejnar (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that these independent refs establish that the aircraft has won dozens of major competitions and set numerous records establishes that the subject is notable. There are dozens of detailed reviews of the aircraft, but by convention within the aviation publishing world most of these are not posted on the internet, but published in paper magazines, some of which I have here and need to go though, issue by issue. The type will also be extensively written up in Janes over many years and variants, but I will have to get to the central library to get those refs. In the meantime I think, as you have admitted, that there is no doubt that this is a notable subject and therefore the AFD should be withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still trying to understand your objection to the World Directory of Leisure Aviation. You said "One mention in a directory of leisure aviation does not confer notability. Much, if not all, of the information in the directory was supplied directly from the manufacturer". This is a well-respected publication of long-standing, with an independent European editorial team, an independent publisher and it is distributed in three language editions all over the world. As noted no one else commenting here has a problem with it as an independent third part reference. Your assertion that they use manufacturer's information doesn't hold water. No publication, not Janes, not the Observers Book of Aircraft, not Flying Magazine, no publication, does not use manufacturer’s data in their writing. Do you think each year Jane's sends staff out to measure the wingspan of a Boeing 747 to put it into All the World's Aircraft? They use manufacturer's data, which is the same data used and accepted by national regulatory and certification authorities around the world. Using manufacturer's data is not a valid reason to reject a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a source is cited solely for the manufacture's data, and that source uses just the data receive from the manufacture, then it is not n indepedent souse with respect to that data. It may be independent for other data. This is similar to a newspaper which may be independent in reporting news, but not so when printing a company's news release. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still dont understand your objections you are possibly not looking at the same source as other editors, The World Directory of Leisure Aviation has editorial content with an editorial committee so clearly is not just a bunch of company specs reprinted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article, look at what The World Directory of Leisure Aviation was cited for. It is not cited for any of their editorial content. It is just cited for specs.Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not looking at the same article as I am as far as I can see it used as a reference for the introduction and the design and development hence I thought was the reason behind you original argument that it doesnt show that the glider is notable. It clearly is an independant source so time for WP:SNOW I think. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Bejnar: I think you missed actually reading the article. The ref in question is reference "1" and is used throughout the lead and Design and development section, as well as the Variants section as a reference, because the text in the ref supports the text written in the article. It actually is not the reference cited in the Specifications section. I think this AFD nomination has clearly run its course and no logical argument has been made to delete this article, which is why deletion has received no support at all from anyone. If you can't admit that you were mistaken in nominating it that is fine, it can be closed regardless. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly not looking at the same article as I am as far as I can see it used as a reference for the introduction and the design and development hence I thought was the reason behind you original argument that it doesnt show that the glider is notable. It clearly is an independant source so time for WP:SNOW I think. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the article, look at what The World Directory of Leisure Aviation was cited for. It is not cited for any of their editorial content. It is just cited for specs.Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still dont understand your objections you are possibly not looking at the same source as other editors, The World Directory of Leisure Aviation has editorial content with an editorial committee so clearly is not just a bunch of company specs reprinted. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If a source is cited solely for the manufacture's data, and that source uses just the data receive from the manufacture, then it is not n indepedent souse with respect to that data. It may be independent for other data. This is similar to a newspaper which may be independent in reporting news, but not so when printing a company's news release. --Bejnar (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still trying to understand your objection to the World Directory of Leisure Aviation. You said "One mention in a directory of leisure aviation does not confer notability. Much, if not all, of the information in the directory was supplied directly from the manufacturer". This is a well-respected publication of long-standing, with an independent European editorial team, an independent publisher and it is distributed in three language editions all over the world. As noted no one else commenting here has a problem with it as an independent third part reference. Your assertion that they use manufacturer's information doesn't hold water. No publication, not Janes, not the Observers Book of Aircraft, not Flying Magazine, no publication, does not use manufacturer’s data in their writing. Do you think each year Jane's sends staff out to measure the wingspan of a Boeing 747 to put it into All the World's Aircraft? They use manufacturer's data, which is the same data used and accepted by national regulatory and certification authorities around the world. Using manufacturer's data is not a valid reason to reject a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that these independent refs establish that the aircraft has won dozens of major competitions and set numerous records establishes that the subject is notable. There are dozens of detailed reviews of the aircraft, but by convention within the aviation publishing world most of these are not posted on the internet, but published in paper magazines, some of which I have here and need to go though, issue by issue. The type will also be extensively written up in Janes over many years and variants, but I will have to get to the central library to get those refs. In the meantime I think, as you have admitted, that there is no doubt that this is a notable subject and therefore the AFD should be withdrawn. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article cites reliable third party sources, unfortunately most of them do not discuss the Moyes Litespeed. It is merely mentioned in passing as the vehicle that the winner flew. The only one that discusses the Moyes Litespeed is a significant way is Evgeniya Laritskaya's blog. Can't you all find significant discussions of the vehicle itself in independent, reliable third party sources? Or is the only data from independent, reliable third party sources is that it was used to win this or that race? (As indicated above, I question the independent status of the information in the Societe Des Editions Retine directory.) --Bejnar (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article, as it now stands, has many reliable third party refs that clearly show that this is a notable subject to any required standard, including WP:N and WP:GNG. I think it is pretty clear that you didn't do your homework and ensure that you had complied with the requirements of WP:BEFORE in starting this AFD. As a result I would suggest that you stop wasting everyone's time on this flawed nomination, admit that you made a mistake and withdraw the AFD. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATA is also an essay, but nobody raises "just an essay" comments when it is referenced at AfD. More to the point, when I referenced "long-standing consensus" I was not referring to Notability (aircraft) in the least. WP:CONSENSUS is not attained solely through discussion - it is also attained through the normal process of noncontroversial editing. And the normal process of noncontroversial editing has estabished consensus that all types of aircraft that can be reliably verified as independent types are, indeed, notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is not a guideline or a standard, it is an essay, and it deviates rather widely from the general notability guideline. It has not received general consensus. --Bejnar (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that this article was nominated for deletion within an hour of creation, while it was still under construction. Don't assume negative notability, people. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I should add that 34 minutes after the article was first created a question was asked about notability on Talk:Moyes Litespeed, but rather than waiting for an answer the question asker commenced the AFD exactly ten minutes later. This really is not ideal. - Ahunt (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Afd's are about reasoned discussion, they are not votes. This Afd is about notability. It is about meeting the requirements of the [[WP:Notability}] guideline. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS such as Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is not applicable. Significant coverage in reliable third party sources is required. Appropriate published sources that are not available on the internet are just fine. I look forward to seeing some. --Bejnar (talk) 19:47, 9 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 EMD GP40-based passenger locomotives#GP40MC. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GP40MC Locomotive[edit]
- GP40MC Locomotive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely permastub with no assertion of notability. Article is a complete mess. Probably should be merged with something; just not sure what Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This looks like one of many nicely done stubs on individual GMD Locomotives. Knowing the number of train buffs and train buff publications out there wp:notability-suitable source probably exist. So I think that these are valid as a bunch of nicely done stubs, but would be better off in a consolidated article on GMD locomotives. North8000 (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicely done? It's incomplete, and rife with broken links and grammatical errors! Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 22:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a model of locomotive, of which 25 were said to have been made. No references were included in the article to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy redirect to EMD GP40, which should have been done before coming to AfD. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I didn't know where to redirect it to before you mentioned a plausible redirect target. I started the AfD at least in part to find plausible redirect targets Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I didn't know where to redirect it to before you mentioned a plausible redirect target. I started the AfD at least in part to find plausible redirect targets Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 03:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, although I have a different target. This is a duplication of the GMD GP40MC article and that redirects to EMD GP40-based passenger locomotives#GP40MC. I suggest a merge of the EMD GP40-based passenger locomotives and EMD GP40 articles though. Edgepedia (talk) 18:12, 5 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 Hetaera. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hetaerism[edit]
- Hetaerism (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 is not really a disambiguation page, as neither of the two article topics described on the page have actual articles in the encyclopedia to be disambiguated. Both are basically dicdefs as they stand, so I would suggest moving this to Wiktionary with a soft redirect, unless someone wants to write an actual article on one of these concepts. bd2412 T 19:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have now made a Wiktionary entry at wikt:hetaerism covering both definitions offered here. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 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 prejudice against recreation as a redirect to the article on the book. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dissolve the box[edit]
- Dissolve the box (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 is no topic here. This page is a collection of various bits and pieces cobbled together in violation of WP:SYNTH. The instances of "dissolve" are not significantly different in meaning and usage from Thinking outside the box. The various examples do not relate to each other and do not form a separate topic. Binksternet (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is basically a continuation of a précis of the book Next What's In, which already has an article. Sionk (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not dissimilar to problems I found in a related article I've submitted for AFD (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intent Leadership). --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article - Let's understand how it is different from Thinking Outside the Box as this will clear many doubts. It is a shift from being the mind or body to the much finer "pure consciousness" which gives rise to the mind or body. If you ask a thief to think Outside the box what will he do? Probabbly he will steal better because he still responds from the mental image of being a thief. In other words the deeper boxes which we pick up as we grow like our fear, ego, religion, education, character, attitude, experience etc still pour into our decisions infecting them. When we think Outside the box we are only thinking outside some of the superficial boxes ( usually the professional box). Just like the thief, individuals and organizations pick up different boxes and till they dissolve the boxes and know their real self ( self realization) they keep responding from their mental images only. Some of the boxes we have blown out of proportion is money, ego, insecurity, hidden fear etc. We dissolve our boxes only when we realize we are "pure consciousness" which has actually taken the form of mind and body. When we "simply be" or practice "silence-acceptance" it can be proved that we are then a "silent witnessing presence" or consciousness and this is a better frequency to lead, manage,create, change and act.
Let's be very open and discuss this more in case the idea is not communicated clearly because it is a broad idea and needs complete discussion.
The article on Dissolve the box is not the same as Next What's In. It is correct that "Next What's In" (the book) discusses this idea but this concept has a lot more to offer. It is just the beginning (the root) and from it is derived different management concepts (branches) like "Intent Leadership", "Mental Flatteners" etc. which initself is very huge and which is much finer and deeper than Thought leadership and Physical Flatteners etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Vartmaan, the question is not whether or not "dissolving the box" is or isn't an interesting idea. I certainly agree that it's intriguing to think about. The question is, "is this article described as notable in reliable sources to be included within Wikipedia?" Perhaps there is a way that we can include some of this content within the article Next What's In? Part of the trouble also comes from the fact that the idea "Dissolve the box" is original research is also difficult — it is hard to find independent articles that reference the idea because it is only made by one person or found in the book. --Pusillanimous 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: I suggest we merge Intent Leadership and Dissolve the box into the article on the book Next What's In. The former two articles are non-notable and original theories and could be included in a "Concepts" subsection of the article in a slimmed-down form. How does that sound? --Pusillanimous 02:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief abstracts on these two concepts probably couldn't hurt - in fact, it would likely give the book more context. Perhaps, given these two, a merge and redirect is a more appropriate way to deal with these. I'll wait for other thoughts before I change my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging to Next What's In seems to be suitable, with this article made into a redirect. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief abstracts on these two concepts probably couldn't hurt - in fact, it would likely give the book more context. Perhaps, given these two, a merge and redirect is a more appropriate way to deal with these. I'll wait for other thoughts before I change my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Discuss:It's great to have this discussion and i am sure many more editors will share their inputs. I specially thank SineBot, Pusillanimous, Dennis The Tiger and of course Binksternet for their continuous effort to improve wikipedia.
Just to share few more inputs on "Dissolve the box" for more clarity and an informed decision: The sources given for the article on "Dissolve the box" and "Intent Leadership" are all very reliable and verifiable. It is being discussed at the IIMs and IITs - the premier institutions of the world and many organizations are now showing interest in these ideas independently. One of the IIM is converting "dissolve the box" into into a 30 hour course material with 3 credit points and so is the case wih Intent Leadership. Industry leaders (Chief Innovative Officer, Chief Managing Directors, Vice Presidents etc.) from different parts of the world have been positively discussing it in Harvard Blogs and have even given positive comments via emails (which can be shared in the public domain). National and International press, electronic and television like ET Now, Business Today, Businessworld etc. have found enough food for thought to move beyond "Thinking Outside the Box" and "Thought Leadership" as inclusive, intelligent and sustainable growth is still missing. Students doing Professional Degrees like MBA, Engineering etc. have been looking at these articles at Wiki for reliable information rather than reading the book :). This guided us to participate in Wikipedia.
Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership have outgrown "Next What's In" and i hope through our discussions you all will appreciate that it deserves its place in wikipedia as independent articles. Dissolve the box is a way of life (all aspects) and Intent Leadership is focussed to Leadership only.
In case more clarification is required we will be happy to provide them. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Discuss:It's great to have this discussion and i am sure many more editors will share their inputs. I specially thank SineBot, Pusillanimous, Dennis The Tiger and of course Binksternet for their continuous effort to improve wikipedia.
- I am hearing nothing but promotional blather. This page is for discussing how the topic might meet WP:GNG requirements and, if not, what should be done with it. There is no need to try and "sell" the topic to us here. We are not here to think outside of thinking outside the box, we are here specifically to discover whether Wikipedia's "box" should contain this material. We are here to find out if it should be included inside the box. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for your reply. My point is certinly not to sell the idea to you'll. Like you'll i respect wiki rules, the wiki community and its objective. I simply tried to answer one point which said "it is made by one person only". What i am trying to communicate is that this idea is not just limited to a few now. I believe it is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Looking forward to inputs from you'll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing in the sources that says "dissolve the box" is a widely used term with any kind of notability beyond the fact that it is used in one self-help book designed to sell to businesspeople. Wikipedia is the skeptic here; you are the one who must demonstrate that the term is well known. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "well known" is certainly not mentioned specifically. However, a stronger verifiable evidence is given in the IIPM link where it is shown Sharma introducing the concept and practical implication to many students in an auditorium and fortunately the presentation can also be seen in the photograph. There are 3 photographs supporting it with a complete news. We also have emails from CMD of Air India, Director - IIM, VP - Essar, VP - ICICI Prudential, VP - Lupin Pharma etc. which can be shared to support (I hope these are reliable if it is in the official capacity). We also have a video clipping from a very respectable business news channel "ET Now" where it is shown Sharma speaking at an International conference at IIT with international dignitories on Dissolve the Box and Intent Leadership. Even the Harvard link and the Management Exchange link shows people participating in different parts of the world. I firmly believe it is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Hope it convinces Wikipedia and its editors. Vartmaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.16.110 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are arguments in favor of the book and in favor of Sharma. Such sources do not help to establish the phrase "dissolve the box" as its own notable term. You need a business jargon guide to list it, or a corporate dictionary to explain it, or a linguist to discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to WP:GNG "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.[1]". Many references that we have given have "significant coverage" on Dissolve the box as per the definition of significant coverage given in WP:GNG. The examples given in these references explain dissolve the box concept and not the author or the book though there is "significant coverage" for the author and the book too. Let's follow the spirit of this guideline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 06:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are arguments in favor of the book and in favor of Sharma. Such sources do not help to establish the phrase "dissolve the box" as its own notable term. You need a business jargon guide to list it, or a corporate dictionary to explain it, or a linguist to discuss it. Binksternet (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "well known" is certainly not mentioned specifically. However, a stronger verifiable evidence is given in the IIPM link where it is shown Sharma introducing the concept and practical implication to many students in an auditorium and fortunately the presentation can also be seen in the photograph. There are 3 photographs supporting it with a complete news. We also have emails from CMD of Air India, Director - IIM, VP - Essar, VP - ICICI Prudential, VP - Lupin Pharma etc. which can be shared to support (I hope these are reliable if it is in the official capacity). We also have a video clipping from a very respectable business news channel "ET Now" where it is shown Sharma speaking at an International conference at IIT with international dignitories on Dissolve the Box and Intent Leadership. Even the Harvard link and the Management Exchange link shows people participating in different parts of the world. I firmly believe it is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Hope it convinces Wikipedia and its editors. Vartmaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.16.110 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing in the sources that says "dissolve the box" is a widely used term with any kind of notability beyond the fact that it is used in one self-help book designed to sell to businesspeople. Wikipedia is the skeptic here; you are the one who must demonstrate that the term is well known. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge—I've been watching this, and Intent Leadership for quite a while, unsure what to do with it. The terms both get minor press, but always in the context of the book or an interview with the author, never by themselves. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intent Leadership has been posted, the path here has become clear to me... Merge both articles into the article on the book they came from: Next What's In. This same comment will be copied over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intent Leadership. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG guidelines - When "Dissolve the box" has been covered by majority of the National and some International media by giving detailed examples (of the thief)and explaining how it is different from Thinking Outside the box along with its implications in Leadership, innovation, organization etc. it can certinly not be termed a "minor press". Even the main headings and the captions of many of the article published, talk of Dissolve the box. In fact, if we go through the articles published by the media we will realise it is the soul of the articles or the high point of the articles. As per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Dissolve the box has certainly not been a "trivial mention" but much-much more. It is the soul of the articles. Most of the articles are more than 500 words and approximately 50% of the artcles have covered Dissolve the box and matter related to it spread all accross the articles (introduction, body and conclusion). This is certainly not trivial considering the weightage of Dissolve the box in the articles published on its own and if we see them in the context of the media in which it is covered (in terms of source, circulation, reach, quality, objectivity, reliability etc.) it is certainly not minor press. Thus, we should allow this article to remain as per the WP:GNG guidelines. The overall spirit of wikipedia and its guidelines which i understand is to remain the encyclopedia or the infolog which is objective, reliable and verifiable for the benefit of the visitors all accross the web. Let's follow the spirit. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 03:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just for fun I checked each reference in this article. Since the article doesn't use any inline citations, it's impossible to tell what each source is supposed to be supporting, so I read every word of each reference. Here is an objective view of the sources:
- Covers the term within the scope of a book review. Lends notability to the book, not the term.
- Trivial mention
- Routine coverage of book - very short book review.
- Significant book review - an excellent source for a Wikipedia article on the book, but the term "Dissolve the box" gets minor coverage within the overall book review.
- Book review which gives significant coverage to "Dissolve the box". This is the first real assertion of notability for the term.
- Significant book review - an excellent source for a Wikipedia article on the book, but the term "Dissolve the box" gets minor coverage within the overall book review.
- WP:ROUTINE coverage of a lecture. Not a significant indicator of notability for anyone involved.
- "Dissolve the box" is never even mentioned in this article. Unsure why this is included as a reference.
- Blog post by the book's author. Presumed not to be editorially reviewed, so therefore not a reliable source.
- This particular neologism just doesn't have enough coverage, independent of reviews for the book in which it was coined, to support a stand-alone Wikipedia article at this time. The proper place for coverage of this term is within the article on the book. When this term gets common usage, outside the context of the book then it would be appropriate for a standalone Wikipedia article. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- References changed as per the study done by Livitup : Thanks a lot Livitup for your detailed study. Here are the clarifications for the same.
Firstly, as per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". So even if Next What's In is the main topic of the source material in many references "Dissolve the box" has got significant coverage in 5 reliable and verifiable references provided earlier.
Secondly, the 8th point where you mention "dissolve the box has not even been mentioned" Dan Burrier the Chief Innovation Officer of Ogilvy and Mather( Americas) has himself appreciated the idea "Dissolve the box" when it was discussed with him (You can see it for yourself in the discussions given below in that article between Santosh and Dan Burrier along with teh others.
Thirdly, you have used "trivial" for ref. 2 and "minor" for refrerence 4 and 6. Further you have assessed Ref. 5 as real assertion of the notability of the term "Dissolve the Box". As per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Therefore, Ref. 4 and Ref. 6 qualifies as valid refrences for a independent article as it is "more than trivial coverage" and therefore "significant coverage" as per WP:GNG though it may not be the main topic. There is no concept of minor coverage and anything that is more than trivial coverage is "significant coverage" as per this guideline.
Finally, even though Ref. 1 and Ref. 3 qualify as valid references as per WP:GNG guidelines, i have removed it (we have now kept 3 strong references for this article) just to quash slightest of confusion (if it still persists) to conclude that the article "Dissolve the box" is accepted as an independent article. Even the minor coverage mentioned by you is actually significant as the entire concept on Dissolve the box was not put together (by thouse editors)at the same place but scattered in in different parts all throughout the article like the introduction, body and conclusion . Dissolve the box is not just a trivial mention but much more as examples and the difference between Thinking outside the box is clearly brought out in those articles too and its applicability in leadership, innovation etc. is also shown.
I think and hope that the wiki editors are satisfied with my continuous effort to clear their doubt. All the 3 references provided now with this article is highly reliable and verifiable with significant coverage as per the WP:GNG guidelines. Thanks, Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is still a horribly promotional article selling a muzzy concept that is not at all notable away from its presence inside one notable book. When this article is made into a redirect to the book article, and the contents are merged, I will push for a large scale diminution of the description of the concept. This is exactly what Wikipedia is not to be used for: promotion of new ideas. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What Binksternet said. This is nothing but promotion of a non-notable concept--poorly disguised and poorly written. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow WP:GNG guidelines: The point raised is "non notability" of the concept. The reference of WP:GNG guidelines and reasons of Significant coverage was provided earlier. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". So even if "Next What's In" is the main topic of the source material in many references "Dissolve the box" has got significant coverage in 5 reliable and verifiable references provided earlier. However, based on the Livitup study we have kept 3 references only to remove all confusions. The deletion of the artcile will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I would request you'll to follow the "objective definition of notable" as per wikipedia guidelines and not let individual judgement defeat the spirit. If the concept is explained clearly by giving examples, its advantages over the thinking outside the box is brought out or its relevance in leadership, innovation and management is explained can this be termed as "trivial coverage"? Is it against the WP:GNG guidelines? Are the references unreliable or nonverifiable? Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not properly covered, simple as that. Please start signing your messages, and please indent and comment according to conventions, so it's clear who is responding to what. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The questions i have raised is very objective but the answer provided is again subjective. My simple point is "Is the article following the WP:GNG guidelines? Yes or No. If the answer is "No" then what do we mean by "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Livitup has done the homework by going through all the 10 references and he has answered this question very objectively where he found the first reference as ":#Book review which gives significant coverage to "Dissolve the box". This is the first real assertion of notability for the term." He also found the second and the third ref as ":#Significant book review - an excellent source for a Wikipedia article on the book, but the term "Dissolve the box" gets minor coverage within the overall book review." To this, the point raised by me was since Livitup has himself differentiated between "trivial" and "minor coverage" and as per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" so this article is a significant coverage as it is much more than a trivial mention. Once the notability of the article is decided i can always improve the article further and all the concerns can be addressed so that the spirit of wikipedia is upheld. Thank you.Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Based on the guidelines, the answer is "no". The subject of the article article needs to stand up by itself, independent of the book, in order to warrant inclusion. I covered this in your talk page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then what do you mean by "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Thank you. "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- As stated, I covered this on your talk page. To sum it up, though, this must stand on its own, independent of the book. That's pretty much all there is to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow WP:GNG guidelines: The point raised is "non notability" of the concept. The reference of WP:GNG guidelines and reasons of Significant coverage was provided earlier. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". So even if "Next What's In" is the main topic of the source material in many references "Dissolve the box" has got significant coverage in 5 reliable and verifiable references provided earlier. However, based on the Livitup study we have kept 3 references only to remove all confusions. The deletion of the artcile will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia guidelines. I would request you'll to follow the "objective definition of notable" as per wikipedia guidelines and not let individual judgement defeat the spirit. If the concept is explained clearly by giving examples, its advantages over the thinking outside the box is brought out or its relevance in leadership, innovation and management is explained can this be termed as "trivial coverage"? Is it against the WP:GNG guidelines? Are the references unreliable or nonverifiable? Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 07:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG guidelines: It is very clearly written "it need not be the main topic of the source material". The heading of the articles also which is usually the soul or the high point of the article hints at the box factor. The headings given in the article are "Born free, boxed In", "The Way Out", "Get beyond thought traps" aren't they clearly hinting at the soul of the article? And isn't the explaination of Dissolve the box concept actually explaining and taking the heading forward? Do you still believe it is not significant coverage? Kindly reconsider your stand and be fair. You are an editor you know much better what is the importance of the heading of any article. Thank you "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk
- No, the context is always about the book or the author. The idea of "dissolve the box" is never discussed in detail outside of this context. Binksternet (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows
Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Vartmaan - Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt. The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out WP:GNG, you should be very familiar with by now. Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case. What will help is if you can alter the article in such a way to demonstrate notability of this independently of the book. The end. In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication. That, alone, will change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Dennis The Tiger- Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the WP:GNG guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this WP:GNGguideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] ([[User talk:Vartmaan|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by User:WereSpielChequers under WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies in the University of Jaffna[edit]
- Controversies in the University of Jaffna (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 content doesn't need to be in a separate article. It could be included in the University of Jaffna article if references are provided for the allegations. obi2canibetalk contr 18:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under criteria G10, as a page that "disparages its subject...and serves no other purpose". Tagged as such. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:17, 4 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) 00:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mary Augustine Lane[edit]
- Mary Augustine Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide significant coverage of this nun, writer and activist. Attempted a variety of web/news/books searches but it's of course possible I've missed something through name variation or through non-online sources. joe deckertalk to me 18:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, no reliable independent sources to support notability. WWGB (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is almost a candidate for speedy deletion - as no claim to notability is made. StAnselm (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the GNG, and in my opinion is only barely ineligible for A7. -- Lear's Fool 20:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete* Page created by a user who creates many religious people pages which get deleted. User talk:O'Donoghue Ray-Rays 01:42, 8 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) 00:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soen[edit]
- Soen (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 failed WP:GNG SarahStierch (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - understandable you may think this, but the group meets the alternative notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC, i.e. "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" Sionk (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Sionk, meets WP:BAND#6. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Sinok. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 07:52, 10 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) 00:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Suncroft A.F.C.[edit]
- Suncroft A.F.C. (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 on the ground that "this article is here to provide information on the club Suncroft AFC, There's not much references I can give since the majority of information on this article is taken from the clubs website" however this is in violation of Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:GNG and WP:A. Cloudz679 17:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:12, 11 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) 00:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lauren Burrows[edit]
- Lauren Burrows (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 unsourced BLP. This was created when the notability (and sourcing) standards were a little looser, simply having been on the radio at one point is not enough for notability. I PRODed this page, and the article creator agreed with me that the entry no longer meets the criteria for inclusion. However, this has since been deprodded as the sole edit by a new user named "ThisisaTestAccount1" Hairhorn (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I'm the original creator, and I've tried and failed on multiple occasions to source this article up to contemporary wikistandards — so I do agree with Hairhorn's assessment that it shouldn't be here. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 5 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 merge to Disney Channel Asia. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Channel Hong Kong[edit]
- Disney Channel Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability, there is no references or sources --TBrandley (talk) 04:59, 17 February 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 February 17. Snotbot t • c » 10:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A frequently advertised channel. 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and probably a sock[reply]
- Without sources Delete per nom. Specifically !voting to counter the opinion above that something advertised is notable. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 14:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not looked for sources yet, so I'm not going to jump ahead of myself and !vote "delete". However, I must second SchmuckyTheCat that advertisement of something does not make it suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. 147.8.102.172, there are specific notability guidelines that the topic of any article must meet, such as Wikipedia:Notability. Also, I want to bring up the point that any sources you're going to find are probably going to be in Chinese. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The writing suggests it is merely a timezone feed of Disney Channel Asia without anything local, and since local Disney Channels are never branded with their region of origination I doubt this article is needed, even as a redirect.Nate • (chatter) 17:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Merge content to Disney Channel Asia. Having a second look at things I still think it's a timezone feed, but the content should be retained in the main network article for Disney Channel Asia. Nate • (chatter) 19:02, 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) 17:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Disney Channel Asia per Nate's sound reasoning. bd2412 T 19:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Disney Channel Asia, which would improve and expand the Disney Channel Asia article. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:34, 7 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Players in Indian Premier League[edit]
- Players in Indian Premier League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnecessary list. It is unsourced and isn't updated to maintain relevance and accuracy. Fails WP:V and probably other guidelines I'm ignorant of. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't fail V - it isn't unverifiable. It's just unsourced in that list, which isn't quite the same thing. The four red-linked players shouldn't be there, per list guidelines for living people. A few spot checks indicate that the information is in the players' bios. As for maintenance (which isn't a valid reason for deletion - if it were, we'd delete half the encyclopaedia), it does appear to be up to date as of 2011, with several entries for the 2012 season. So that doesn't appear to be correct. Overall, I'd say that I see no valid reason to delete, so keep. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed, it doesn't fail WP:V, but I think it does fail WP:NOTESAL. While everyone in that list is notable, I don't feel the list itself is particularly notable. Having a list of players who have played in the English Football Premier League for example would be similarly non-notable as a list, despite the notability of the individuals. Harrias talk 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not a lot different in my opinion from many other lists of cricketers (and others) that we keep and maintain, such as the lists of Test and ODI cricketers or lists of cricketers for different teams. It would be more useful if it was sortable and up-to-date, of course. So even though I can think of no instance in which I would ever be likely to refer to it myself... I still think it's a keep. Johnlp (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Our lists of international cricketers are inherently more notable than domestic lists. We don't have lists of all the players that have taken part in a domestic competition; As an example, we don't have List of players in the Friends Provident t20 or List of players in the Sheffield Shield. Instead we maintain lists on individual teams, which is a much more efficient way to list players. It duplicates a topic which could be easily split and be more inclusive: at the moment there is no clear guideline for inclusion, with most of the names being just overseas players or Indian players of note. List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers ect would better list the players involved in the IPL by team. If every single name of a player who has taken part in the IPL were included, I think this list would quickly become too big and even more pointless.
- Be that as it may, the basis for deletion is that such a thing should not exist - per policy or guidelines. And I don't see that case being made here. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Too big" can't be right: Chennai Super Kings, who have been in the IPL for all five seasons, have played so far just 37 different players. Multiply that by the number of teams, and you're nowhere near the number of players who've played, for instance, Test cricket for England (or first-class cricket for Tasmania). The "guideline for inclusion" surely is whether they've played a match in the IPL: that seems pretty clear. Sorry, but the argument for deletion doesn't stack up; it needs work, certainly, but is in my view valid. Johnlp (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, on the same lines as Johnlp. Except that I find it useful, unlike most of the other cricket lists that we have that are easily obtainable from Cricinfo. Tintin 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the same lines. extra999 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is useful. Needs to be improved. --Deepak Shimoga (talk) 01:06, 7 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. Nominator withdrew request. henrik•talk 18:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional extraterrestrials (R-Z)[edit]
- List of fictional extraterrestrials (R-Z) (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 have moved and reorganized all data to List of alien species pages A thru Z Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why did you move it? It seemed to me to be perfectly functional, and that the split was reasonable for length. It also seems to me that "fictional extraterrestrials" is a better name than "alien species" because of the simple fact that we're talking only about fictional aliens (non-fictional aliens include such things as tigers in North America, you see). Anyway, this list works better than List of alien species pages A thru Z, and even if that move is confirmed it needs a rename. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nominator indicates that he has reused this material elsewhere and so we must keep the edit history. As the discussion is about the organisation and naming of this material, deletion is quite inappropriate. Warden (talk) 17:26, 4 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, withdrawn by nominator. (WP:NAC) Mark Arsten (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ameba (website)[edit]
- Ameba (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Withdrawn by nominator --hydrox (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Only one existing independent source, and Google News finds second to none English-language coverage on ameba japan, "ameba now", "ameba pico" or "ameba pigg" --> no significant coverage. --hydrox (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. hydrox (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. hydrox (talk) 15:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems to be pretty much the Japanese equivalent of Zynga. What seems remarkable is the claimed Alexa rank of 16 in the Japanese region. I don't think a site can get that high in a technology-oriented place like Japan and not be notable. I'm comfortable giving this the benefit of the doubt and assuming that plenty of Japanese reliable sources exist, which would seem to be confirmed by the healthy-looking sources section in the Japanese article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a source for the Alexa rank. It's actually 8th in the Japanese region. However, a mere high ranking does not necessarily equal high notability. --hydrox (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, it's actually higher than the article says (rank #8!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a top-10 website in one of the largest internet-using countries if the world, as well as the top 100 worldwide, is indisputably notable. Are you seriously saying you think the entire Japanese media somehow forgot to ever cover this? For comparison's sake, the #8 website right now in the US... is Twitter. Wikipedia is #6. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a source for the Alexa rank. It's actually 8th in the Japanese region. However, a mere high ranking does not necessarily equal high notability. --hydrox (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw In the light of above, I think the article deserves a {{refimprove}} tag without a question, but can not be really deleted. --hydrox (talk) 18:47, 4 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) 00:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SocialFire[edit]
- SocialFire (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:NOTABILITY -- this is a WP:PROMO article for a website posted by the co-founder/CEO of site, with zero sources given for notability; "Socialfire" gets zero gnews hits. Nat Gertler (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination - it's nothing but a promotional puff piece. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am doing research on the site and later today, Ill work on a complete remake of the Article if you believe it is worth it. JohnArmold (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)— JohnArmold (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete: as per nomination. Single source, no sources found after a few searches to meet notability guidelines. --Pusillanimous 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet notability for corporations or web sites. In essence an advert for something that is only just going live - if it is ever successful and being discussed anywhere except by itself, then an article can be created. QU TalkQu 22:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no WP:RS, borderline spam. --Kinu t/c 23:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I semi-protected the page due to repeated disruption by new users (i.e. socks of the page's author). --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources. It's a new website, and may be a case of WP:TOOSOON regarding inclusion in Wikipedia at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:38, 7 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) 00:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Cooper (Politician)[edit]
- John Cooper (Politician) (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 WP:BLP of an individual who appears to have no notability. Possibly an attack page, as I cannot attribute any of the quotes. Kinu t/c 13:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete after trimming unsourced personal information and unsourced critical information (in line with Biographies of living persons) there is hardly anything left. I believe this was an attack page, the give away being speculation about joining the BNP. I find no matches in GBooks or GNews archives. --Fæ (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is difficult to know where to begin with this very strange article. I am inclined to say 'made up'. In the (correctly) deleted section it is said that he was an astrophysicist, and there is a John Cooper who is a Professor of Quantum Matter at Cambridge (but not the same person). It is said (in passing) that he became a full time M of parliament and a representative for Shropshire but he cannot be either of the two MPs of that name, both of whom served before he was born and neither for Shropshire. There is a passing reference to his radio show and there is a John Cooper currently who is a radio presenter (again, not the same person). So not only is the article unsourced and conflicts with BLP policy, it seems unverifiable and no true notability emerges once the questionable claims are excluded. --AJHingston (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Apparently an attack page on someone who, if he exists, has not had the career that this article said he had. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as an unsourced BLP. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 5 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 number57's argument and Mattythewhite's "heel-face turn". Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
E-Land Puma FC[edit]
- E-Land Puma FC (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 indication why this topic is notable. Cloudz679 16:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Per WP:FOOTYN. This says that "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria", which this team has, with the evidence supplied by Number 57. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The club played in the Korean FA Cup in 1996 and 1997 against top division teams,[2][3] and have also played in the second division, finishing as champions in 1995 and 1996 and runners-up in 1997. Number 57 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could a source be added to the article to demonstrate this? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per number 57.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer (talk • contribs) 00:30, 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) 11:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clubs that have played in the Korean FA Cup are notable and should not be put forward for deletion. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 20:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
- Comment it was put forward for deletion because there was no indication of notability. Looking at the current revision of the page, there is still no indication. Cloudz679 17:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The more I understand the "wider picture", the more I appreciate the problems that we face. (Finnish Gas (Finnish Gas 08:54, 11 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. v/r - TP 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jet fighter generations[edit]
- Jet fighter generations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD. Prod Reason was " Unreferenced article that exists as a "List" to the individually referenced generation articles". One reference was inserted that claims the "commonality" of this classification, but as the article admits itself, "The terminology is ... unofficial. There is no central registry of features that qualify for each generation" Hasteur (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete like a boomerang it keeps coming back. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is more or less a directory page for massively-sourced articles on several of these "generations." It makes no sense at all to me to knock down the front end index differentiating these pieces. If those articles stand, then this piece should stand as a "list" of those pieces. I seriously doubt any of those would fail at AfD, ergo, this should remain. Ignore All Rules, use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, there's plenty of other ways to link the generations together (Templates, "See Also"s, Category:Generations of jet fighter). Lists are still supposed to be cited. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I read several of the individual 'generations' articles and found each one lacking in context, because there was no indication of what had happened before each generation. A quick overview of the generations is quite helpful to me and others. TJIC (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - comes across to me as OR - None of the body's paragraphs are cited, and there is a lot of ambiguity. This doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic peice. Kyteto (talk) 20:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; this appears to be a list article to the other "generations" pages, that are themselves referenced. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunantly, I have to disagree that the claims are referenced in the other generation articles. For instance, the title First generation (1942-1950): the dedicated article for this generation doesn't ever TRY to make this timeframe, it doesn't feature there. It has been plucked out of thin air from no apparent source, and most certainly is NOT referenced either here or in the sub-article. It is arbitrary self-assumed leaps like this that I'm identifying as Original Research and entirely subjective (I could put together a decent arguement for making the latter boundry for First Gen aircraft to be as late as 1955, the 1950 deadline is arbitrary, uncited, and no attempt to justify or explain that position has been given) - I can't accept that the information article is adequitely cited, even by proxy. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the fact that there are references in another article is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Every article must be itself referenced. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me respectfully disagree. List articles need not be independently referenced. The governing guideline here is WP:SALAT, which is rather broad. As the generations articles for aircraft are all related, a list of those generations articles appears to be logical. For example there is a list of M series vehicles.
- We can disagree regarding whether each fighter generation article is notable, however as they presently stand, it appears (to me anyway) that a centralized list to those articles is appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ...I'm not sure whether list articles not needing to be independently referenced or the stupendously lax notability "requirements" for books (one-third of a column in one specialist magazine reprinting a review = notable!) is more shocking. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the fact that there are references in another article is irrelevant; Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Every article must be itself referenced. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunantly, I have to disagree that the claims are referenced in the other generation articles. For instance, the title First generation (1942-1950): the dedicated article for this generation doesn't ever TRY to make this timeframe, it doesn't feature there. It has been plucked out of thin air from no apparent source, and most certainly is NOT referenced either here or in the sub-article. It is arbitrary self-assumed leaps like this that I'm identifying as Original Research and entirely subjective (I could put together a decent arguement for making the latter boundry for First Gen aircraft to be as late as 1955, the 1950 deadline is arbitrary, uncited, and no attempt to justify or explain that position has been given) - I can't accept that the information article is adequitely cited, even by proxy. Kyteto (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - frankly the whole "generations" thing should be ditched; the whole thing is very much a neological marketing construct that the manufacturers use to "one-up" each other and extended retroactively in order to make it look legitimate. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Jim Sweeney, Kyteto, and The Bushranger. Poor quality articles that don't go much beyond OR should be deleted. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I created a template that includes each generation and placed it at the bottom of each corresponding article. SaveATreeEatAVegan 09:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The template still has the same flaw in in that is being criticised - uncited content. Where are these dates coming from? Who said each generation ends on exactly that year, and the next starts on the proceeding year? Without any formal basis for these very neat little groupings being anything more than OR, the generation 'years' should be removed; they're subjective, but more than that, they're not even trying to say from who's opinion the subjective perspective comes from, thus we have no basis to say that the subjective opinion is definitive or notable. Who put these dates together? Kyteto (talk) 13:35, 24 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, Deryck C. 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Bushranger writes that "frankly the whole 'generations' thing should be ditched," and maybe he's right; frankly, I don't know enough about the subject to have an opinion. But I do know that, as long as the "generation" articles are around and in use, maintaining this stand-alone list as an aid for reader navigation will be useful. Per WP:CLN, articles can be grouped using "categories, lists (including embedded lists, like lists included in See also sections), and navigation templates.... The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." At the risk of stating the obvious, any information on the page that isn't factual should be removed or fixed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So to make sure I understand correctly, Any uncited content (including ones where the reference does not support the citation) may be removed? If that's the case the article wouldn't have enough content in it to be reasonably sized and be right back here as a unjustifiable stub. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I said that information that isn't factual should be removed or fixed. I was commenting on Kyteto's complaint that some of the uncited information in the article isn't factual. However, if you're saying that the entire article is based on a concept made-up by a Wikipedia editor, then I think I would strike my vote to keep. Is that what you're saying, though? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So to make sure I understand correctly, Any uncited content (including ones where the reference does not support the citation) may be removed? If that's the case the article wouldn't have enough content in it to be reasonably sized and be right back here as a unjustifiable stub. Hasteur (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our convention is that where there is a clear sub-article (i.e. linked through a hatnote, as here) then we don't require clear notability to be explicitly visible for the overall parent section, where this is provided through the sub-article. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete like all the "generation" fighter stuff mainly made up and uncited. MilborneOne (talk) 19:41, 21 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, Bmusician 06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because the generations cannot be clearly determined as different manufacturers weasel-word their definitions to suit their products, so any list is necessarily vague, subjective and at risk of advertising or other partiality. An automatic cruft-collector, as the repeated debates amply demonstrate. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Carrite. In response to Hasteur's nom "There is no central registry of features", then there doesn't need to be. What we need is coverage by post facto sources, and that's there aplenty. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - un-encyclopaedic content and there are articles already out there that cover this adequately, and are also probably candidates for deletion as being of very little value.Petebutt (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per this reliable source, http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/win90/1win90.htm the listed generations are totally wrong. (The F-16 isn't even listed under sixth generation jet fighters.) Hcobb (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are differing scales to divide the generations, the correct action is to bring this up in the article, come to a consensus what system to use, create a section explaining the different systems therefore improving the article. An incorrect action is, it's wrong, it should be deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were possible, which it is not. When 'generations' is differently defined by each manufacturer for each new plane to suit their marketing requirements - to emphasize its qualities over all others, and to minimize its deficiencies, then no amount of 'improving' is possible. To put it plainly: the categories of 'jet fighter generation' are not well-founded, so any article relying on them is a house built on sand. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are differing scales to divide the generations, the correct action is to bring this up in the article, come to a consensus what system to use, create a section explaining the different systems therefore improving the article. An incorrect action is, it's wrong, it should be deleted. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:42, 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) 11:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
triple relisting is not usually done, however, I do believe there is some more to be found here. There are concerns over weather this article is a WP:SALAT or not, if referenceing is sufficient or not, and if the subject is encyclopedic in scope or not. Unfortunately, none of these questions are answered on this AfD with a clear consensus yet. Let's hope we can come to something more solid. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I express my abject sorrow at the fact that this article has been relisted AGAIN on such a flimsy grounds. It is a shame that after the discussion has very clearly waned and all the reasonable arguments and counter arguments have been used an admin, who is charged with reading the consensus and applying Wikipedia Policy is still unable to render a reasonable consensus. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's basically a good article putting forth a particular generation system and generation delineation that was created by the editor. Nice reading elsewhere, in Wikipedia we call that OR. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly (though I wonder about calling it a "good article" ;-} ). The list is not a WP:SALAT because
- 1) It's WP:OR
- 2) The classification into generations is not agreed, unstable, and has commercial (POV, ADV) overtones
- 3) There is actually no referencing, with one dead link; likely no satisfactory sources could be provided.
- Therefore the article is unsalvageable despite the ILIKEIT arguments to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly (though I wonder about calling it a "good article" ;-} ). The list is not a WP:SALAT because
- Comment - Okay, let's stop clowning around. There is NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE a front end index of articles on fighter jet generations in the face of standing articles on each generation. The argument is made that the whole notion of generations is prohibited "Original Research." Fine. Let's close this as NO CONSENSUS for a moment... Somebody who feels the entire notion of generations is OR should do a group nomination of all the generations pieces at AfD — and let's go over them. If those are ruled OR and deleted, then removing this piece becomes an easy call. If those stay, then this should stay. Reasonable? Carrite (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Keep: Carrite's proposal seems reasonable. But even if the article should be morphed into something summary-style that notes the fallibility of the "generation" terminology, the terminology itself is notable. It's important to add that the claim the article should be deleted because it's just industry terminology is also original research (just going in the other direction). --Pusillanimous 18:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, user HCobb has provided a source which purports to show the classification is wrong; so at the very least (without going beyond our sources) we know that the classification is disputed and may be unstable: no OR involved there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. The thought behind my comment (as noted by The Devil's Advocate below) is that because it is so widely used, to pit the sources claiming that generational terminology is incorrect may end up being WP:SYNTH. Your point (and the lower one in response to The Devil's Advocate is spot on though; we must tread carefully. I'm tempted to say that a keep for this article that allows us to add referenced commentary noting the controversial nature of the terminology itself is the best course of action. :) Thanks for your points. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 08:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, user HCobb has provided a source which purports to show the classification is wrong; so at the very least (without going beyond our sources) we know that the classification is disputed and may be unstable: no OR involved there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This categorization of fighters is discussed on its own in several places: [4] [5] [6]. Some editors may not like this form of categorization (honestly wasn't aware of the hostility towards it until I saw this Afd), but ultimately it does get widely used and is therefore notable and worthy of inclusion here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not use terms like 'hostility' - I for one feel none, and none of the 'delete' comments by other editors appear in that way to me. There are several citations in this discussion already which cast legitimate doubt on the categorization, so it appears that some of the listed articles ought to be revised carefully, at the very least. Articles on widely-used but ill-founded categories - such as different types of human - are not completely impossible but have to be written with extreme caution, and without seeming to endorse the categorisation itself: thus you can have a legitimate article on Racism, if it is neutral and well-cited, but not on topics like 'the broad-faced Lappish type'. If a categorisation is disputed, then a list which appears to endorse it is ill-advised. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fighter generations are a widely-used categorization so having a list on them is a good idea. An actual category would be more of a problem since those don't provide much information. Here we can speak to the controversy. Additional sources: [7] [8] [9].--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not use terms like 'hostility' - I for one feel none, and none of the 'delete' comments by other editors appear in that way to me. There are several citations in this discussion already which cast legitimate doubt on the categorization, so it appears that some of the listed articles ought to be revised carefully, at the very least. Articles on widely-used but ill-founded categories - such as different types of human - are not completely impossible but have to be written with extreme caution, and without seeming to endorse the categorisation itself: thus you can have a legitimate article on Racism, if it is neutral and well-cited, but not on topics like 'the broad-faced Lappish type'. If a categorisation is disputed, then a list which appears to endorse it is ill-advised. with best wishes Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bushranger. The generation concept is a neologism and is not well-defined. Many aircraft incorporate elements from multiple generations and don't fit squarely into the definition for a single generation. List of fighter aircraft used to be organized by generation (see here), but it was transformed into a far more effective sortable table. —SW— converse 19:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look over the sources I provided above you will see that there actually is some general agreement on what falls into a specific generation. Any attempt at separating new iterations in a product line into generations will have some cases where the exact placement is unclear. The concept has some clearly established notability and is widely-used, therefore being worthy of an article. Perhaps the less-sourced articles on the earlier generations could be merged into this article with a general introduction noting some dispute about the origin of the concept and its application (one of the sources notes a unique difference of terminology in China, for instance).--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is effectively unreferenced and the related articles seem much the same (save 4th gen article). Article starts off by saying the terminology is unclear but doesn't actually address the issue. Smacks of OR all round. Burn the lot. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment above. Being mostly unreferenced does not mean it should be deleted, especially if references are readily available.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a widely used concept in the defence literature, and the Royal Australian Air Force's Air Power Development Centre has published a two page document here which describes what it sees the key features of each generation as being, so the concept is taken seriously by professionals. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think if anyone looks at the delete votes, the argument is essentially that this article is original research and uncited. Another objection is that there is no clear definition of the generations. The above sources show that the article can easily be improved to address the OR and citation concerns and they also show a clear definition used by multiple reliable sources. So, I think there is no reason to delete this article and it should instead be kept and time allowed for improvements. I would be more than willing to step in to make those improvements.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What kind of improvement do you expect in an article that has been at AfD for almost a month now. I'm sorry, but if there was improvement to be made so that the article could be kept, it would have already been made. This constitutes a WP:SOFIXIT challenge to The Devil's Advocate and all the people who are voting keep on the grounds that the article can be improved. Hasteur (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel comfortable fixing an article if I can't be assured the content will be around a day later. Personally, I only came upon this AfD after the third relisting and have been pre-occupied with another matter during most of this past week. Saying "no one has made improvements" as an argument for there being no room for improvement is absurd. Many are not bold enough to take action or just don't have enough time or experience to take action on a specific article. Can you look at the sources above and honestly say those cannot be used to make improvements to the article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So willing to talk it into the ground and diminish the quality of the entire collection of articles, but now willing to put forth the effort to actually improve it. I see how it is. Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even remotely what I said. I am willing to put forth the effort, if I think that effort will not be wasted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Put in the effort and it's more likely it'll get kept. Don't and all you are doing is talking the article into the ground, diluting the policies of WP, and making a lesser WP. An article should be improved regardless of it's likelihood of being kept and it's a shame that you think it can be improved without actually doing any work on said article. Hasteur (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am saying it can be improved because there are enough reliable sources for a good-sized and verified article. However, again, I would like to know those contributions won't get erased a day later before I am willing to put in the effort.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Put in the effort and it's more likely it'll get kept. Don't and all you are doing is talking the article into the ground, diluting the policies of WP, and making a lesser WP. An article should be improved regardless of it's likelihood of being kept and it's a shame that you think it can be improved without actually doing any work on said article. Hasteur (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not even remotely what I said. I am willing to put forth the effort, if I think that effort will not be wasted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So willing to talk it into the ground and diminish the quality of the entire collection of articles, but now willing to put forth the effort to actually improve it. I see how it is. Hasteur (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't feel comfortable fixing an article if I can't be assured the content will be around a day later. Personally, I only came upon this AfD after the third relisting and have been pre-occupied with another matter during most of this past week. Saying "no one has made improvements" as an argument for there being no room for improvement is absurd. Many are not bold enough to take action or just don't have enough time or experience to take action on a specific article. Can you look at the sources above and honestly say those cannot be used to make improvements to the article?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - perhaps this list article AfD should be closed as No consensus, as originally proposed by Carrite? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really oppose that kind of pandering. If the supporters put their editing skills to the test and improve the article in the month or more it's been up for discussion then it could be easily a close. As of right now it still suffers the problems that it did when I nominated it a month ago. I'm willing to accept a lot of good faith on articles, but when an article doesn't get improved after multiple solicitations and cajolings for improvement, I have to wonder if it can be improved. Should the discussion be closed as No Consensus, I'll give a reasonable time for the article to improve, but we do need to uphold the standards here. Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, alright, it is kind of ridiculous but I will just move those sources provided above into the article and that will satisfy like 90% of the delete votes here. It won't satisfy the people who don't like the subject but those votes don't count anyway.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I really oppose that kind of pandering. If the supporters put their editing skills to the test and improve the article in the month or more it's been up for discussion then it could be easily a close. As of right now it still suffers the problems that it did when I nominated it a month ago. I'm willing to accept a lot of good faith on articles, but when an article doesn't get improved after multiple solicitations and cajolings for improvement, I have to wonder if it can be improved. Should the discussion be closed as No Consensus, I'll give a reasonable time for the article to improve, but we do need to uphold the standards here. Hasteur (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment since we have articles on each generation of jet fighter, and those articles are not up for deletion, a navigation article is at least needed, so an article with this title either exists as an article or a set index or a disambiguation page. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 06:57, 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 both Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Óscar Uzcátegui[edit]
- Óscar Uzcátegui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
This is not the subject of substantial coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. He fails as to WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ACADEMIC. I found a few trivial mentions in a handful of languages, but substantial coverage and citations were confined to the subject himself and associates like Samael Aun Weor. JFHJr (㊟) 02:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd also like to add the related Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies.
- It also fails general notability criteria, and independent coverage does not approach WP:CORPDEPTH. JFHJr (㊟) 04:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. From RSN: [10]. But why weren't both of them just prodded before going to AFD? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW I didn't PROD because the GNAACSS page was previously subject to VfD in 2004 before it was retitled (result was keep), and thought it best to bundle these related articles. I prefer not to PROD after a prior AfD, and particularly since the result was previously keep at AfD, I thought AfD was the best place to request deletion. JFHJr (㊟) 22:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 24 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both Not notable enough. FurrySings (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both, neither appear to have anything like general notability as established by independent RS, just a whole bunch of self-generated hype, You Tube, Facebook and all the usual suspects. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:04, 5 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. v/r - TP 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine[edit]
- Multilingual list of edible plants used in Indian cuisine (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 is not a dictionary, or directory, or English to xxx phrase book. As a list it's an unnecessary fork of Indian cuisine, or should be made into such an article if it didn't already exist. Previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multilingual list of Indian kin terms but somehow now back in mainspace. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not an encyclopedia article at all. BigJim707 (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Rorshacma (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- TransWiki to Wiktionary if not there already as suggested at previous AfD. WP is not a dictionary; this is fine dictionary content of obvious interest and practical use, but doesn't belong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete or transwiki per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete, but relocate or transwiki This is too good a page to be deleted. It may be moved to a more appropriate place, but to lose it permanently would be a shame! • Drmehta (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)— Drmehta (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - The page has been built over the last 6 years by nearly 500 editors. It is not so easy to recreate this. Definitely invaluable information. The list is not just translation into different languages. All the items listed have different names in different parts of India. Even if the local language scripts are removed, it still conveys crucial information about how different food items are named in different parts of India --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep , retitle as list of plants ... add links to the pages in the other language Wikipedias; it will then be a multi-lingual disam page. Agreed that we have not often done that, but that is no reason why we shouldn't; a sufficient criterion for a disam page, like any other navigational device, is that it be neutral. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not sure why this page was named as list of plants. Its actually, list of food items. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it is entirely inappropriate for a disambiguation page; apart from breaching many of the style guidelines at MOS:DAB such pages deal with words and names with more than one use in English such as Mercury, China (disambiguation), etc.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- This article has valuable information.so keep--Dude7190 (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that is not a valid reason to keep; see WP:ILIKEIT.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:24, 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) 11:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Essentially I see a list of common indian cookery ingredients as valid. This simply goes beyond a basic list by adding names in different languages. While it perhaps goes beyond the level of detail that is appropriate (i.e. beyond common English names and English versions of names in other languages) I don't see a reason to delete. These ingredients can commonly be found for sale in the UK under most if not all of the names given in the list, so the variations are appropriate to include. Maybe drop the 'multilingual' bit and the names in other alphabets though, which can be included in the individual articles.--Michig (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This list is worth an encyclopedia. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:LISTN, WP:SALAT. Encyclopedic content that iis worthy of notice, per WP:N. -- Trevj (talk) 12:30, 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 redirect to Waste Management (album). v/r - TP 01:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sparks (t.A.T.u. song)[edit]
- Sparks (t.A.T.u. song) (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 charts, no cover versions by multiple notable artists, no awards, and an apparent permastub, so it fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 11:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — cocomonkilla | talk | contrib 16:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:11, 17 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, BusterD (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly some notability, as it appears to have been the very last single to be released by this (just slightly more than)-one-hit wonder duo. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:03, 24 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Waste Management (album). All the information needed to know for the song can be found there. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. The info is already at the redirect target, and there's no evidence that song meets WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above. I can't find evidence that significant coverage exists for this song to warrant an individual article; WP:NSONGS suggests that non-notable songs be redirected to a related article, such as the parent album. Gongshow Talk 14:59, 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nathaniel Robert Mason[edit]
- Nathaniel Robert Mason (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 quite a speedy deletion and already tagged for BLP Prod. He has only played for an amateur side and a claimed two appearances for the national youth teams so doesn't meet notability for rugby union. Given he's retired through injury his notability won't increase (i.e., no chance of ever playing for a full professional team or the main national side). QU TalkQu 11:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per reasons given above. I'm a bit confused though: the BLP Prod would have expired today and it hadn't been contested. So why nominate it for deletion through afd now? -- roleplayer 16:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe that's just my misunderstanding, if so I apologise. A BLP Prod would lead to a "preventative" deletion with no restriction on recreating the article. I felt that even with a reference the individual was unnotable and therefore worth a proper discussion on its suitability for inclusion QU TalkQu 18:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. SarahStierch (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 5 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My adventure[edit]
- My adventure (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 author said that it's a MADE UP STORY. MakecatTalk 10:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not only does this story have no name with which to track down sources, but it's pretty obvious spam by the author to promote her book. I actually think this qualifies under one of the various speedy categories, to be honest.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:35, 4 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton[edit]
- Stained glass windows of St Pauls, Clifton (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 notability established, and little hope for finding sources. I took a look and saw nothing in reliable sources about this set of windows. Binksternet (talk) 09:30, 4 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 both Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All-time Albanian Superliga table[edit]
- All-time Albanian Superliga table (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 PRODed this a few months ago and it was deleted, but now that it's been recreated I'm hoping we can get a final decision at AfD. As some may remember, a lot of these "all-time tables" were deleted six months ago and I stand by the rationale I used then: It is arguably a violation of WP:NOTSTATS, but more importantly, I can't see any evidence that it is notable. In addition, this article is unreferenced. Jenks24 (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it has a duplicate article, Albanian Superliga Ranking. If the result is delete, they should both be deleted; if kept, one should be redirected to the other. Jenks24 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jenks24 (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. The list is lacking the slightest source. – Kosm1fent 09:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:OR. There are all-time tables which are OR, and should be deleted, and there are all-time tables which are not OR and should be kept. As it's unreferenced, we must assume that it's OR.Mentoz86 (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:OR. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - original research. GiantSnowman 18:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning Delete for both - Unless reliable sources can be found to verify the information. I performed some searches, but haven't found RS at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:57, 7 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 (G5) – creation by a sock puppet of banned user User:Grundle2600 in violation of ban. --MuZemike 23:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy[edit]
- Inspector General Gerald Walpin firing controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not the place for partisan advocacy; there isn't even a Wikipedia article about Gerald Walpin (not that there should be); Walpin's wrongful-termination lawsuit was dismissed; this dismissal is uncontroversial except among a few notably partisan sources. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is not "partisan." On the contrary, the article cites multiple examples of Democrats criticizing Obama on this issue.
Furthermore, the Associated Press, The Washington Post, Politico, and thehill.com are all cited in the article, and none of them are "partisan."
The reliable sources report the facts. The article is not POV. Instead, the article cites reliably sourced facts. All of the information in the article is true and reliably sourced. The article meets all of wikipedia's policies.
In order to debunk the nominator's claim that the article is "partisan," I would like to quote these two paragraphs from the article:
- On June 16, 2009, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), said the president failed to follow a law that she had sponsored, which requires that the President give Congress 30 days advance notice of an inspector general's firing, along with the cause for the firing. McCaskill stated, "Loss of confidence is not a sufficient reason." She also stated, "I'm hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible." That same day, a White House lawyer said that Walpin was fired because he was "unduly disruptive" and engaged in "trouble and inappropriate conduct."[3]
- On June 23, 2009, a bipartisan group of 145 current and former public officials, attorneys, and legal scholars signed a letter that was sent to the White House, which defended Walpin, said the criticisms of him were not true, and said that his firing was politically motivated. Signers of the letter included Michael Mukasey (former Attorney General), Bernard Nussbaum (President Clinton’s former counsel), former U.S. Attorneys Otto Obermaier, John Martin, Zachary Carter, and Andrew Maloney, and six former and current presidents of the Federal Bar Council.[5] The letter can be read here.
Therefore, the article is not "partisan" at all.
Since this debunks the entire reason for the nomination, I propose a speedy keep, and that this debate discussion be ended.
Friendly Freeper (talk) 08:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to go with Weak Keep. This wasn't a major controversy, and doesn't seem to have had much lasting impact; but it did receive a significant amount of press coverage and involvement from notable people at the time, so I think an article can be justified. I think this one does need to be slightly rewritten to be in line with WP:NPOV, as at the moment it seems somewhat biased in favour of Mr Walpin and against the position of the Obama administration. I also note that articles on the subject have been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing (June 2009) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin (2nd nomination) (November 2010), but it's possible that consensus has changed since then. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Somehow this seems like somethign that should be a part of a broader article. But it meets wp:notability for a stand-alone article. North8000 (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spotlighting the partisan slant of the article:
- Ultra-right Glenn Beck's alleged senility test is used to support the claim that Walpin was not senile, but the White House didn't say that Walpin was senile, but that he was "confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve". This is very different from being senile.
- The two criticisms of the dismissal of Walpin's lawsuit are both from strongly right-wing sources, Byron York and The Washington Times. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 5 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: G3, obvious hoax. --Kinu t/c 13:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Li Huang (mathematician)[edit]
- Li Huang (mathematician) (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 is hard to believe, including many fabricated information, such as "Nobel Prize for Mathematics". MakecatTalk 07:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a hoax. There is no Nobel Prize for math, and nobody has won three of any variety. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - yes, it's a hoax. There was a Li Huang who wrote on maths in China - he died in 1811. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete: No article can prove Li Huang won the Nobel Prize for mathematics.--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 12:19, 4 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: G3, hoax/vandalism that is part of a walled garden related to this equally blatant hoax. --Kinu t/c 13:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chinese mathematicians rankings[edit]
- Chinese mathematicians rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely original research. MakecatTalk 07:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, possibly speedily as a hoax. Einstein and Hawking are Chinese? The first five are redlinks and the eighth blatantly nonsensical and also up for Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, at least WP:OR and
seeminglya blatant HOAX. As ClarityFiend says, Li Huang is himself a hoax figure in this context. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, Li Huang is really famous in the mathematical community, because he's hoax is famous in many Chinese forum as Baidu Tieba.--铁铁的火大了 (talk) 12:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the confirmation, changing my !vote to definite Speedy as Hoax. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:32, 4 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) 01:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Southside Royal Crips[edit]
- Southside Royal Crips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Copied from Crips MakecatTalk 07:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated for speedy - CSD A10.nancy 07:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC) Speedy withdrawn. Not a clearcut A10 any more. nancy 08:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Makecat... Ok, as for WP:AFD/Zander village (hoax) and East Side Kelly Park Compton Crips (partly copyvio, partly copied from Crips), I've no more doubts that Sqadgangsterkilla (and its anon sp 98.195.163.162) is a vandal-only account. User (and anon) were blocked for 2 weeks in January (this was my report). --Dэя-Бøяg 14:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is my second report regarding page's author, requesting an indefinite block. Sqadgangster changed the article (no more a copy from Crips) but only after deletion tags... At least, unreliable. User is makin' fun of us from months confusing hoaxes with reliable pages. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd note: 98.195.163.195 blocked 3 months and Sqadgangsterkilla indef blocked. --Dэя-Бøяg 17:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: this is my second report regarding page's author, requesting an indefinite block. Sqadgangster changed the article (no more a copy from Crips) but only after deletion tags... At least, unreliable. User is makin' fun of us from months confusing hoaxes with reliable pages. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 15:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. I can't find a trace of this gang outside Wikipedia. If the gang exists it should at least get some unreliable coverage. The article's only reference appears to be lifted from Rollin 60's Neighborhood Crips. Looks like a hoax to me. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 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 Chisu. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alkovi[edit]
- Alkovi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article Chisu already exists and its only source is "www.itunes.com." Lacking more reputable sources, I think this article must be redirected to Chisu or simply deleted. dci | TALK 06:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - itunes.com is a retail site, if that is only RS available, it doesn't make sense -- Tawker (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chisu, no reason for a separate article on this album unless there's proof of its being well-known. The link is now last.fm not iTunes, but it's not much better as a source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Chisu per Chiswick Chap. The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for musci. However, it is a plausable search term, and I believe it warrants a redirect. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:29, 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 delete. CSD G11. I'm going to ring this up as spam. If a neutral editor with no connection to the subject wishes to write a sourced article then go for it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Payday monsanto[edit]
- Payday monsanto (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's subject may well be notable, but its content is unacceptable, including unsourced and highly-controversial statements and allusions. dci | TALK 06:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, in agreement with the nomination. This article would need a complete rewrite. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree also; but it's pure WP:OR, ADV (only link is to the Payday monsanto website), BLP and very likely COI - it's the first posting of an SPA and should be treated as such. It's at the least unencyclopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 5 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. JIP | Talk 07:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nodepx[edit]
- Nodepx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though this may be a genuine product, this is unsourced and appears to be some sort of advertising, more obvious when one reads the part beginning, "Step 1: Go to www.nodepx.com". dci | TALK 05:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete CSD G11 as advertising. CSD A7 is also applicable. --Bmusician 05:48, 4 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. Fork of politics of Afghanistan and original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:13, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The political mind of Afghanistan[edit]
- The political mind of Afghanistan (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 has two references, one of which is a Wikipedia article, and duplicates information present on Wikipedia under far more appopriate article names. dci | TALK 04:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy withdraw. I nominated this for deletion at the same time someone placed a CSD tag on it. dci | TALK 04:43, 4 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 2011 Southeast Asian Games. Close as redirect to 2011 Southeast Asian Games - apart from Vovinam at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games, which is kept. SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Billiards and snooker at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games[edit]
- Billiards and snooker at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pretty much blank. Any information that the reader needs can be found on the main page (2011 Southeast Asian Games) Intoronto1125TalkContributions 04:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reasons:
- Boxing at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bridge at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Judo at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Kenpō at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Paragliding at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Pencak silat at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fin swimming at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Golf at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cycling at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Equestrian at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Water Skiing at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Weightlifting at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Wushu at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sailing at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Table tennis at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Traditional boat race at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Vovinam at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Link to previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archery at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games. GB fan 04:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in the previous AFD (a large group nomination), the consensus was more-or-less to keep the popular sports, or the ones whose articles have content. Nevertheless, the closing admin kept them all and did not attempt to separate those with content from those without. This nomination includes only the articles lacking content, except for Vovinam, which has one small table. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to the 2011 Southeast Asian Games article. Each has essentially no content and no references. The content from all 18 articles put together would fit nicely into one small table in one section. North8000 (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also two categories that need to be merged: Category:2011 Southeast Asian Games events and Category:Events at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games. Biscuittin (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all except for Vovinam, which is the only one with any content at all. The rest of the articles have no content, and they have been empty for more than a year. Someone apparently created all these articles in advance of the games and then lost interest in updating them after the games. I do not see much point in redirecting. Anyone searching for any article with "2011 Southeast Asian Games" will find that article first in the search list. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge vovinam, redir the rest: Redirects are cheap, and some of these are likely to be real articles at some ponit. Snooker for one attracts stats-oriented editors who create articles like this in their sleep. See Category:Snooker competitions, including subcats like Category:Snooker at the Summer Paralympics and Category:Cue sports at the World Games arranged by year. The SEA Games are surely next. I'm actually bordering on shocked that Billiards and snooker at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games isn't already a well-developed article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿¤þ Contrib. 11:53, 6 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. v/r - TP 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blockparty[edit]
- Blockparty (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 coverage in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Kelly hi! 17:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 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) 00:02, 26 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, Bmusician 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent media coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and Merge to Notacon per apparent failure to meet WP:GNG. -- Trevj (talk) 12:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The coverage here does not seem to be independent. I don't see how this passes WP:GNG. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:08, 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. v/r - TP 01:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Franco Caracciolo[edit]
- Franco Caracciolo (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:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 19 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) 00:09, 26 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, Bmusician 03:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's in Grove Music Online, though not in the The Harvard biographical dictionary of music. However Grove (which is subscription-only) is about the only reference I can find. Complicated because there's multiple people with the same name, including a film soundtrack composer (1944-1999). There are quite a few commercially-released recordings conducted by him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Colapeninsula: an article in Grove confers notability. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the above reliable sources presented above appears to have established the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:18, 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 no consensus. Bulk nominations can be problematic, and this one includes articles pages as well as disambiguations pages so makes deciding an outcome even more difficult. There is no clear consensus here, and I suspect that relisting as presented won't make matters any clearer. I suggest that individual pages are nominated, or simply dealt with bodly as appropriate. SilkTork ✔Tea time 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First planet[edit]
- First planet (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 am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
- Second planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fourth planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Sixth planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Seventh planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Eighth planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ninth planet (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Eleventh planet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is not a proper dab page. Perhaps it and most of its eleven brethren (several do have legitimate dab entries) could be consolidated in a single article, but individually, no. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't it a proper dab page? Serendipodous 07:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PTM gives the example of Zoo (disambiguation). It doesn't list every zoo. Planet (disambiguation) doesn't enumerate every object that somebody defines as one. IMO, Fifth planet has two good entries: Fifth planet (hypothetical) and Fifth Planet, with Planet V worthy of being in a See also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So how would you clarify this? Serendipodous 09:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure. If you're going for a narrow scope, maybe Geocentric versus heliocentric ordering of planets? For something more ambitious, possibly Ordering of solar system planets, to include mass, density and other properties? The first suggestion seems a bit on the trivial side to me, and I'm not confident that this type of ordering really meshes well with physical properties in the second case. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So how would you clarify this? Serendipodous 09:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PTM gives the example of Zoo (disambiguation). It doesn't list every zoo. Planet (disambiguation) doesn't enumerate every object that somebody defines as one. IMO, Fifth planet has two good entries: Fifth planet (hypothetical) and Fifth Planet, with Planet V worthy of being in a See also section. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the whole lot. These are not proper disambiguation pages. "nth planet" is not a topic in itself. We have an article automobile but we don't have articles like red automobile or blue automobile. JIP | Talk 09:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fairly obviously, third planet should not be deleted, but simply redirected to the existing disambiguation that it does a poor job of duplicating at 3rd planet. I recommend taking that out of the nomination, and speedily redirecting, otherwise this discussion is going to be another bulk-nomination-of-differing-articles disaster. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huuh? I didn't nominate third planet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you did. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what happened. I did that before Serendipodous started adding to it, and then somebody removed my nomination without asking. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you did. Uncle G (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huuh? I didn't nominate third planet. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Removeed and redirected Third planet. Serendipodous 09:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what you actually did was copy and paste the contents of 3rd planet to Third planet, and then redirect 3rd planet; you didn't "remove" anything (except the {{afd}} template that had been on Third planet), and you didn't redirect Third planet. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Attempting to get off the issue of third planet — Which I said would just muddy the waters here, didn't I? — and back to the articles at hand, I report that I've tried to come up with similarly easy solutions to the remaining disambiguations, but haven't been able to. I had high hopes for Planet 9, but even that doesn't have anything yet. Uncle G (talk) 09:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the second planet for Klingons? Jokes aside, these pages do have a potential for expansion]. Locador (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I propose that the primary meaning of the first nine is the heliocentric Solar System model. In other words, redirect "First planet" to Mercury (planet), and "Third planet" to Earth, while moving the existing disambiguation page materials to their "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, and keep the rest. bd2412 T 22:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I see no harm in keeping them for historical purposes. The fifth planet from the Sun (or Earth) very much depends on how you define a planet. The definition has varied a lot over the last 500 years. -- Kheider (talk) 20:08, 2 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 03:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (except Third planet) We have here an example of a set of Dab pages which contribute nothing useful and if anything help to increase confusion rather than clarify anything. The definitions are unclear and the confusion sown is apparent from the discussion above - deletion is the only remedy.
Third planet seems to have been included here by accident and remains a useful Dab, unlike the rest.Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ninth planet (disambiguation) and Tenth planet (disambiguation) have some value to Wikipedia given the recent history of Pluto and Planet X. -- Kheider (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. The references are neither common enough or ambiguous enough to generate proper disambiguation pages. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep each one, and improve them according to their needs. To say that these articles will never amount to anything doesn't seem right. Lets address specific issues rather then deleting everything. Fotaun (talk) 17:52, 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. Many of the arguments for deletion focus on who created the article and/or the confusion with similar attractions in the same area, rather than whether or not the subject is notable, therefore the argument to keep, with multiple reliable sources cited, is given more weight. The article is clearly in need of further improvements, but that is not a reason to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wairere Boulders[edit]
- Wairere Boulders (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 apparent notability for this nature park, and a search throws up a lot of directory listings rather than significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. There is already an article for the Horeke basalts that are the basis for the park. Stephen 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My search turns up multiple examples of coverage in reliable sources, suggesting this is a legitimately notable tourist attraction. For example "Northland boulders draw tourists" in TVNZ (2007); "Kaikohe plans tourism future" in Stuff.co.nz (2008); "Rocking round the north" in New Zealand Herald (2009); "Hokianga: Hidden secrets" in New Zealand Herald (2011), and multiple coverage in significant travel guides.[11]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am actually the owner of Wairere Boulders and could give you hundreds of references. Here just a few that could convince you about the importance of our business to New Zealand. You can open 90% of tourism guides and will find a reference to us. Lonely Planet, Rough Guides.... Bus Tour by Great Sights Paihia to Wairere Boulders [12]. An article written by Elizabeth Light was published in the prestigious magazine North and South [13]. Wairere Boulders on TV NZ Country Calendar. Just google Wairere Boulders [14] Here the link to the TV NZ News 2007 "Northland boulders draw tourists" we saved the movie which was deleted from the TV NZ page TV ONE NEWS --Wairere (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Wairere (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP is not a travelogue or a tourism company directory. It is also a bit SPAMish. A mention at Horeke basalts is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete mess. This article and Horeke basalts are about very closely related things and there appear to be two WP:COI editors (possibly using socks or anon edits) to further their different business goals.
I actually believe that these are probably notable but I'm going to have to !vote merge to Horeke basalts, because of the COI issues. If there are genuine WP:RS, let them accumulate there. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wairere Boulders is similar to a National Park, but on private property. Hence it should have a separate listing like a New_Zealand_national_park. Unfortunately they cannot be listed on the page with NZ National Parks. WP has listed many tourism businesses for instance Waimangu Volcanic Valley, Waitomo Caves, Kelly Tarlton's Underwater World, R. Tucker Thompson. Wairere Boulders is as important as these well established Tourism Operators but much younger. They should not be vindicated. The Horeke basalts have a length of about 30 km and to merge the two sites will confuse issues. I will continue editing Wairere Boulders, so please will someone clean it up to a format acceptable by WP. I am no very familiar with the WP rules. --Not-clue-less (talk) 23:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC) — Not-clue-less (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep, the business does appear to have significant coverage in national sources, such as NZ Herald, the Dominion, TVNZ and North & South. It also has coverage in local sources, naturally. Most of this coverage has only just been added to the article.-gadfium 03:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it appears that all the content written about this business is from the owner and is heavily biased. None of it has supporting references (other than other articles written by the owner). It seems to be a complete mess full of unreliable content. Also the original article Horeke Basalts already covers the area in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher3895 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) — Christopher3895 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: I've withdrawn my vote, but stand by my comment that this is a complete mess. There are three apparently completely different websites, none of which list a business name, charity name or personal name on their contact pages (a, b and c). The New Zealand charities and New Zealand companies registers contain no obvious mention of these activities by obvious names (including the personal names mentioned by some of the actors here). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your confusion. Wairere Adventure Park appears to be a separate business located on the same road as Wairere Boulders, offering a range of tourist services but not focussing primarily on the basalts. The .com site offers information about the basalts but doesn't seem to be selling anything; however there seems to be a rivalry with the Wairere Boulders company. The .co.nz site belongs to the company we're discussing here.-gadfium 09:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bingo! There is an active trademark application with a date of 31 Jan 2012. Maybe what we're seeing is an attempt to astroturf to support the applicants claim against their rival(s)? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification! Wairere Bouldersexists for over 10 years already and has put up many road signs and did a lot of PR. Wairere Adventure Park just started 2 years ago. They try to officially register our business name to use our business name Wairere Boulders for their own business. The wairereboulders.com site Area of Wairere Boulders sends customers to their newly established business.
- All articles on the Wairere Boulders page can be verified if needed, some of them are transcripts done with the permission of the papers.
- Our personal names are on the bottom of the Brochure
--Wairere (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Relisting debate to generate more clear consensus. Even discounting the single purpose account "keep" !votes, I still feel there is no consensus to delete the article.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 03:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per gadfium. The article's a mess at present, and needs a lot of clean-up, but this is a notable topic so should be kept. It also seems sufficiently distinct from the encompassing Horeke basalts to cover separately. --Avenue (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge As a company this lacks notability and the article appears self-promotinal. As a subject it is covered under Horeke basalts and any relevant material should be merged there. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 02:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI still stand by my comment that all the content seems to be biased and written as an advertisment by the owner. Also the name of this business seems to be in contention from the apparent fight over trademarks. All of the relevant content is already covered in the Horeke basalts page. Christopher3895 (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]KeepWhat seems to be or what appears to be is irrelevant. Only what is matters. All newspaper articles mentioned or TV-news-clips and TV-shows can be verified as we already stated. Also,Wairere Boulders is a registered company. --Wairere (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What counts in wikipedia is not truth, but what can be referenced to reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk)
- But in fairness to Wairere, there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the tourist attraction and use the name "Wairere Boulders". See above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes it is now a registered company, as of today (8th March). They don't own the trademark though so a company name is a bit meaningless if someone else owns the trademark. Christopher3895 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But in fairness to Wairere, there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss the tourist attraction and use the name "Wairere Boulders". See above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What counts in wikipedia is not truth, but what can be referenced to reliable sources. Stuartyeates (talk)
- I believe that this entry was not present when this discussion started, in this edit I specifically mention checking this database. So do we have two separate WP:SPAs each with a WP:COI and a current legal application in process in relation to the name? Stuartyeates (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is now a date attached to the entry, 8 March supporting this contention. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible resolution If this entry is to be kept, it needs to be extensively rewritten. At the start of the discussion, Arxiloxos said Wairere was cited in reliable local and international publications. Also, Not-clue-less volunteered to rewrite the article, although they appear directly involved with Wairere. If Not-clue-less is acting in good faith then I suggest they bring the article up to standard.
- User Wairere has a conflict of interest in this article and should realise that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a tourist guide as was eloquently put it. NealeFamily (talk) 06:56, 10 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:CSD#A10. postdlf (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Naruto shippuden episode list[edit]
- Naruto shippuden episode list (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 be a list of links to online episodes - or at least, one being formed. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm guessing this should be redirected to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (as one user has already attempted), but not until the AfD has closed. -- WikHead (talk) 04:28, 4 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) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Place Bell (Laval)[edit]
- Place Bell (Laval) (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 - I don't think that a proposed arena for a potential minor league hockey team is notable. It isn't even under construction. --MTLskyline (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This C$120 million project has been formally announced and is being heavily reported around Canada. The operator and name rights holder have been named. It will be notable even if it's never built. I've added content and sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is why I tagged it for references earlier, as searching for them showed several from reliable sources, but I wasn't familiar enough with the complex to worth them in myself, thus I tagged for a more experienced editor (sports/Canada) to add. They exist, and it looks like someone added several good ones right after the AFD started. Really, it shouldn't be shocking as this is not a tiny arena but a major project, so it is at least going to get talked up heavy locally/regionally, and likely there will be plenty more references once construction begins. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:33, 5 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. v/r - TP 01:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Light[edit]
- Steve Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bio page about an author. Quick google search does not seem to turn up anything I can use for reliable sources. Not convinced he is notable. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete It would have to be entirely re-written even if he was notable JayJayTalk to me 03:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Does not meet WP:N. --Pusillanimous 19:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Huh? Since when do we not include published authors? - jc37 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've done some work on it... still needs big time copy/edit but he is published and has invented a couple of story delivery mechanisms. I've added ISBNs and some references. He needs a publicist, though. :) Wikipelli Talk 13:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- It is close, but I think the reviews already in the article and this review and this one just pass WP:BASIC. Hoppingalong (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Enough third-party reliable sources have been identified to meet WP:N. Good work, Wikipelli. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:32, 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. Willing to WP:USERFY if needed for some future merger with an appropriate existing article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Intent Leadership[edit]
- Intent Leadership (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 sure how to frame this. Only link to this is an article about the book that this concept is placed in. Only seems to define the concept at best, in any event. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article - The article has been edited to improve. Kindly note that Intent leadership is a leadership concept derived from the overall idea of Dissolve the box which is much broader. However, it is believed Intent Leadership deserves a separate space as the idea in itself has a lot to offer. Just like Leadership and Thought leadership there is a need for separate articles on "dissolve the box" and "intent leadership" as each one is an elaborate idea in itself . Please feel free to discuss the same. I hope it addresses your concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) — Vartmaan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I hate to say it, but it does not - at least, from my perspective. My concern is that we are not a place to promote your radical ideas. I've made mention of this on your talk page sometime yesterday, my time zone. To be honest, my concern is that this (and Dissolve the box, since I'm here) won't stand the tests we have for these articles unto themselves, and with a concept such as these, you're going to have a much more difficult time doing this - especially given the purported novelty of these concepts. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unwikified content and seems to be more of a review than an article. If the article has chances of being started again, it's better to start with new materials. SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable concept. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: Going to provide a parallel proposal from what is being discussed on a similar topic created by the same author from the same book: Dissolve the box. Suggesting slimming down the content of the article and placing it into the article about the book itself. I believe we have a slowly emerging consensus on that discussion; what do you all think? --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my comment on the AFD for Dissolve the box, I would not disfavor this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's improve the article: Discussions are surely a fair and a transparent way to arrive at informed decisions and i thank you'll for continuously working to improve wikipedia. I specially thank editors contributing for the article on Intent Leadership like Dennis the Tiger, Swister Twister, Alan Liefting and of course Pusillanimous.
As suggested by Swister Twister and if agreed by the other particpants too, the article deserves a chance to be improved. We are not seasoned editors at wikipedia like you'll and may have not followed some of the Wiki Policies or made some mistakes but the intent is certainly in tune with wiki policies :). Professional Students from MBA and Engineering colleges were looking at these articles at wikipedia for information and this made us upload the articles based on reliable references. They first go to Wiki and then go to books for detail understanding :). I will share my experience : While taking a class at the renowned ISB Hyderabad, students immediately googled for the article in wikipedia but did not find them and more and more students wanted information on the topic and wiki is their favourate source. Intent Leadership is being discussed and even about to be taught in some of the colleges of IIM and IIT repute. ICICI Bank has already conducted sessions on Intent Leadership, Dissolving the box etc. with positive feedback.
Just to share few more information: Industry leaders (Chief Innovative Officer, Chief Managing Directors, Vice Presidents etc.) from different parts of the world have been positively discussing it in Harvard Blogs and have even given positive comments via emails (which can be shared in the public domain). National and International press, electronic and television like ET Now, Business Today, Businessworld etc. have found enough food for thought to move beyond "Thinking Outside the Box" and "Thought Leadership" as inclusive and sustainable growth is still missing. Intent Leadership has outgrown "Next What's In" and i hope through our discussions you all will appreciate that it deserves its place in wikipedia as independent article. Dissolve the box is a way of life (all aspects) and Intent Leadership is focussed on Leadership only. Let's improve the article :). In case more clarification is required we will be happy to provide them. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 03:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Improving the article will not make the concept any more notable. Also, there are many more important things to do on Wikipedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely believe the article is in line with the WP:GNG requirements. Let's comply with it. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 02:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vartmaan, the article contains resources that point to notability for the book that promotes the idea - in the way of book reviews. Everything else is either primary sources or blog entries - and we need secondary sources for reliability. The best way to keep this article on Wikipedia is, quite frankly, a pointer to the book, but even then, I do not feel that this concept should be solely promoted by a book to begin with. Moreover, reinforcing your own point by repeatedly posting in this AFD is not going to change my mind - your actions in actually proving that this is going to meet our general notability guidelines, however, will. In a nutshell, we don't need sources for the book to prove that intent leadership meets GNG, we need sources for intent leadership to prove that it meets GNG. While I realize that this may seem like a logical paradox, do understand that we do things this way here on Wikipedia because we are striving to be an encyclopedia - and accordingly, we seek data that can meld well with it. Watch your talk page for some more personal notes from me shortly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge—I've been watching this, and Dissolve the box for quite a while, unsure what to do with it. The terms both get minor press, but always in the context of the book or an interview with the author, never by themselves. Since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissolve the box has been posted, the path here has become clear to me... Merge both articles into the article on the book they came from: Next What's In. This same comment will be copied over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissolve the box. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 14:58, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG guidelines - When Leadership by intention or "Intent Leadership" has been covered by majority of the National and some International media by giving its cause (Law of Fine), the platform from which it arisies (not the mental boxes but the field of all possibilities and infinite creativity) and detailed examples (of the sheep)and explaining how it is different from Thought Leadership (or leadership by thinking outside the box) along with its implications and benefits of leadership by dissolving the box, it can certinly not be termed a "minor press". As per the WP:GNG guidelines "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". This article has certainly not got a "trivial mention" but much-much more. Some of the articles are more than 500 words and approximately 20% of the articles have covered Intent leadership and matter related to it spread all accross the articles (introduction, body and conclusion) . This is certainly not trivial considering its weightage in the articles published on its own and if we see them in the context of the media in which it is covered (in terms of source, circulation, reach, quality, objectivity, reliability etc.) it is certainly not minor press. Thus, we should allow this article to remain as per the WP:GNG guidelines. Vartmaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable concept. A little bit of press coverage now does not establish encyclopedic relevance. Vartmaan, will you please start signing your messages? Drmies (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is notable as per the WP:GNG guidelines. It is much more than a trivial covereage as the cause of Intent Leadership is explained, examples are given to support and relevance is given for a practical implication. The references do not just have a trivial mention of the concept. The idea is not only covered in press but it is being taught(refer to the IIPM link) , practiced and even endorsed by industry leaders and academia. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and in line with that all the references provided are reliable and verifiable. So deleting this article will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia.Vartmaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, it is not. You don't have to repeat yourself for every "delete"--and please start signing your messages. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the articles for deletion (AfD) once again and all the pages related to it to understand the spirit of wikipedia all over again. What i found that wikipedia is based on basically four pillars to quote "All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.
- The idea is notable as per the WP:GNG guidelines. It is much more than a trivial covereage as the cause of Intent Leadership is explained, examples are given to support and relevance is given for a practical implication. The references do not just have a trivial mention of the concept. The idea is not only covered in press but it is being taught(refer to the IIPM link) , practiced and even endorsed by industry leaders and academia. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable and in line with that all the references provided are reliable and verifiable. So deleting this article will not be in the spirit of Wikipedia.Vartmaan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vartmaan (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A failure to conform to a neutral point of view is usually remedied through editing for neutrality, but text that does not conform to any of the remaining three policies is usually removed from Wikipedia, either by removing a passage or section of an otherwise satisfactory article or by removing an entire article if nothing can be salvaged. This guide deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, which are often listed or "nominated" on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Articles that violate Wikipedia:Copyrights are listed on the project page for copyright problems for further action. When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly." I have tried to follow all the four pillars in spirit. Neutrality may be a concern where i would like to rework and would also like to take help of other wikipedians. In the article i have simply quoted from the references so that i do not inject my point of view. But still i would like to have a relook into it. I hope my approach of "quoting" is correct as far as neutrality is concerned, if not kindly guide. Thanks. Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect or delete - there's nothing here but an essay summarizing the concept, and a fringey one to boot. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just went through the link on Fringe theories which says "The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies, Neutral point of view, No original research, and Verifiability. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence".
If you'll believe the article is out of proportion, or needs improvement edit it but deleting and merging the article will not be in accordance with the WP:GNG guidelines. Kindly reconsider your view in a fair manner. Thanks Vartmaan (talk —Preceding undated comment added 05:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I have written 4 articles based on the reliable references we have got - Santosh Sharma, Next What's In, Dissolve the box and Intent Leadership. The comments i have got from the editors are as follows
Dissolve the box : Editors are of the view that the references talks about the book and the author. Santosh Sharma: Editors are of the view that the references talks of the book and the idea. Next What's In : Editors are of the view that Next What's In is non notable and The Hindu reference (which was established in 1880 with 4.1 million readers as unreliable) Intent Leadership: Like Dissolve the box article editors are of the view it talks of the book or the author. This does not reflect an objective assessment. Request you'll to reconsider your stand and be fair to arrive at a conclusion. Once we decide the articles to remain in wikipedia i can rework on the article for the encyclopedic content though i have been mentioning the content in the articles is simply quoted from the reliable references and not mine. Thanks "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] (talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.39.108 (talk) 00:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Vartmaan - Forgive me, as this will sound rude, but it's time to be blunt. The long and short of this is simple: you need to prove to us that this article meets our general notability guidelines, which, as you have repeatedly pointed out WP:GNG, you should be very familiar with by now. Your repeated posts in here are not helping your case. What will help is if you can alter the article in such a way to demonstrate notability of this independently of the book. The end. In short: don't sell us on why it's notable when it's not, prove that it's notable independently of the publication. That, alone, will change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for Dennis The Tiger- Dennis you are doing your job as an editor and therefore there's nothing to be forgiven, in fact i am happy that you have been continuously working to improve wikipedia. What i am concerned about is what i have mentioned in the above earlier comment where the editors are not consistent and objective. For the idea, they say the reference talk of the book and the author, for Sharma they say the references talk of the book and the idea and worst is for Next What's In where they say the references are not reliable when the references are from more than a century old leading publising house of India with more than 4 million readers daily. This actually has created a trust deficit but i would still like to clear the concerns. It is very clearly mentioned in the WP:GNG guidelines on notability that 1) "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." 2) I have deeply understood this WP:GNGguideline and nowhere it is mentioned, or even hinted that the coverage of the article should be standalone or cannot be clubbed with any other matter. In fact it is done otherwise where the guideline clearly states "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Kindly explain what do you mean by "IT NEED NOT BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL". I have been repeating this point because i have not got an answer till date for this point. I have just been told that "no it is not a significant coverage" but i have not got an answer to this point. So in the first place why do you need me to "demonstrate notability of this independently of the book"? It's not required. I hope you are not misunderstanding me of repeating it again. I do not want to waste your valuable time. Dennis i will be travelling for my outdoor lectures so there may be a slight delay in my response. Kindly forgive if i have hurt you in any way. It's absolutely unintentional.Thankyou "User:Vartmaan|Vartmaan]] ([[User talk:Vartmaan|talk] —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 am alsdo going to WP:SALT this and Leprachaun Vs. Chucky as it seems this version was created to bypass previous afd results. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chucky vs. Leprechaun[edit]
- Chucky vs. Leprechaun (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 speculation on another horror crossover film. At this point the project is in discussion according to the sources given - though the only sources given are a Wikia page and a forum post thread from a few years back, none of which are really reliable. No entry on IMDB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sadly not a lot to back this one. DiverScout (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cancelled movies such as this are rarely notable and nothing, such as sources, suggests that this is an exception. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is just barely enough coverage of this failed project to consider a mention elsewhere... but where. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:18, 12 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 seems I was wrong. Nice work on the improvements. NAC. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fall out nuka break[edit]
- Fall out nuka break (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 be the plotline to a story, but I'm not seeing any attachment to any particular series, genre, or media. I don't feel I can {{db-nocontext}} this on account that this has some context. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's referring to this, I believe, a popular fan-made live-action series set in the Fallout video game universe. Surprisingly, it does appear to have a fair amount of news coverage, including this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this, to name a few. The article definitely needs to be rewritten from the ground up though. SilverserenC 03:53, 4 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum Due to serious issues involving canvassing and sockpuppetry there is no prejudice against re-nominating this article at any time. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SFL 1[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- SFL 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here we go again, no indication that this MMA event is going to be notable, right now it is promotional and sourced to routine coverage. (fails WP:EVENT) Mtking (edits) 03:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep highly notable, meets GNG due to high number of independent articles for event, on par with similar promotion's events ONE Fighting Championship BigzMMA (talk) 05:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are the just routine coverage any sports event gets. To highlight the point take for example a regular season home game for any NFL team , it will get vastly more coverage than this event will,it would have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, but we don't have an article, because the coverage is routine. It is the same here, how is this event (which as not happened) going to be of historical and encyclopaedic significance ? Mtking (edits) 05:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot possibly consider comparing American Football with MMA? And you'd only need to look at so many other promotions that have events on here to see that what your trying to imply goes more for them than this. Remember, this event isn't just another MMA event, prior to the fights, major, and I mean MAJOR celebrities are going to perform live in-front of the paying audience, this event is far more notable than even some UFC events when considering factors such as notable actiosn happening (J-Lo and LMFAO performing!) and relevance (this is the very first event to be shown in India). So for these reasons I ask anyone making up their minds whether to keep or not to consider what I just said and use it to help make your decision. Beside its like I said, why delete a event page that shows more notability than that of a event page such as, say, Shark Fights 18 and let that page remain without even giving that a AfD? BigzMMA (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from those doing the pre-fight show, and just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean we should retain this article. Mtking (edits) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well if constant articles are appearing up saying 'Super Fight League 1' in it, then it is notable. The performers are there primarily to open the show up for the Indian audience, for most who never have seen an MMA event before due to the fact there has never been one held in India. This event has 'Notable' written all over it from the start. Bollywood is talking about it, major Indian new sources are talking about it, many notable actions are happening throughout the event and your telling me that this event is not notable? And to elaborate on what I said before about how can you possibly compare the NFL and an MMA event, the NFL is a team-based sport that runs their events throughout seasons, with a mega event - The Super Bowl, happening at the very end of the season. MMA is runned very differently, too differently for there to be such a comparison, as MMA hold single events at a time with no guarantee for a future event, but it always happens if it you know what I mean (as in whos says the next UFC event is guaranteed?). Because of this Boxing events can have Wiki pages (Ring Kings), but single NFL matches outside the Super Bowl cannot or wouldn't be strong enough to have one. For certain MMA events though, such as the example I gave earlier on, is a true example to which sort of event should have their own event page, but this one is different for 3 big reasons, 1)It is the very first MMA event in India, 2) The amount of things happening during the event has helped gained the event attention, and 3) The media, both in India and internationally, has meant the event is deeply in the public eye. And THIS is why this event should stay. BigzMMA (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited from those doing the pre-fight show, and just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS does not mean we should retain this article. Mtking (edits) 23:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot possibly consider comparing American Football with MMA? And you'd only need to look at so many other promotions that have events on here to see that what your trying to imply goes more for them than this. Remember, this event isn't just another MMA event, prior to the fights, major, and I mean MAJOR celebrities are going to perform live in-front of the paying audience, this event is far more notable than even some UFC events when considering factors such as notable actiosn happening (J-Lo and LMFAO performing!) and relevance (this is the very first event to be shown in India). So for these reasons I ask anyone making up their minds whether to keep or not to consider what I just said and use it to help make your decision. Beside its like I said, why delete a event page that shows more notability than that of a event page such as, say, Shark Fights 18 and let that page remain without even giving that a AfD? BigzMMA (talk) 19:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But they are the just routine coverage any sports event gets. To highlight the point take for example a regular season home game for any NFL team , it will get vastly more coverage than this event will,it would have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, but we don't have an article, because the coverage is routine. It is the same here, how is this event (which as not happened) going to be of historical and encyclopaedic significance ? Mtking (edits) 05:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete as per nom. As I previously discussed with the article creator, an article about SFL 1 primarily as an MMA event is not likely to be notable. As an entertainment event it might be notable, but the article hasn't shown that to be the case. It may still be possible that this event may be notable more for it's entertainment aspect as a whole, but that still needs to be proven. I've also told the article creator before that just because there are other crappy MMA event articles doesn't mean SFL 1 gets to stay. If someone wants to nominate the Shark Fights event articles, I'll likely be happy to !vote delete them too. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But you do keep forgetting TreyGeek that this event really is notable. There are dozens of independent articles talking about many of the things happening with the event, ranging from the celebrities singing prior to the fights, to who is going to be the commentators, head referee etc. It is a main topic talked about in Bollywood right now, India's main online new sources are talking about it, all round it meet WP:GNG, and with that, should be allowed to stay. This simple Google News search - https://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&tbm=nws&sclient=psy-ab&q=Super+Fight+League+1&oq=Super+Fight+League+1&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=3643l8892l2l9676l15l15l0l0l0l0l90l943l15l15l0&gs_l=serp.3...3643l8892l2l9676l15l15l0l0l0l0l90l943l15l15l0&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=5dfc45bc41067a46&biw=1024&bih=677 shows just how talked about it is. Also if you look at the Wiki page itself, there are 7 referred articles relating to the event itself, which by looking at some of events you choose 'Keep' for, they had a similar number of referred articles on the page, some more, some less.
- Delete The event fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Saying it's notable because of the entertainment acts is like saying the Super Bowl is notable because of its halftime show. Unless you believe every performance by these entertainers is notable, their appearance doesn't make this fight card notable. Astudent0 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is India's big new MMA Promotion. And it has been talked about in many articles. JadeSnake (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have seen at least 10 or more different sources for this event. It is covered heavily. I see no reason to delete this. It's a major promotion and will help MMA in India flourish. Glock17gen4 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Glock17gen4 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
- Quantity of sources is not the issue, none of the sources demonstrate how this event meets WP:EVENT, the sources are just routine coverage of an forthcoming event. For example vastly more sources will be available on last night's FC Barcelona soccer match, when they beat Bayer Leverkusen but that match won't get an article. Mtking (edits) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mt, you cannot keep using team-based season sports as examples as to why MMA events cannot have their own events pages. If that were the case, then in theory every single UFC event should immediately deleted. The coverage this event has received so far is outstanding when considering the sources that are writing them (many high level Indian news sites including Times of India), this is far more than just routine, routine coverage would be from websites such as MMAJunkies, BloodyElbows and Sherdog, the articles out there are from much more independent source, not just from the promotion itself, but from the entire sport period. BigzMMA (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To demonstrate that sports events need to have non-routine coverage, and all the ones so far advanced for this one are just that. Mtking (edits) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the comparison is apples and oranges, they are way too far apart in contrast to even use as a reason why any non-season single person sports like MMA or Boxing and season team-based sports like American Football and Rugby cannot have an event page. If you feel so strongly about this 'opinion' about MMA event then why don't you start creating AfDs for UFC events? BigzMMA (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To demonstrate that sports events need to have non-routine coverage, and all the ones so far advanced for this one are just that. Mtking (edits) 22:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mt, you cannot keep using team-based season sports as examples as to why MMA events cannot have their own events pages. If that were the case, then in theory every single UFC event should immediately deleted. The coverage this event has received so far is outstanding when considering the sources that are writing them (many high level Indian news sites including Times of India), this is far more than just routine, routine coverage would be from websites such as MMAJunkies, BloodyElbows and Sherdog, the articles out there are from much more independent source, not just from the promotion itself, but from the entire sport period. BigzMMA (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Quantity of sources is not the issue, none of the sources demonstrate how this event meets WP:EVENT, the sources are just routine coverage of an forthcoming event. For example vastly more sources will be available on last night's FC Barcelona soccer match, when they beat Bayer Leverkusen but that match won't get an article. Mtking (edits) 03:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There's no indication that this meets WP:EVENT. It's extremely unlikely the coverage of this event will be of long duration. As for the previous keep comment, the promotion can hardly be considered notable when this is its first event and Wikipedia's purpose is not to "help MMA in India flourish." Papaursa (talk) 04:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For anyone accusing me of trying to 'bring in people to help tie in the vote in my favour' I have already answered to this on my talk page, in which I have only asked people from previous AfD debates that I have been involved in, just because I only did a few suddenly it means that I am trying to gain 'Keep' votes! If read carefully, anyone would find that I did not what-so-ever give even a hint that I was asking them to vote 'Keep', but I was just saying that they might be interested in taking part in the debate. I also gave them some basic information about the event, saying that its a main topic in Bollywood, main event fight and the performances prior to the fights, but I gave no indication as to what they should vote for. BigzMMA (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I find it quite confusing that I've been accused of turning opinions to my favour, yet if you look at nearly every single Keep vote on this page (mine included) that someone is questioning our vote while no-one is bothering to question the 'Delete' votes, apart from the one from TreyGeek that I commented on, but that was only because he mentioned me in that comment so I wanted to answer what he said. But generally, I'm not the one trying to sway votes in my favour, you'd only need to look up to see who is doing that. BigzMMA (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see how this event will have the "lasting significance" required by WP:EVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EVENT. Here we go again, yet another case of something nominated for which there is no evidence that it won't be notable. So long as it is covered in secondary sources, it is historically relevant for Wikipedia's coverage. --Temporary for Bonaparte (talk) 16:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Temporary for Bonaparte (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)Note: Temporary for Bonaparte has been blocked for Abusing multiple accounts (diff).[reply]
- Keep per WP:BEFORE, because as it stands none of those advocating deletion have demonstrated any actual effort to find sources or that they have any degree of knowledge of the subject matter at hand. From whom must we protect this information?! --63.3.19.1 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to WP:AGF and that the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to assume. The nominator starts off with a WP:DICK way of "Here we go again" and then rambles on about how he just doesn't like the topic. BigMMA or whatever has already adequately demonstrated the notability of the subject. Per WP:BEFORE, the nominator has to at least demonstrate he made an real effort to find sources. --63.3.19.1 (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to WP:AGF and that the burden of proof is on those who claim notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Now to get it out of the way, yes, I am here after getting a message on my talk page to comment, so no one needs to add some ridiculous small script saying as much to my post. But anyway, regardless, looking over the article and considering the association with J-Lo, Bob Sapp, etc., it has mainstream participants and all that demonstrate cultural and sporty significance alike. --The Bachmann Editor Overdrive (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bigzmma. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Note: This IP has had !votes removed from AfD discussions in the past due to attempted vote stacking [15] --TreyGeek (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, for anyone interested, look up this event and determine yourselves whether it is notable or not - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAMMA 9 BigzMMA (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as first events for promotions are notable. --172.130.252.250 (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep notable event and India's biggest MMA promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fightloungemike (talk • contribs) 13:41, 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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economic stratification[edit]
- Economic stratification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It has had no souces since 2009 which suggests it is not important enough to improve or is unverifiable. Perhaps merge the information if sources are found otherwise it should be deleted Brad7777 (talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lack of sources is not a reason for deletion, and the deletion rationale does not appear to show evidence of "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as required by WP:DEL#REASON. A trivial google scholar search turns up thousands of potential sources. These seem to establish notability, and the article could in principle (if necessary) be rewritten from any number of such sources. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sławomir Biały. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or maybe redirect, as this seems like a topic that would have already been covered elsewhere, but I don't see a good redirect location.AerobicFox (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Appears to be distinct from economic inequality. Sławomir hit the nail on the head, just needs work. --Pusillanimous 19:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:19, 5 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drunkard's search[edit]
- Drunkard's search (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 think this article will struggle to improve from its current 3 lines of text Brad7777 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Over a hundred google scholar hits establish notability. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the handy link already supplied and page a bit. No question. EEng (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seems to be a notable concept with some longevity, as it was apparently the title of a 1968 book. I'm also not convinced this isn't expandable, as the article explains it's a concept in social sciences but doesn't elaborate, there's definitely room for more there. Transwiki to wikitionary might be another possibility. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Sławomir Biały; also nomination reason is invalid. -- 202.124.73.2 (talk) 11:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:17, 5 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 Social comparison theory. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:50, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Downward social comparison[edit]
- Downward social comparison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It consits of one line, even though it is atleast 4 years old. The information could probably be merged somewhere. Theres no point having an article for what appears to be a dictionary entry. Brad7777 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already covered (in more detail) by social comparison theory. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Just a rewording of the title.DoctorKubla's point clearly shows there is no loss if it is removed as a larger article already includes any information this one would contain. --Pusillanimous 19:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Social comparison theory: this is a plausible search term, and the concept is discussed in the proposed target article. --Lambiam 20:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect seems like the appropriate conclusion. I've stricken my vote; Lambiam is probably right about its usefulness as a search term. --Pusillanimous 21:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:14, 5 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 2e. UtherSRG (talk) 10:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Factor theorem[edit]
- Factor theorem (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 addition of any sources since the tag in 2009 Brad7777 (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 02:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A well-known and important theorem in basic algebra. Added a source. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Using the Find sources it is easy to verify that this theorem is covered by plenty of elementary textbooks. --Lambiam 03:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, but add some ref-s. this is the first link I saw, but I guess any book in elementary algebra would be even better. Sasha (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. Total failure of WP:BEFORE. WP:N is based on sources that exist, not sources in the article. -- 202.124.72.213 (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if only on philosophical grounds. --Matt Westwood 09:39, 4 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 as created by a blocked user in violation of the block (confirmed by checkuser), and also as promotion, as the article served only to promote a particular point of view. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising[edit]
- Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising (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 is a clear and obvious WP:POVFORK from Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. I suspect the user who originally created the page, User:Grimso5, may be a sock of User:ChronicalUsual, who was blocked for disruptive editing on Syria content before, and I am all but certain that the user who recreated this page after its content was moved to the "Sectarianism" page, User:FavorLaw, is a sock of ChronicalUsual. The article name is blatantly POV; all of this content is already either included in the "Sectarianism" article or it could easily be incorporated there. Both editors' purpose in creating and then recreating this page (whether they are separate individuals or not) appears to be to promote an anti-Syrian opposition POV. I am not opposed to include verifiable information no matter who it looks bad for, but this doesn't need to be a separate page, it was already moved to a less POV title, and this is a clear case of POV forking, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Kudzu1 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge rather than delete. There is nothing wrong with the information. FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) You are paranoid with your baseless accusations. 2) This is not a fork from the sectarianism page as the sectarianism page has been created AFTER the page you are nominating for deletion. This is a massive logic failure from your part 3) If anything it is the Sectarianism page which is the fork created by user:Sopher99 who already tried to merge , redirect and speedy delete the nominated page because he did not like the content. You are following his path --FavorLaw (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is all on the Sectarianism page. That wasn't a fork, it was a move to a less POV title. This is a fork. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It was a fork. A fork of the Syrian Uprising page to begin. Sopher99 created a new page, took all the content from a section of the Syrian Uprising page and made a redirect for the nominated page, erasing all the content of the page. I did not know how to revert such a move, which was done without any discussion so copying back has messed up the chronology. But it went like that. After that, Sopher99 has tried to merge and speedy delete the page he had already tried to erase with its content. Then someone else copied the content of the nominated page and pasted it directly on the Sectarianism page, without discussion too. --FavorLaw (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Because the Alawite minority holds power in Syria, Alawites form a special and obvious target for negative sentiment, violence and lynching by those opposed to the current government. Their special position of minority-but-governing makes them a specific case that should not be tucked away into a general article on sectarianism. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have a problem with article length. There's no reason that information can't be covered on the same page where treatment of Christians and Sunni Muslims is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Important note - User:FavorLaw has been blocked and tagged as a sockpuppet of the disruptive editor User:ChronicalUsual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising, same topic. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:26, 2 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) 00:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot to mention earlier that User:Grimso5, the original author of this page, was also blocked and tagged as a User:ChronicalUsual sockpuppet. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: This page deals with one element of the topic of the sectarianism page. If that page got too long, it would be justified to have this one, but that isn't the case. I don't think it will be either, especially since much of the bulk of both pages seems to be reporting large lists of incidents with similar themes. --Yalens (talk) 16:14, 11 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lord Huron[edit]
- Lord Huron (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:BAND. While this visual arts major currently residing in Los Angeles may become notable in the future, it appears too early for a Wikipedia article as I am unable to locate significant reliable source coverage to establish notability. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 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) 00:02, 26 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) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per our music guidelines. Quote from the article: "Schneider is currently at work on a full-length album and is looking for label representation." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Starblind has pointed out, this page does look promotional, and while that is not a stand-alone reason for deletion, this topic also fails WP:GNG. Cloudz679 18:25, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Portfolio investment[edit]
Advanced search for: "Portfolio investment" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
- Portfolio investment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIC. Article has existed for years with no improvement except it doesn't know if it's a foreign portfolio investment or a generic portfolio investment. Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And what effort have you put in to determining whether this stub is incapable of expansion? Per deletion policy, we only delete stubs if they cannot be expanded, not simply because they haven't yet been. When you see a stub, try to expand it as your first resort. At AFD, you must be able to demonstrate that you've tried to find sources for expansion and failed. It's fairly clear from even a minimal and cursory attempt to find out what the literature on portfolio investments is that your first thought has been to come to AFD with no attempt to actually write the encyclopaedia first. If the article doesn't explain things, then fix it so that it does in accordance with the copious literature on the subject. You're meant to be a Wikipedia writer. So write! Don't be yourself a part of the no-editors-have-done-anything problem.
- Pietersz, Graeme. "Portfolio investment". Money Terms.
- Sornarajah, M. (2010). "Bilateral investment treaties". The International Law on Foreign Investment (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 196–197. ISBN 9780521747653.
- Brawley, Mark Randal (2005). "The Politics of International Investment". Power, money, and trade: decisions that shape global economic relations. University of Toronto Press. pp. 180–182. ISBN 9781551116839.
- Cherunilam, Francis (2007). "International Investment and Finance". International business: text and cases (4th ed.). PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. pp. 322–323. ISBN 9788120330962.
- Uncle G (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've done a wonderful job of updating the article after your rant. It looks so much less like garbage now than it did when I nominated it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the one who wants article written right now, to your arbitrary schedule, not us. You are the one who claims to write in the area of legal topics. You are the editor who is the problem. Here you are still doing nothing whilst — ironically — complaining that nothing has been done. And this in the face of people who have even put in the grunt work and handed sources to you on a platter, when you did nothing at all to find sources, even when you clearly knew what the topic was and what could be written. {{sofixit}} applies. Stop being part of the problem. You are being exactly the very makes-zero-effort timewaster, who does nothing but tag articles for deletion rather than write, that you are purporting to decry. Buck your ideas up. You're meant to be a writer. Wikipedia needs writers. What it doesn't need are people who do what you are doing: who see things that they know about, make zero effort to write or even research the subject, and nominate valid stubs for deletion on the grounds that they themselves have made zero effort. Wikipedia doesn't need people who make zero effort themselves but who nonetheless try to bully other volunteers into doing everything for them according to an arbitrary schedule that they've plucked from thin air. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, AfD is such a collegial place. Where did I "claim" to write about legal topics? How do you define "arbitrary schedule"? If 4 years isn't enough for you, how many is? 6? 8? 300? Don't tell me what Wikipedia "needs" - you haven't a clue, only your highly inflated opinion that you know best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good grief! You claim on your user page. It's demonstrably a falsehood. You don't write about legal topics. You nominate them for deletion even when you know what to write on the subject, saying so in your nomination. Your approach to the encyclopaedia is shoddy and lacking. And it is you, not I nor anybody else, who are defining an arbitrary schedule for others to write to when you don't bother to write yourself on a subject that interests you and that you know about. Buck your ideas up. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, AfD is such a collegial place. Where did I "claim" to write about legal topics? How do you define "arbitrary schedule"? If 4 years isn't enough for you, how many is? 6? 8? 300? Don't tell me what Wikipedia "needs" - you haven't a clue, only your highly inflated opinion that you know best.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the one who wants article written right now, to your arbitrary schedule, not us. You are the one who claims to write in the area of legal topics. You are the editor who is the problem. Here you are still doing nothing whilst — ironically — complaining that nothing has been done. And this in the face of people who have even put in the grunt work and handed sources to you on a platter, when you did nothing at all to find sources, even when you clearly knew what the topic was and what could be written. {{sofixit}} applies. Stop being part of the problem. You are being exactly the very makes-zero-effort timewaster, who does nothing but tag articles for deletion rather than write, that you are purporting to decry. Buck your ideas up. You're meant to be a writer. Wikipedia needs writers. What it doesn't need are people who do what you are doing: who see things that they know about, make zero effort to write or even research the subject, and nominate valid stubs for deletion on the grounds that they themselves have made zero effort. Wikipedia doesn't need people who make zero effort themselves but who nonetheless try to bully other volunteers into doing everything for them according to an arbitrary schedule that they've plucked from thin air. Uncle G (talk) 08:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've done a wonderful job of updating the article after your rant. It looks so much less like garbage now than it did when I nominated it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously notable, encyclopedic term. Nothing about the stub suggests it cannot be expanded through normal editing. Bongomatic 14:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, the "article" has existed since 2008 and been tagged since 2009, and here we are, waiting for it to be "expanded through normal editing".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh2. There's an "argument to avoid" for this particular line of specious reasoning at WP:NOEFFORT. Bongomatic 02:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, the "article" has existed since 2008 and been tagged since 2009, and here we are, waiting for it to be "expanded through normal editing".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 1 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) 00:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is notable per the WP:GNG, being the subject of numerous independent sources which discuss it in detail. WP:NOTDIC is not a reason to delete nor is the age of article. Warden (talk) 18:29, 4 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 – nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 21:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ain Soph (disambiguation)[edit]
- Ain Soph (disambiguation) (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 MOS:DABENTRY. Bbb23 (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it distinguishes between two articles you might want to find if you looked up "Ain Soph" (as I did just before creating the dab). You've failed to detail what it fails in the style guideline, and failing a style guideline is a reason for editing, not deletion - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And I just found another reasonably disambiguable article named after the concept "ain soph", in a few seconds you failed to take before making a deletion nomination. This nomination seems to demonstrate unfortunately poor attention to detail - David Gerard (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The disambig violated many rules (I won't detail them all here because I'm sure editors can read the guidelines). However, based on the addition of a second actual article (before there was only one article and one redlink), and my edits to conform the page to guidelines (I removed the description and the redlink), I'll withdraw the nom.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 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) 00:07, 4 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) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1,000 Grams[edit]
- 1,000 Grams (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 mixtape with one source that I'm not sure is reliable. JayJayTalk to me 03:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There appears to be enough significant coverage (e.g., [16][17][18][19]) to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Gongshow Talk 08:00, 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) 00:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There is no indication that the article fails WP:GNG. Especially after the sources Gongshow provided. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:26, 4 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Culture of Gobichettipalayam[edit]
- Culture of Gobichettipalayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite my advice to merge this poorly sourced info into the main article and copyedit/condense and source it this editor insisted on dumping this material into new articles without solving the problem itself. A small city in India does not need articles on its culture and economy and is likely to be a magnet for further poor edits.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or at least merge. Some of it is interesting and potentially useful but this doesn't really deserve its own article. Night Ranger (talk) 15:37, 26 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]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero need for a standalone article on this topic. The content is potentially useful in the parent article but is unsourced/possibly OR. --Kinu t/c 19:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : None of the content written by the creator, just copied from Gobichettipalayam. Does not deserve a separate article.--Anbu121 (talk me) 11:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the damn thing. Who relisted this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 8 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Economy of Gobichettipalayam[edit]
- Economy of Gobichettipalayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite my advice to merge this unsourced info into the main article and copyedit and source it this editor insisted on dumping this material into new articles without solving the problem itself.. A small city in India does not need articles on its Economy and Culture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Since the Gobichettipalayam article is only 23kB size these are unnecessary content forks. This is a town of only 60000 population, so better keep everything in the main article. I think you should have made a group nomination for this. MakeSense64 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and place an information from the article which is (a) sufficiently relevant and (b) can be supported by actual WP:RS references into the Gobichettipalayam article where it belongs. AllyD (talk) 20:59, 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) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero need for a standalone article on this topic. Nothing sourced to merge. --Kinu t/c 19:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : None of the content in this article is written by the creator of this article. He has just copied and pasted from Gobichettipalayam. Half of the content still remains in Gobichettipalayam and the rest has been cleaned up. --Anbu121 (talk me) 10:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the damn thing. Who relisted this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Gobichettipalayam#Economy. Most of this article is unsourced, anything useful will be better-suited in the main article. --SupernovaExplosion Talk 06:39, 9 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transport in Gobichettipalayam[edit]
- Transport in Gobichettipalayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite my advice to merge this unsourced info into the main article and copyedit and source it this editor insisted on dumping this material into new articles without solving the problem itself.. A small city in India does not need articles on its Economy Transport and Culture.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 26 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) 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Basically, this article tells me that the town has roads that connect it to other locales, there's a bus stand, a train station 40 km away, and an airport 70 km away. None of this warrants a standalone article and is completely redundant to the town article. Nothing sourced worth merging. --Kinu t/c 16:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gobichettipalayam - information can be fitted neatly into the town's article itself. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : Article formed by copying from main article Gobichettipalayam. Should be deleted as it does not deserve separate article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : Totally unnecessary. As are the other articles in the same series. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the damn thing. Who relisted this?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:35, 8 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media in Gobichettipalayam[edit]
- Media in Gobichettipalayam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite my advice to merge this unsourced info into the main article and copyedit and source it this editor insisted on dumping this material into new articles without solving the problem itself.. A small city in India does not need articles on such topics when they cam be adequately summarised in the main article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 26 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) 00:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Strange article, seems to be about media available in this location, which is not an appropriate topic. Tigerboy1966 02:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete The nearest to encyclopaedic content here is the info on telecoms infrastructure which is already available under Gobichettipalayam#Economy (equally unreferenced in both places unfortunately, but no justification for a content fork). As Tigerboy1966 says, the remainder is an unreferenced list of what wider media are available to people in this small town, which is sub-encyclopaedic. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, zero need for a standalone article on this topic. Nothing sourced to merge. --Kinu t/c 20:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : Does not deserve separate article. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:16, 6 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holcombe Hockey Club[edit]
- Holcombe Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deleted as PROD and re-created; does not meet WP:GNG or the notability guidelines for sport clubs. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 19:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 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) 00:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Although I can find some mentions in Google News, most of them are related directly to the article's topic. I'm not sure how to call this one exactly.
- Delete - Second-tier sports team in a sport with little following in the team's country and a lack of independent press coverage. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Colapeninsula has hit the nail on the head. Lack of coverage leading to WP:GNG failure. Cloudz679 05:48, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1 For 3[edit]
- 1 For 3 (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 tv show, no references JayJayTalk to me 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems these past weeks, users such as Bertrand101 have been starting unsourced Filipino TV programs articles. I couldn't find anything mentioning this TV show, no news articles or television guides. SwisterTwister talk 06:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This one is not a hoax. Let's see if I can salvage something later... –HTD 06:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a real Philippine TV series. There are now sources as of writing. I'll try to add some of mine as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:42, 1 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) 00:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My linguistic skills are stretched by this, but the referenced articles don't seem to have much to do with 1 For 3. The Tagalog Wikipedia page on the show has no references and is one sentence long.[20] I'm sure it's a real TV show, but is it notable? --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Language skills won't be a problem; in fact, most WP:RS in the Philippines are in English; the problem is in the link rot. This show aired from 1997 to 2001; most Philippine news websites only go back to 2007. You'd be lucky to find anything pre-2004. With that said, it's quite true that all sources had nothing to do with the show and non-English sources are at most borderline reliable, but it's an evidence that the show aired. In the end, that should be good enough. –HTD 14:28, 9 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collegium ramazzini[edit]
- Collegium ramazzini (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 academy. Tinton5 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, and unreferenced.
- Keep: With 76 Google News hits [21] and four hundred and thirty-five Google Scholar hits [22], I can only conclude that the nom and the other Delete proponent completely blew off WP:BEFORE. The proper response for a lack of adequate sourcing is to see if the article can be sourced, not a knee-jerk AfD. Ravenswing 00:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually 2 results for Google News. However, the Google Scholar links are not bad to work with. Thank you for providing those. Tinton5 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'm unsure what methodology you're using to view News hits, but there are articles from the Charlestown News & Courier, the New York Times, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Pittsburgh Press, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Meriden Record-Journal, news-medical.net, and so on and so forth; a few more than two. Ravenswing 08:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the link you provided, only 2 come up for some reason. Thanks though for trying. Tinton5 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly because I use Google using their secure server, and likely you don't. Nothing, however, stops you from going to Google News' advanced search option, typing in "Collegium Ramazzini" and observing the results ... the sort of minimal effort WP:BEFORE enjoins us to undertake in any event before filing an AfD. Ravenswing 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Took your advice, Raven, however, very few of the results that I searched give information as to why this academy is important. Many just give brief mentions about said establishment. Tinton5 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt. Of course, only two references which discuss the subject in detail are sufficient to meet the GNG. Ravenswing 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Took your advice, Raven, however, very few of the results that I searched give information as to why this academy is important. Many just give brief mentions about said establishment. Tinton5 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly because I use Google using their secure server, and likely you don't. Nothing, however, stops you from going to Google News' advanced search option, typing in "Collegium Ramazzini" and observing the results ... the sort of minimal effort WP:BEFORE enjoins us to undertake in any event before filing an AfD. Ravenswing 01:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the link you provided, only 2 come up for some reason. Thanks though for trying. Tinton5 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I'm unsure what methodology you're using to view News hits, but there are articles from the Charlestown News & Courier, the New York Times, the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the Pittsburgh Press, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Meriden Record-Journal, news-medical.net, and so on and so forth; a few more than two. Ravenswing 08:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are actually 2 results for Google News. However, the Google Scholar links are not bad to work with. Thank you for providing those. Tinton5 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am the author, and I will find some additional external references tonight. Gofigure41 03:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
Okay, I have added beaucoup additional external links to peer-reviewed scientific publications and editorials. I have also added numerous recent announcements for the election of international scientists to the board including doctors from Columbia University, Boston University, India and Italy. There are many more that I will keep adding. Does this now qualify to get the AfD removed? I will work next to get links to the popular press stories as well, but the internal scientific links alone seem to me to make this work more than sufficiently notable to avoid deletion. Thanks, Gofigure41 04:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
Last thing for today, added more external and internal links, including one about the 1995 Washington DC Symposia as described in the peer-reviewed scientific publication, Environmental health Sciences. Lots more to add, but hopefully this gets this page off the AdF.Gofigure41 05:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 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) 00:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - New content contributor, thus a few imperfections that grate, like green links in the body of the piece — but still, good work. Footnote 1, an NIH publication, pretty much gets this over the notability bar for me. Multiple references to the organization cited above. RESCUE SQUAD should be summoned to help bring this piece up to snuff... Carrite (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments. I will work on fixing the links and look forward to more suggestions from others. Gofigure41 17:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20 Wheels to Memphis[edit]
- 20 Wheels to Memphis (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 film, also can't find any references to suggest notability JayJayTalk to me 22:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 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) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find mentions from all the usual ones ([23] [24] etc.) but nothing really to warrant a keep. Nothing from Google News and Books. The article also strays away by talking too much of its soundtrack. All of its MoS problems should seal this article's fate. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 03:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've researched a lot of obscure films, but this is one of the obscurest. 86 Google results is astonishingly few. Simply not notable, despite the very vague almost-awards it almost-won. Nothing in Google Scholar either (you might expect some feminist journals to take a passing interest, but no.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:33, 6 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 Finally Woken. henrik•talk 19:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24 (song)[edit]
- 24 (song) (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 song with no references JayJayTalk to me 23:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 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) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Moderately successful artist's album track with some soundtrack appearances, but little to be said about it. Soundtrack use is already documented on Jem page. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Finally Woken, the album article. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above. WP:NSONGS suggests that non-notable songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist". Gongshow Talk 23:43, 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 Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jane Roskams[edit]
- Jane Roskams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Jane Roskams does not reach the notability guidelines for academics. Without going through each of them independently, she does not hold a prestigious academic award or title, and no independent reliable sources exist demonstrating that she has made a significant impact in her field of research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achapman2009 (talk • contribs) — Achapman2009 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. I don't see any evidence that this page was previously nominated for deletion at AfD; the number of this nomination may be incorrect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Web of Science lists 40 publications for "Roskams AJ", which have been cited 1836 times. She has an h-index of 21. Top citation counts are 387, 200, 150, 126, 96. This is generally considered sufficient here to pass WP:PROF#1. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was written in a rather horrendously promotional way and replete with badly sourced/unsourced puffery. I have cleaned it up. Better sources are still needed, though. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Guillaume2303. Tradedia (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. GS gives an h-index of 24 which is probably enough in this highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 5 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.