Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 27
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I hate to come to that conclusion after such a long and involved discussion, but here I see no alternative. Editors have addressed the central question at an AfD ("Is sufficient reliable source material available to write a comprehensive article on this subject?"), and have come to different conclusions about the answer, several of whom on both sides gave positions which made clear they carefully examined the source material available and didn't just do a drive-by or reference list count. Many thanks to those editors who did careful examinations of the sources available, and refrained from bringing in irrelevancies such as Google hit count, membership size, number of employees, and the like. An additional confounding factor in the determination of a clear consensus is that several editors favored deletion based upon the article being a blatant ad, and it is not clear whether they consider that concern to have been resolved by subsequent editing or not.
I suspect we might be re-examining this issue a few months down the road. Hopefully, with the article in better shape at that point, we can get a better idea of whether this is a suitable topic for an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
National Association for Gun Rights[edit]
- National Association for Gun Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting, lack of consensus Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result was Keep. Well past the allotted discussion period. Cited in adequate third-party sources. (non-admin closure) Faustus37 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no significant reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Given references are primary sources or don't mention the association. Claims are not cited. Would be happy to keep if these are met. heather walls (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After researching for a bit, the majority of content I found online was from unreliable sources (blogs, special interest groups), primary sources, or mere mentions that share little to nothing about the organization. Appears to fail general notability guidelines for me. SarahStierch (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as passing mentions and blog coverage is not the in depth coverage in reliable independent sources as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article seems to be just barely informative and referenced enough to survive. The group is to the point of being notable. Registered, active, filing regularly income and expenditures, getting some mentions and light coverage. The article should be de-politicized and de-advertorialized quite a bit by an outsider.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, the Gun Owners of America page faces the same kind of issues, and the NRA's page also references it's self multiple times, yet there isn't a deletion discussion going on over there. The suggestion that there are no significant reliable secondary sources in the NAGR article is highly subjective. Several credible news media outlets are referenced. NAGR's notability as an established PAC is further established on Open Secrets, and it looks like they have a growing influence by those numbers. A quick Google news search reveals more sources that seem to implicate it's 501c4 counterpart. Perhaps these should be added to the article. I say we give this article time, and let the community touch it up with more references instead of jumping to deletion conclusions -- especially when the subject is politically controversial. To do so may suggest a bias against the organization or it's positions instead of a fair evaluation of it's worthiness for Wikipedia. --Rf68705 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article and Request Close of Discussion Ok, I’ve spiffed up the article. This page now has more citations than most other gun groups. These references include non-original source references and news references including the Wall Street Journal, Denver Post, the filings of the organization in Virginia, legislative references and testimony, financial information and several neutral political news services, and links to articles from other gun groups they’ve worked with.
Membership claim is now cited. (Even the NRA's membership claim was a self-reference and that link is currently broken, and GOA's references their own press release. NAGR's reference is a court document, sworn under oath). Included references to the groups 2012 activities and expenditures (Open Secrets and the FEC), which is more information than other groups in the Gun interest groups in the U.S. category have.
The group’s expenditures are more than a drop in the bucket, and far exceed other groups with uncontested pages. In fact, the referenced sources show that the group's notability through their expenditures is growing quite significantly. Furthermore, their lawsuits are quite relevant to current debates on post office concealed carry laws, and campaign finance laws. Let the readers decide that, if necessary add to it.
Gun rights groups tend to have a lot of blog and forum entries that show up on a quick Google search. I’d encourage folks to dig deeper than page one before assuming the relevance isn’t notable.
Keep in mind, per the criteria of notability for organizations “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” The sources provided, and those recently added, are sufficient to establish the required initial notability.
Additionally, unregistered IP addresses have been making edits and accusations about this page without substantiating them and one has admitted a personal bias against this group’s VP. The Wikipedia community has a responsibility not to arbitrarily delete articles because someone simply does not like the group or one of its leaders. That responsibility is even more important for articles about political organizations that have enemies with motive to vandalize, discredit or delete it.
Those who have concerns about the facts of the article should take them out through appropriate critiques and edits of the content, instead of slinging personal attacks on the talk page. The fact is, this group isn’t going anywhere, and people who have/will received letters and emails from them are going to want to know more info about the group and will be looking for an unbiased reference. So here’s the chance for the Wiki community to provide it. Let’s get to work.
In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I have connections to the group, and welcome NPOV critiques and edits. But, deleting this page would be a very biased and inconsistent move, and would necessitate the deletion of several other organizations pages for the same reasons. Therefore I request this discussion be promptly closed and the article NOT deleted. --Rf68705 (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm just gonna point out that a straight Google search for the exact name of the organization returns 2.6 million hits and offer my opinion that this is the sort of material that a comprehensive encyclopedia should include. If there are problems with the neutrality or tone of the piece, fix it. If there are problems with sourcing, fix them or tag for more sources. Don't let IDONTLIKEIT feelings get in the way of a comprehensive encyclopedia... And no, I'm not a gun owner, and yes, I think an organization which lobbies for enhanced firearms privileges characterizing itself as a "civil rights" group is asinine. Carrite (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Wikipedia stance on google search arguments is, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." There is not a single reliable source on the first five google search pages I see, and it is the responsibility of the people who want to keep the article to produce those sources. I am very happy for well written articles on all subjects, my objections are to articles that don't prove notability, are not properly cited and are written almost entirely by COI single-purpose (or nearly so) accounts. heather walls (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My counter argument is that if there is a big enough iceberg showing on the Google radar, one can be damned sure that there are enough reliable sources out there to make a snowcone that will pass GNG muster. I'm a believer in following WP:BEFORE, which, if nothing else, means that nominators should run a quick check on Google and if an organization returns, let's say 2.6 million hits, assume that it is going to pass GNG and take other action to fix what ails a piece. This never should have been brought to AfD. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as promotional The WSJ article is enough to establish notability , but the article is hopelessly promotional beyond the scope of normal rewriting The entire tone is promotional. The entire body of the article is composed of quotes from supporters of the association. There is not one word of negative comment, besides that implied by 1 of the 4 political candidates they supported having lost an election. (A 2nd of them lost the general election also, but the article says only that he won the primary). There is an irrelevant paragraph about the organization's president supporting Ron Paul at the Republican convention. I can see no way to deal with it except starting over, But I don't want to do this as an admin by myself, unless there is some agreement. DGG ( talk ) 23:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (I know this might be quibbling, but the WSJ article I see is 90% about the NRA with a couple of small paragraphs from NAGR. Pardon me if there is another.)
- Support speedy. heather walls (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is a work in progress, and this article illustrates that. The fact that a particular article, in its current form, needs a lot of work is not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, and neither is "questionable material that is not vandalism" (See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7_scope). DickClarkMises (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject is potentially valid: the article is not. The fact of the matter is there would be more worth in salting the earth and starting over than in attempting to rewrite the current version - this is the most efficient way. Ironholds (talk) 20:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Respectfully, statements above regarding notability are generally the same as they were when the AfD thread was first initiated and opponents have failed to address points I have made, or the changes made to the article that addressed the initial concerns regarding notability. Only one source has been cited in effort to discredit the subject’s notability resulting in one cherry-picked reference out of over thirty being skewed to fit one persons narrative.
As far as I am concerned this is a case of a few people with a vendetta against the subject trolling the article, by applying their own subjective standards here, but not other similar, yet generally uncontested articles written in a similar fashion. Given the sensitivity of the topic, and the potential for vandalism that exists by real life political opponents of the articles subject (including other "pro-gun" groups, as well as "anti-gun"), deletion should heavily scrutinized.
As I explained I my previous post regarding Google searches, its important dig deeper than page one on a Google search before assuming the relevance isn’t notable. Just because the few people here did not find a bunch of noteworthy sources at the click of a mouse does not mean they are not there.
Last week I edited the article to in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. In doing so, I provided the article with many credible references not seen on a Google search that contribute to notability that were not present when the article was first nominated.
As outlined by Wikipedia standards of Notability for organizations, several items establish PRIMARY criteria for notability as follows:
Items that contribute to the Depth of coverage, Audience, and Independent Source criteria include:
• Reference # 2: Wall Street Journal o Independent Source o Depth (being recognized for differences between themselves and other groups) o Audience (nationwide penetration)
• Reference # 11: USA Today o Independent Source o Depth (Uses the organization as a source/interview for their story on a legislative issue of national prominence) o Audience (nationwide penetration)
• Reference # 12 & 17: Politico o Independent Source o Depth (Director’s role at the Republican national convention / organizations role in the Iowa Straw Poll) o Audience (nationwide penetration, political audience, Iowa market)
• Reference #21: Courthouse news o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience (nationwide penetration, followers of court and legal news)
• Reference #23: Billings Gazette o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations part in a lawsuit on campaign finance, pertinent state, and federal issue) o Audience(Montana market)
• Reference #24: United Press International o Independent Source o Depth (Organization’s involvement in a lawsuit to overturn gun bans in post offices) o Audience(International, likely US media markets to pick up the story)
• Reference #26: Denver Channel – ABC 7 News o Independent Source o Depth (Organizations involvement on the campus carry issue) o Audience(Colorado market)
• Reference #27: Nationalreview o Independent Source (self-admitted conservative bias, but no affiliation with group) o Depth (Organization endorses congressional candidate) o Audience(Conservative national audience)
• Reference #19 - Colorado Legislature o Independent Source (Not applicable, though made available by the CO Legislature) o Depth (Organizations materials referenced by legislative committee) o Audience (Colorado market / Colorado legislature)
• References #13, 14, 15, 19 o Independent Source (Local groups with similar goals, cite the organizations involvement in matters important to their constituencies) o Depth (Organization has made notable relations with other groups, testified before multiple legislative committees.) o Audience (New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Utah gun enthusiasts)
• References #29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 o Independent Source (Official government or credible reporting service) o Depth (Organization has raised and has spent significant sums of money) o Audience (Made available to anyone)
And again, “once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.”
While Google as accurately been criticized as not being a source to establish notability, Google should also not be the sole criteria for disproving notability. In fact, WP:BIO, specifically states, “Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics.” I submit that applying this standard to organizations is a natural extension of a well made point. Points made above referencing Google searches to disprove notability should not be well taken.
The changes made to the article, and the articles in its current form are very comparable, and in many cases MORE well referenced than articles about similar groups.
The fact that discussion of those changes and points has been ignored could be construed as prima-facie evidence that a bias against the articles subject the true motivation behind the efforts of some to delete this article.
If there is dispute regarding the article notability, please comment on the specifics, as I just have, instead of general impressions, subjective presumptions, and incomplete or cherry-picked arguments.
This articles subject has demonstrated and established sufficient basic notability, and deserves more respect than to be tied up in endless bureaucratic Wiki-litigation by a few people. If you don't like it, fix it. But keep the article, quit harassing it, and do not re-nominate it for deletion.--Rf68705 (talk) 02:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While your comments are useful, there's only one !VOTE each in straw polls here, so I've struck out your multiple !votes. -- Trevj (talk) 19:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is promotional. Rf68705 is a single purpose account whose only activity has been in this discussion and the article. I checked the references cited by Rf68705. As he requested, comments are specific.
- Ref
12 - Only 3 sentences at the bottom of the Wall Street Journal article are devoted to the National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). The article is not about NAGR; NAGR is only mentioned as one of many "splinter groups". Trivial mention of NAGR in this article does not establish notability.
- Ref
- Ref
211 - Four sentences are devoted to NAGR. The article is about opposition to high-capacity magazines, not NAGR. A statement that NAGR disagrees with gun control advocates is not substantial coverage to establish notability of NAGR.
- Ref
- Ref 12 - NAGR is not mentioned in the article. That the director of NAGR was a Republican delegate does not help establish notability of NAGR.
- Ref 17 - An NAGR email was reproduced along with a comment in a reporter's column making it a primary source. It is not an article about NAGR.
- Ref 21 - The article is about a lawsuit filed by NAGR, not about NAGR. References 1 and 4 are the filing of the same lawsuit. Filing a lawsuit does not help establish notability. Notability requires substantial coverage of NAGR.
- Ref 23 - This article reports that NAGR lost its lawsuit (references 1,4 and 21). There is no substantial coverage of NAGR but it does note that NAGR wanted to spend $20,000 to support a Republican candidate.
- Ref 24 - NAGR is mentioned once in the middle of the article. There is no coverage of NAGR at all. A mention of supporting a lawsuit does not establish notability.
- Ref 26 - NAGR is not mentioned in the source. Saying NAGR threatened to sue is either original research or synthesis not suppored by this source. In no way does this source help establish notability.
- Ref 27 (now 28) - The article is about the NRA supporting a Democrat. NAGR is only mentioned once at the end of the article as endorsing a different candidate. A trivial mention does not help establish notability.
- Ref's 13, 14, 15 and 19 - That NAGR is mentioned on the web sites of state groups with similar goals does not help establish notability.
- Ref's 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34 only document contributions my NAGR's PAC as required by law and in no way establish notability of the organization.
- When I first saw this AfD, I leaned toward a Weak Support !vote based on the number of reliable sources. After I checked them, I reversed to Delete because the sources did not support notability. To reassure myself, I did an independent search. See here and here and here, among many others. Then I found the Executive Director of NAGR used Wikipedia to help establish his importance here.
- Based on all of the above, an article on NAGR does not belong in the encyclopedia at this time. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 00:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Prompted by DGG's comment, I've tagged this {{Db-g11}}, per WP:NOTPROMOTION. . -- Trevj (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting Comment: My vote is still a Keep for this one given the sourcing, however I'm relisting anyway due to an obvious lack of consensus (see my Talk page). Faustus37 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I am no fan, but this is an established and federally registered political action committee. This is a borderline snow keep, isn't it? It's leaders have done countless interviews. I do not understand this nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepAgree with immediate previous poster. The poster who refuted my reference list did so with subjective biases against most of them essentially claiming because the group was not the majority subject of the articles that notability does not exist. Quite the contrary, when several independent sources across the country pick up on a single groups activities, it demonstrates a brad range of saturation and notability. Additionally, Reference #11 the USA Today was completely ignored in the rebuttal. Finally, posters so-called "research" is entirely based off of discussion form hearsay -- which is the simple result of clicking on on the less credible first page results of a google search. Hardly content notable enough to be considered as evidence in an AfD thread. NAGR was cited by the United States Supreme Court in the McDonald v Chicago case. How much more notable does the group need to meet the almighty standard for Wikipedia? AfD should be closed with the result keep.Rf68705 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -
Keep- Article indeed has some promotional aspects, but it is a widely mentioned organization: Goggle hits (web & news) are adequate. --Noleander (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to Delete. I've done some more research on this, and although there are a significant number of ghits, the organization appears to be a 1-person money-making organization, with little independent recognition or accomplishments. The mentions in google are very minor and incidental; often it is just mentioned in passing. So, although it is a legitimate organization, it is tiny and does not appear to meet WP notability guidelines. --Noleander (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fairly new to WP but I believe notability requires significant coverage, not just wide mention and lots of Google hits. I am concerned that Wikipedia is being used to establish the legitimacy of an otherwise non-notable organization, for example here (scroll about half way down to 04-10-2012, 9:06 A). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An IP user has independently expressed concern (also on the talk page of this article) that
The article in Wikipedia is clearly there to gve credibility to the scam. The page probably needs to be removed and something put in place so that it isn't created again.
-- Trevj (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Scrap this article, and start over There are two arguments for deletion in this discussion, lack of notability, and excessive promotion. The original nomination, and much of the commentary here has concerned notability, and on that basis I'd weakly advocate keeping the article. However, I am persuaded that there is excessive promotion such that a fundamental rewrite by neutral writers is required. Based on the admittedly vague ip complaint mentioned in the comment above, I investigated further. First, I note that the impressive search engine hits show signs of optimization - there all lots of links on different gun enthusiast forums with the same text, quoting the organization's name and the full name of the executive director. Based on that, since I saw the organization is registered as a public tax exempt organization, I pulled the most recent tax filing I could obtain - 2010. (If you want to search for it yourself, the IRS form is 990, and group's tax id number is 542015951). It shows this organization has a total 8 employees, and 4 board members. Only 1 of the members - the executive director again - works full time. The other 3 work 1 hour a week for the organization. The group reported receipts of around 1.7 million dollars, and spent 1.5 million of that on internet marketing, direct mailing, telemarketing, and donations. The total salary it paid to its employees was about $125,000. Now, I admit, none of these things means that the group should not have an article - it has been mentioned briefly in a couple of reliable sources, and seems to be actively fundraising and advocating its position. However, I decline to stick my head in the sand, and pretend that a group appears to exist almost entirely on the internet and direct marketing fundraising is not trying to use this article as an attempt not just to inform, but as part of the group's fundraising aims. As such, I advocate a clean start, preferably one by writers w/ no affiliation with the group. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 07:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION and Xymmax's comments - but allow NPOV re-creation. I did a little research regarding notability and concluded that there are barely enough reliable sources to just qualify WP:CLUB/WP:GNG. However, there is the similarly-named (though AFAIK unrelated) 'National Association for Gun Rights India' which does artificially inflate search engine hits. If I had the time and inclination, I'd offer to attempt a rewrite myself, which would result in an article a fraction the size of the current one. I also feel I'm probably not alone in appreciating the honesty that User:Rf68705 has demonstrated in disclosing his connections to the group. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 08:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, NOTPROMOTION is the one I meant. Link added. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This AfD has been outstanding for the better part of a month with no decisive outcome one way or the other. Propose Close No Consensus (I'm not non-admin closing this again). Faustus37 (talk) 07:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - against No Consensus. I don't really agree with that conclusion, but of course I am biased. I think there is consensus that the article should not stay as it is and closing no consensus is essentially the same as a keep. Much of the detailed (and occasionally bordering on bullying) support has been from a single (and single purpose) editor. I think we should finish this, in the very least creating a space for a more appropriate article as described above. heather walls (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of others (including me) have voted Keep. I have no connection with this organization or any of its principals. Recall the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Pillar Three is Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute (emphasis mine). We're not here to censor. We're here to document the good, bad and ugly. WHO CARES if the principal contributor to date has a COI? The notability is there. As with anything else here, that'll be corrected soon enough. Faustus37 (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A third relist when the discussion was scheduled to finish tomorrow doesn't really make much sense to me. -- Trevj (talk) 09:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, that's unfortunate - WP:RELIST suggests no more than two relists under normal conditions - but ultimately harmless. I too disagree with a preemptive nonconsensus close. I actually think that keep, NC, and delete are all within admin discretion here depending on how the arguments are weighed. Let a closer handle it, that's why we pay them the big bucks. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep Why is this even here? An organization with 1.8 million members, stated in a legal document. Has sufficient and suitable coverage to meet wp:notability. I Googled for a complete string match for their entire name and got 2.8 million hits. Scanned through the first few hundred of the 2.8 million and every one was a reference to this organization. I also noted that an invalid reason was cited in a large number of the "delete" weigh-ins which was deleting because the article has flaws (too promotional, unbalanced etc.) These are not valid reasons for deleting an article, they are reasons for fixing it. North8000 (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi there. It's not about how many hits they get (see: WP:GHITS), but the quality of those sources. If you take a look at many of the hits you see, many are from non-reliable sources, non-neutral sources, etc. Or perhaps the organization has a mere mention. I believe that organizations fall into the same notability guidelines as other subjects - just because they have memberships, or are a legal entity doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the 2.8 million real listings just as a reinforcement on top of meeting the normal criteria, not in place of it. We have zillions of Wikipedia articles on obscure individual ballplayers, towns with 10 people in them, etc. I find in incredulous that there is even a discussion of possibly deleting coverage of an an organization with 1,800,000 members. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked for 1 minute and found a New York Times article covering a piece of national legislation, and that the National Association for Gun Rights was in conflict with the NRA on it. Well, there's the first minute. I put it in. (the article does need Wikifying) North8000 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked another 1 minute and found a USA Today article ("Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off") with 2 paragraphs from an interview with a National Association for Gun Rights spokesperson. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the USA Today material and reference.North8000 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're looking, see if you can independently verify the 1.8 million member number, and you'll be on your way to seeing why some are skeptical. The PDF I linked to above suggests that this "national" organization has 8 employees and 1 full time board member. It's annual budget is equivalent to a local restaurant or medium sized church. I think it's probably notable, but there's a lot of puffery going on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about membership numbers. The 1.8 million members was a clear statement by them in a court document where BS'ing could easily mean jail time. 2.8 million Google hits that look pretty clearly on them is also a strong indication. Also that NY Times and USA Today quoted them for views on national issues, an covered their conflict of view with the NRA is also indicative. And those two articles are what I found in two minutes. This just bolsters that sourcing already in there satisfies wp:notability. The article certainly does need wikifying, but I would find it silly / incredulous for there to no article on them in Wikipedia. North8000 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While you're looking, see if you can independently verify the 1.8 million member number, and you'll be on your way to seeing why some are skeptical. The PDF I linked to above suggests that this "national" organization has 8 employees and 1 full time board member. It's annual budget is equivalent to a local restaurant or medium sized church. I think it's probably notable, but there's a lot of puffery going on. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I added the USA Today material and reference.North8000 (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked another 1 minute and found a USA Today article ("Gun rights vs. gun control: Nation is again squaring off") with 2 paragraphs from an interview with a National Association for Gun Rights spokesperson. North8000 (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just looked for 1 minute and found a New York Times article covering a piece of national legislation, and that the National Association for Gun Rights was in conflict with the NRA on it. Well, there's the first minute. I put it in. (the article does need Wikifying) North8000 (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant the 2.8 million real listings just as a reinforcement on top of meeting the normal criteria, not in place of it. We have zillions of Wikipedia articles on obscure individual ballplayers, towns with 10 people in them, etc. I find in incredulous that there is even a discussion of possibly deleting coverage of an an organization with 1,800,000 members. North8000 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi there. It's not about how many hits they get (see: WP:GHITS), but the quality of those sources. If you take a look at many of the hits you see, many are from non-reliable sources, non-neutral sources, etc. Or perhaps the organization has a mere mention. I believe that organizations fall into the same notability guidelines as other subjects - just because they have memberships, or are a legal entity doesn't mean they meet notability guidelines. SarahStierch (talk) 23:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary Break[edit]
- Question It's worth pointing out that the tax form above shows revenues increasing by a factor of four from one year to the next. This speaks to me of not of an enduring organisation, but one of the many transient organisations that seem to string up in politics as fronts / spokespeople for various groups. Is there any evidence that this organisation has spanned multiple US electoral cycles? Short-lived organisations would tend to fall into WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject does not satisfy our notability requirements per WP:GNG.
|
|
- From WP:NRVE...
- "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason."
- From WP:SIGCOV...
- "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."
- The article fails policy on several accounts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What the previous author accuses of being “brief mentions or quotes” is guided by his subjective opinion of what it “Significant coverage” per the wiki guidelines. He had to try and apply that subjective standard to no fewer than TEN sources that independently mention the group in various forms to try and make his argument. Sorry, but that's a tough sell.
- Here is another way of looking at the same material the previous poster pointed out in those fancy looking drop down menus…
- From WP:SIGCOV...
- "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."
- These mentions ARE more than trivial mentions in the article, but even if YOU think they are not, they still clearly demonstrate a level of saturation enough to establish basic notability.
- From Wikipedia:ORG...
- “Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used to verify some of the article's content.” Previous poster's second pretty drop-down box is an attempt to discredit sources that are justified by this statement and the ten + sources he subjectively and inaccurately discredited. By the way, just because the other half dozen or so local firearms groups are firearms related does NOT mean they are “lacking independence from the subject.” The dubject is National Association for Gun Rights, not firearms or firearms groups. Most, if not all of those groups existed apart from NAGR and previously affiliated with other national organizations instead. The fact that they now reference NAGR in their works demonstrates they think that NAGR is credible.
- From WP:NRVE...
- “Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. … In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” This statement is more than satisfied. The sources provided demonstrate an ongoing context through a broad range of coverage relating to multiple works and events.
- It's noteworthy to point out that in the process of this AfD thread, proponents for keep (not just me) have essentially rewritten this article. It is not the same article originally nominated. Significant new sources have been added, and it has been made clear that the organizations notability is growing, not shrinking. Despite the increase in notability reference (which cumulatively are more well laid out than, say Gun Owners of America), those advocating for delete haven't touched the content of the article, and have demonstrated nothing more than a predisposition for their position based on hearsay in gun discussion threads.
- Wikipedia is here as a comprehensive encyclopedia, if you think something violates NPOV, click the edit tab, and change some words around to address your concerns. North8000 at least had the willingness to improve the article in accordance, and as encouraged by, the guide to deletion. I will likely work on expanding on that today, including a recent article from the Colorado statesman which cited the group as the primary opposition to gun control measures expected in the State of Colorado. These are the kind of building blocks that are needed in a project like Wikipedia.
- The article would be better served if the opponents of the organization would address the subject matter by improving the article instead of fighting a flame war over AfD. That would bring the balance the article allegedly needs.
- Nevertheless, some will continue to argue that an organization referenced in a US Supreme court decision, by the USA Today, Wall Street Journal, and recognized by more than a half-dozen state groups (actually its more than that)as a national affiliate and with growing political influence isn't notable enough. There isn't going to be any convincing them, and I hope the person making the final decision takes that into account.
- Another previous poster argued about the organizations finances. He was wrong, and presented misleading information. In presenting IRS form 990 he presented 2010 but omitted and failed to mention that the organization reported revenue of $3.7 Million in 2011. I do not see any rule where submitting a detailed accounting of a c4's budget is a prerequisite to establishing notability. Even so what is available indicates the group is growing substantially, and for a political organization to double its budget as claimed in the court document (under penalty of perjury) of $5 to $6 Million in an even year (especially a Presidential election year) is not a-typical for most c4's. For those of you who are unfamiliar, 501c4 organizations are not the same as PACs. C4s get into issue discussion and are therefor not subject to FEC "election" reporting guidelines, meaning you are relying at the speed of the IRS to post newer information online. That does not prohibit anyone who has a question from calling the IRS and asking for that information for NAGR's c4. The FEC of-course will continue to release information on PAC's as it becomes available, but that information is cited in the article with respect to NAGR's separate PAC and is growing from prior years.
- NAGR has more than a few board members and part time employees, and the Executive vice-president isn't the only full time employee. In fact there are significantly more, not that any of the opponents would know for certain based on information available, but a group that has gone from 1.7 million to 5 million in the last four years... not unheard of for investing in staff. North8000 pointed out Luke O'Dell's is Director of Political Operations. Much like the NRA's La Pierre and Keene, or GOA's Larry Pratt it is quite common for organizations to center one or two people as the public face of their group. The number of paid staff and the level of involvement of groups spokesperson are not valid reasons for an AfD, but if YOU think it is -- the group is growing, not shrinking.
- Previous posters have mentioned my admission of connections to the group. That doesn't mean inherently I am not committed to seeing an article worthy of Wikipedia, or that I some how want to see bias or promotion in the article. Quite the contrary. I WANT others to scrutinize it and change it. News flash: Groups care about their image on the web, and the most likely person to create, edit or AfD such an article is the person with a bias one way or another. Imagine if every controversial article has opponents resort to lobbing every Wiki-policy bomb they can find to AfD it. We wouldn't be left with a whole lot of controversial topics. That's why you have the ability to keep them on track as you see fit by editing articles to conform to the standards you so excitedly use to attack it.
- Finally... (to end on a lighter note) if NAGR is notable enough for [http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/why-i-chose-newt-over-santorum/ Chuck Norris to reference], (who is amongst other things, *cough*: an NRA celebrity) it's notable enough for Wikipedia.
- Rf68705 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and once you remove all of the chaff from a Google search you'll have less than 30 hits left. The group fails WP:GNG. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mention in an article that is about something else is NOT reliable sourcing, no matter how much the above editor wants it to be. Being interviewed about something proves nothing other than you exist. Nothing in any sources is substantial, in-depth coverage of the subject. The numerous articles cited do a wonderful job of proving the organization exists. Existence does not equal notability. So, my vote is delete as it fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This organization isn't notable. --Shorthate (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lucas hornick[edit]
- Lucas hornick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails WP:N and WP:BIO The article in its current form is a fluff piece about the subject. While my initial impression was that the article may have been a hoax, I have been able to verify some of the claims in the article. As far as notability is concerned, I have been unable to find any independent coverage of the subject. There is information from West Point's athletic department that he was on the sprint football team for its two national championships, but there are only 6 or 7 total teams that compete for it, not a sort of national championship that would confer notability on individual team members. Monty845 22:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete With the fluff removed, the article is less than a stub. This person is not notable in any way, and the piece itself is badly written, the last name isn't even capitalized. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's probably not a hoax, but I agree that it fails WP:N. No independent coverage, no inherently notable achievements, et cetera. The first results for the name are "goarmysports.com", formspring, Google Plus, and the like. Maniesansdelire (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Far too soon to be considered notable athletic or Army-wise. A search at Google News would be useless as any team coverage would probably only be found at the Army website. SwisterTwister talk 23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable in any way. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 20:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sprint football is notable. Sprint football players are not. And I don't see any other measure to grant notability at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:BASIC for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. Source searching provided coverage for a different person with the same name, but not for this individual. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
F.C. Partizani New York[edit]
- F.C. Partizani New York (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD contested in 2009. There is no evidence of notability for this club - they do not meet GNG and have not played in a national cup competition. GiantSnowman 21:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find anything about them in a news archive search or a book search. They certainly don't appear to meet any of the notability guidelines. Rotten regard (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - With reference to the Club Notability Test user essay WP:NTEST we get this result:
- Q1. Has the club played in a national cup (listed in the Blue Column)? NO
- Q2. Has the club played in a notable league (listed in the Yellow Column)? NO
- Q3. Has the club played in a league at the next highest level (listed in the Grey Column)? NO
- Q4. Is there substantial identifiable media coverage (excluding match reports) about the club in reliable independent sources? NO
- Q5. Has the club played in the past in a competition of comparable status to one listed in the Blue or Yellow Columns? NO
- The club therefore fails the test and should be deleted. League Octopus (League Octopus 08:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Per League Octopus. — ṞṈ™ 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to [[ Cosmopolitan Soccer League]. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pathfinder Solutions[edit]
- Pathfinder Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. WP:CORP. Cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, only trivial and incidental coverage of subject by secondary sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and is nothing more than a promotional ad for the company. Should have been speedied as a G11. §FreeRangeFrog 22:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. — ṞṈ™ 22:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete completely lacking independent refs. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bugok Hawaii[edit]
- Bugok Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A contested prod. Reason given on the prod was,
"No demonstration of notability per the general notability guideline." Rotten regard (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete my PROD, missed the last one. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is some swimming pool in Korea. Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BUILDING -Drdisque (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete, no notability, no references.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This topic is not meeting the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. I found this article which appears to be a short entry ([1]), but additional coverage appears to consist of only directory listings (e.g. [2], [3], [4]) and passing mentions (e.g. Frommers). Northamerica1000(talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Centennial School District, Minnesota. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rice Lake Elementary[edit]
- Rice Lake Elementary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Run-of-the-mill elementary school. A redirect to Centennial School District, Minnesota was reverted by a third party without explanation. Recommending the creation of a protected redirect. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect per wikipedia policies. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Many artists - notable and non-notable have been members of the Royal Institute of WaterColour Painters, that doesn't mean they are notable. Sadly, many of us were unable to find proper sourcing, online and offline, about Cadman. Perhaps when further writing is done about his work, we can include him. SarahStierch (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Lawrence Cadman[edit]
- Michael Lawrence Cadman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly cited with references that don't support the assertion of notability. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete For a painter born in the 1920's I'd expect at least a book hit or two. There's nothing there, so fails WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. At first I thought it may have been a hoax, but it's not. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Normal profile of exhibitions, society membership, etc. of an exhibiting artist. Worthy but falls short of WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have done my best to improve the links and provide more evidence. This is a tragic downside of Wikipedia. Michael Lawrence Cadman died an old man, detesting the modern world as do many of his generation and thus he is not openly promoted on the web, and equally he is not quite historic enough to grab the attention of historians. And yet he was a noteworthy artist. Herewith a quote from Charles Bone, former President of the Royal Institute of Painters in Watercolours (RIPW) regarding his peers: Michael's professor was Gilbert Spencer, brother of Stanley Spencer. His fellow students at this time included Frederick Brill, later to become Principal of Chelsea School of Art and the late Lesley Worth, former President of the Royal Watercolour Society. But this quote,, along with many other anecdotes exists only on our own website and thus would not qualify. It is a tragedy to reject entries such as this in favour of X-Factor winners simply because they have more online references, as belongs to their time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donna K France (talk • contribs) 14:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. He fails the necessary notability guidelines for inclusion. — ṞṈ™ 22:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking evidence of in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Duplicate !vote: Donna K France (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Once last attempt to keep please. With his permission, I have added a personal quote from Charles Bone regarding MLC's peers (inkeeping with WP:ARTIST guidelines, and with references to Charles' credentials. MLC was an Associate Member of the Royal Institute of WaterColour Painters - and this is referenced by their obituary to him in their newsletter. I think it would be a great shame for this man to be forgotten simply because his peers are not part of the online generation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donna K France (talk • contribs) 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mojito boat[edit]
- Mojito boat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A topic about a boat model made by a boat manufacturer in Florida that fails WP:N at this time. Coverage in reliable sources appears to be lacking. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing to redirect to here, just redlinks... almost makes me think this might be a neologism maybe, but in any case the notability just isn't there. §FreeRangeFrog 22:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Read's like a 1960s automobile ad. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable topic. — ṞṈ™ 22:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bell of Lost Souls[edit]
- Bell of Lost Souls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. The prod rationale was that no secondary sources were present. Three were added: one is an Alexa ranking, another is from a similar website, so they amount to mere directory entries. The third one is about a convention, and is behind a paywall, so we can't verify whether BoLS is mentioned at all. Only one relevant result on Google News. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lactoad12 Website is 6 years old, a top 20k website in the United States and one of the largest in the wargaming industry. Both age and traffic is verified by multiple reputable sources. To discount Alexa is to discount the bedrock demographics site online regarding website size. Magazine reference (Privateer Press No quarter#44) is to a physical publication and is correct. Multiple wargames manufacturers and websites of various sizes both larger (Privateer_Press) and smaller (The_Miniatures_Page) are already listed in wikipedia, both in the gaming websites directory and directly by manufacturer. Generally, the tabletop wargaming industry is poorly represented on wikipedia at this time and many of their pages need improvement or submission. If required, more secondary sources can be added. I argue against deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lactoad12 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article Privateer Press is adequately referenced. As for The Miniatures Page, the article is tagged with a long term notability concern. The only thing in the article that currently saves it from speedy deletion (that is deletion on sight without a discussion such as this one) is a reference to kudos received from other sources, and that statement is currently not supported by a reference.
- As for why we discount Alexa rankings as valid, please read Wikipedia:ALEXA#Alexa ratings. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is just promotion and fancruft. Six pages into a Google search I couldn't find a single reliable third-party reference or review or something. This would belong in a "List of websites that cover some game", if such a thing existed. §FreeRangeFrog 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eight more secondary sources added from various manufacturer and wargaming community sites. Lactoad12 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Lactoad12 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Just a fansite about a game.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Website covers all major products in the wargames industry from a variety of manufacturers, and works directly with manufacturers based on submitted references. Unknown where the "fansite" moniker previously mentioned is derived from? Lactoad12 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, a website can get products from various manufacturers and cover all sorts of products within the gaming world, but that doesn't mean that it's notable. Heck, the site could even get to the point where it could be considered a reliable source to show notability for a game, but that in itself doesn't guarantee notability either. Being enough of a trusted place or an authority to be considered a reliable source doesn't mean that the site is considered notable. I'm not saying that the site is or isn't usable to source notability for other articles, just that writing articles about various gaming stuff and being in contact with any manufacturer in any context does not automatically give notability. Notability is not inherited by association with notable persons or products, after all.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is a pure WP:ADVERT by a WP:SPA who is its sole defender. Qworty (talk) 04:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A search brought up only this brief mention in 1Up.com, but it's far from being an in-depth source about the website. There is nothing out there that appears to be both independent and reliable that shows notability for this website. The thing about websites is that you don't inherit notability by working with or reviewing notable products or notable companies. Notability is not inherited. You could be gaming with Rick Priestly every night and he could have the site's name tattooed over his heart. That doesn't give the site notability, although such a thing would probably make it more likely that it would gain coverage in reliable sources. That's all that association with notable persons or companies really does- just make it more likely that the site will gain coverage in RS. Given that we have a lack of coverage, the website just doesn't pass WP:WEB. I have no extreme problems with the article being userfied, but given that you are new and aren't as savvy on notability, I'd recommend that you get some help from one of the various wikiprojects for games before reposting the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A summary for the record for whomever has to ultimately make a judgement on this: The article was submitted for deletion for lack of secondary sources regarding community size and industry notability. Sources were researched and added addressing the original deletion reasons. 3rd parties arrive, levy additional assertions against the article, its author, and delete 1/3 of it. Fundamentally the data in the article is what matters, NOT the author. If an article is fundamentally sound as above user has stated, except for the newness of the author, then any experienced user should feel free to delete it and resubmit it themselves. Charges of WP:SPA innately smack of favoritism and clannish behavior - not empirical analysis. Additional charge of a single defender has no weight (but thanks for trying - apparently Wikipedia's own rules regarding weight of numbers in these decisions needs to be brushed up on). Article in question was posted 24 hours ago, and thus far all comments have been from users who professionally troll the deletion logs (easily verified by their activity logs). With a community of the purported size listed in the article, it would take 10 minutes for this log to have thousands of defending comments here - which also should have no weight. Long story short - original arguments for deletion addressed, new arguments devised, ad infinitum... Lactoad12 (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mostly per Tokyogirl; The website is not notable enough. Its existence has not been discussed in reliable third party sources, so we almost relay purely upon first party sources to determine the website existence and information. This, therefore, fails the correspondent criteria, WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" and "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization". It fails to achieve any of those. — ṞṈ™ 22:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete we need independent coverage of websites. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maximum Impact[edit]
- Maximum Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This topic about a UK hardcore record label appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Searches in news and book sources are not yielding coverage. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This appears to be an indie label and their artists are indie as well, I searched "Maximum Impact Records" at Google News but found nothing so I added "DJ Seduction" and found one minor mention here and two Music Week links here. As my last resort, I searched the main Google engine but found nothing despite detailed searches. SwisterTwister talk 21:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Oooh I love these. They're basically trying to get a toehold on the encyclopedia, filling out their redlinks by claiming inherited notability. If I had a dime for each of these I'd buy me a new coatrack. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP and WP:MUSIC and kill it with fire. §FreeRangeFrog 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per Froggy above. Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to meet the general notability criteria. — ṞṈ™ 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking independent sources. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recaptive[edit]
- Recaptive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A contested prod. This newly started service doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. Rotten regard (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:PRODUCT and of course it's basically a promotional article with external links for an entity that fails WP:CORP. Nuke it. §FreeRangeFrog 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising your company. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chennai Darbar Restaurant[edit]
- Chennai Darbar Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A contested prod. This seems to be a non-notable restaurant, no significant coverage from reliable sources. Rotten regard (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a restaurant. In a city. No evidence that this meets the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only notability assertions present in the sources have to do with who went there. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with AllyD. — ṞṈ™ 22:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can imagine restaurants that meet the WP:GNG, but this isn't even close. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no delete !votes are present. Thanks to the editors here who have demonstrated this topic's notability. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 09:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Magic Mushrooms[edit]
- The Magic Mushrooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A topic about an American psychedelic garage rock band in the 1960s that may not meet WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Sources found include this biography article at NME and this passing mention from a search at Google Books. It's stated in the article that one of their singles "hit No. 93 in the American charts," but the specific chart is unstated, and this may not be enough to qualify a standalone article. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The NME ref doesn't make it, as it is sourced from Wikipedia. I've added a couple of refs to the article (including the above passing mention), and it is an article I'd like to see preserved as in an area close to my affections (listening to "Easter Everywhere" right now), but I can appreciate it is falling short as it stands. AllyD (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The single was a hit in the American chart as far as I can tell - I doubt there were as many Mickey Mouse charts back in 1966 as there are today. There's also a decent bio at Allmusic and the band is also covered in the books Fuzz Acid and Flowers Revisited, which confirms the chart placing, and Joel Whitburn's Music Stars. Three decent examples of coverage plus a top-100 single equals notability. --Michig (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Allmusic confirms that the single reached number 93 on the Billboard Hot 100. --Michig (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Allmusic, in addition to the bio provided above by Michig, has a nice-sized review of the band's "hit" single. These write-ups, plus the fact that the song charted on the main Billboard Hot 100 chart, plus smaller paragraphs of coverage here and there, is enough to put me in the 'keep' column. Gongshow Talk 22:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the allmusic bio and single charting instance, meets WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog 22:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BAND. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 13:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Sowers[edit]
- Nick Sowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to a fully pro club, and that he will make his debut soon. However, speculation is never grounds for notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Sowers is notable for his performance on his College team. Instrumental in Rollins Final 4 Appearance in 2010. See Final Four, coverage outside of Florida, following year. And signing was covered by media (i.e. not just in press release from club) 13news for example. So although he does not yet meet Association Football's specific standards, he meets GNG as having significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of him and Orlando City. --Trödel 19:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transfer news, even from independent sources, and match reports are routine sports journalism insufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He clearly fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. – Michael (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The general notability guideline, which this person seems to pass based on the ghits I'm seeing, trumps WP:NFOOTBALL. However, he is known for nothing other than being a football player. Procedurally, I can't !vote keep on an article about an athlete bio that fails to qualify the notability guidelines for inclusion of athlete bios. In my opinion WP:GNG is often misused that way. Perhaps this is a good example of WP:TOOSOON, so maybe later. §FreeRangeFrog 23:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I gotta say I disagree with your reasoning: Footballers can easily be notable per GNG, without passing NFOOTBALL, even if the coverage is only about their footballing career. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, an article about a footballer that fails to be a footballer? I mean, even if he scrapes by WP:GNG what's the point of the bio? If anything it might be a case of WP:TOOSOON but either way, it should be deleted. §FreeRangeFrog
- I gotta say I disagree with your reasoning: Footballers can easily be notable per GNG, without passing NFOOTBALL, even if the coverage is only about their footballing career. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Deñete fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ṞṈ™ 22:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Admin's Syndrome[edit]
- Admin's Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism; Wikipedia ain't for things that were made up yesterday. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, nothing on GScolar. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Perhaps not made up yesterday, but fairly recently; in any case non-notable (yet). הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism. §FreeRangeFrog 23:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, not a neologism, but the term seems fairly new. I could not find any references other than blogs. I could find no journal article or books, so this term has not yet entered mainstream medicine or psychiatry. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but as it stands, the term/topic lacks reliable references and fails notability. Mark viking (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Last Vote[edit]
- Last Vote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A band that appears to fail WP:BAND and WP:GNG. After several searches, coverage in reliable sources appears to be significantly lacking. The result of the first AfD for the topic was to delete, and the article was simply recreated a couple of months after it was deleted. May need to be salted. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While the last AfD happened in 2005, I'm just not seeing the notability there. For a band that was created in 2002 there should be far more ghits. Fails WP:BAND. §FreeRangeFrog 23:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable with multiple AfDs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not sure about salting it because it was seven years ago and they probably recreated it and never returned (certainly wouldn't be the first time). As for notability, I searched Google News and Books in English first and then attempted to search for non-English sources particularly German but found nothing useful. They may be as non-notable in Switzerland as they are in English. I wouldn't object to salting but I think it may be unnecessary. However, if needed, I would recommend a short time (6 months or so). SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find virtually no independent sources. As an aside, the bands web site www.lastvote.ch appears to be defunct. --Noleander (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I didn't find anything that would suggest generally accepted inclusion criteria are met. --Michig (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sara Shahmohammadi[edit]
The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Manti Te'o game by game stats[edit]
- Manti Te'o game by game stats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Perhaps this information, if organized properly, could go into the main Te'o article. It clearly is not worthy of a stand-alone article. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 17:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a pure data-dump and way too much info to put in the article. -Drdisque (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is also a potential speedy deletion per CSD G1 (patent nonsense), A1 (no context), A3 (no written content), A7 (no statement of importance), and A10 (duplicates existing topic). However we slice it, this "article" needs to be gone! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed, and yes speedy it. --Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flutterby Records[edit]
- Flutterby Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources for a standalone article on Wikipedia; fails WP:GNG, WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I agree with the nominator: this company fails WP:CORPDEPTH as well as WP:GNG. I found virtually zero reliable coverage beyond passing mention. JFHJr (㊟) 14:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as completely unreferenced. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Fabrics[edit]
- The Fabrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This band from Bristol, England appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources, thus the topic is not meeting WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article mentions some coverage by Sleaze Nation, but my searches turn up nothing except the usual social/promo sites. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism hey! 14:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete one article on the BBC local is not enough. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Blyth Power. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Downwarde Spiral[edit]
- Downwarde Spiral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Significant coverage from reliable third-party sources about this British record label appears to be insufficient, and the topic appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Merge into Blyth Power, it does not appear the label has any notability outside that band. 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 17:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Blyth Power - nothing to merge. One of my all-time favourite bands, but TBH I think they only just scrape across the notability threshold themselves, their home-run record label certainly doesn't -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above. BP article already contains information (essentially, label name) 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 20:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clayton Zelin[edit]
- Clayton Zelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously kept at afd on the grounds that he has played in the Premier Arena Soccer League. However this league is not confirmed as an FPL. Besides the PASL, the only league he has played in is the USL Premier Development League, which does not confer notability. More importantly, the article pretty clearly fails WP:GNG. The sources listed are all routine sports journalism Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bat World Sanctuary[edit]
- Bat World Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Difficulty finding in-depth coverage to support notability claim. Nouniquenames 15:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Google news link above shows stories that are specifically about the organization rather than mentions in passing, from sources which include CBS News [5], The Washington Post [6], The Dallas Morning News [7] (plus more), and other newspapers from around the USA. The Google Books link also shows mentions in a number of sources, including [8], [9], [10], and this suggests the people at Bat World Sanctuary are considered as valid scientific sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Boing! said Zebedee little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Keep sources indicate notability. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources are too weak, given the litigation and drama around this organization,[11] relevant to the subject but omitted from the article. The CBS article is a meaningless puff piece and the SF Chronicle article doesn't even mention this Texas organization as far as I noticed (it mentions a different "Bat World" in Virginia). The Stella Luna article mention is trivial and the IRS page doesn't speak to notability. The article about the mating calls does mention the organization more than briefly, but its primary topic is something different. Boing's Wapo article is about the same way. I wouldn't call "Do Bats Drink Blood" a scientific publication, and the actual connection to Bat World of publications it cites is unclear, and Boing's other links other than the Jacobs book seem trivial. That leaves the Jacobs book (the one pretty solid source I see so far) and the 608-word, paywalled Dallas Morning News article that I haven't accessed but which doesn't sound promising from the abstract. We can't write an NPOV article (presenting all points of view that a reader seeking info would find relevant) about this organization without using contentious, BLP-implicated primary sources that we shouldn't bring into the article for obvious reasons. It's not ok to strip that stuff out and pretend that what's left presents everything relevant, generations of wikilawyering notwithstanding. That plus the COI editing by people involved with and opposed to the organization IMHO aren't worth the hassle for a topic of such minor notability. So we should delete the article. 67.119.3.105 (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I highlighted only a small number of the news and book sources that exist - in fact, I didn't even highlight all the sources currently in the article. If you have a look you will find there are many more. Also, we do not consider COI disputes, "the hassle", etc as reasons to delete an article. And we do not delete articles just because they do not currently "present everything relevant", and nobody is "pretending" that it currently does. Anything that's relevant, provided it is well sourced, can be added to the article (though I would suggest a talk page discussion would be wise regarding anything contentious) - all that has been "stripped out" is unsourced or badly sourced material. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an obvious keep. The sources already in the article are independent, and several discuss the subject in great depth (the sanctuary, is, in fact, the subject). There are no grounds for deletion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a lot of sources in the article right now, however both Dallas Morning News and Pegasus News, while both local to the organization, still only offer very brief coverage. The IRS is a simple list of tax exempt organizations. SF Chronicle is primarily about another organization, and the Eagle, despite being local, still offers only brief, passing mention. That leaves only the CBS bit of puffery. --Nouniquenames 14:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the above listed sources, the sources currently referenced in the article (current diff here in case it changes) AND the first AfD on this page. I don't understand why this has been nominated for deletion so many times, it is clearly notable. This article should be kept and future nominations for deletion should be Speedy Kept per WP:NTEMP MisterUnit (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly. More than sufficient coverage found in independent reliable secondary sources. Just the ones Boing found would be enough. WP:BEFORE should be consulted before making AFD nominations...
Zad68
22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Keep ber Boing. Notability is there ("the largest bat rescue center on the planet") and the sourcing BsZ found looks good. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a small, quirky, operation, but it has attracted independent notice from within and without. CBS article strikes me as a non-independent interview/PR rewrite -- lots of Lollar quotes rather than author's assessment/research or merge with other sources. SFGate article is passing mention. Wash Post article is detail about a franchisee rather than the umbrella organization. Bat tourist summaries aren't great, but they are more than passing mention. Healers of the Wild Book has detail; Big Earth Publishing appears to have a significant catalog. McClatchy's Star-Telegram article covers lawsuit award. BWS could have more and better sources, but there's enough there. An article on bat rescue could mention several similar organizations. See Grey-headed flying fox#Wildlife rescue that lists several Australian organizations (only one of which has an article, and that article is unsourced). Glrx (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a couple more references to the article from Pegasus News and BATS Magazine, and will continue to add sources and expand the article. Perhaps in light of the improvements to the article, the sources discussed above, and the number of 'keep' !votes on this AfD, the nominator can withdraw this nomination and save a closing administrator some time. MisterUnit (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin Medlock[edit]
- Calvin Medlock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Career minor leaguer.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texasl-related deletion discussions. ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC) ...William 15:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable with multiple AfDs. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure what "multiple AfDs" has to do with his notability or whether the article should be deleted, other than the fact that the previous AfD resulted in a consensus to keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Irrelevant that it has multiple requests for deletion, and also does zero to help your case as AFD 1 ended with a verdict of Keep. Your other point is WP:JNN and fails to elaborate in the least on WHY you think the subject is not-notable. Was it because the article was kept in the first AFD? Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Adequate coverage to meet WP:GNG and meets WP:BASEBALL/N by virtue of playing in the Venezuelan Professional Baseball League. Not sure why the nomination claims he does not meet WP:BASEBALL/N as being a career minor leaguer in the US does disqualify a player from meeting WP:BASEBALL/N in some other manner, and does certainly does not preclude a player from meeting WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't consider playing in winter leagues as meeting BASE/N, even if it is the highest level of competition in the country. Do we? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't see it as such, in the end most winter leagues aren't really fully professional. Secret account 04:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct - winter leagues generally aren't considered national leagues for the purposes of the guideline. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BASE/N needs to be clarified to specify that the winter leagues don't count. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that interpretation is correct. Players in the top Venezuela league will get significant coverage in Venezuelan sources, regardless of the quality of play relative to the US, and the guideline makes no such limitation. Really, no international league outside the US is of the same quality of the US Major Leagues. Although there seems to be a discussion at the sports notability talk page right now. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't consider playing in winter leagues as meeting BASE/N, even if it is the highest level of competition in the country. Do we? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just as in the previous AFD that ended in a result of Keep, I still believe the subject has met general notability guidelines and trumps the currently neutered and broken WP:BASE/N, as I stated in AFD #1. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vodello, while I agree with your assertion about GNG being the final determinant of notability, regardless of whether a subject satisfies a particular specific notability guideline (e.g., WP:NBASEBALL), I'm still not seeing any great depth of quality coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources per WP:RS. Could you provide three or four links to what you consider quality coverage of the subject? What I'm looking at looks mostly like routine game and transactions coverage . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a borderline case, as there is some coverage, but I believe that it falls short of meeting GNG. Much of the coverage that does exist relates to his role in the trade for Jorge Cantú, which focuses on Cantú, and doesn't explore Medlock in great depth. There may be some coverage in Venezuela, but I'm not convinced it's enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I agree with Muboshgu that this is a borderline case, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with him in my !vote. The coverage we have I think does pass WP:GNG albeit weakly. There is coverage from multiple, reliable, third-party sources, therefore I'm going to have to !vote keep. Go Phightins! 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. While there is coverage, most of it is not independent (he works for Texas Southern, OurSports Central articles are press releases issued by his team) not secondary sources (stat sites are considered primary) or routine coverage of game summaries or team transactions. Without secondary sources that provide analysis of his performance over weeks or a season or a career, this article can never be more than a repository of stats and transactions. I only found this one article (on Highbeam) that I would consider significant coverage by a reliable, independent, secondary source. Willing to reconsider if others can identify specific sources to satisfy GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bagumba, no evidence of ever meeting GNG outside routine coverage, and I don't believe that winter leagues are the "highest-level" of a country that is discussed in WP:ATHLETE. Secret account 05:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable minor league baseball player. Alex (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not seem to be enough coverage to justify keeping this one. Spanneraol (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete My search did not lead me to believe the subject is notable. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but I have found none of the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources mentioned by others above, and when queried, those same supporters have not produced links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tay Hoo Wee[edit]
- Tay Hoo Wee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Net searches come up only with the one article already cited. Basically a very young producer of a couple of films, mostly shorts. Cannot find other significant RS coverage sufficient to pass WP:GNG. At best, this is WP:TOOSOON. Note also that the user who created this article, Merelion, has the same name as the company that produced the two films connected with Tay Hoo Wee on IMDb. Michitaro (talk) 13:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Puff Piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even close to notable. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guoyu Software[edit]
- Guoyu Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable subject that fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage at Google at all. There are no reliable sources at all even, as well. No official website even. Not reasonable to have an article. TBrandley 02:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Google News and Books found nothing relevant but considering the company is Chinese, it's likely any sources will not be English. I'm willing to reconsider my vote if Chinese sources are found but if not, it would be better to start this article at the Chinese Wikipedia where it may attract better attention. SwisterTwister talk 04:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Chinese characters for "Guoyu" would be 国语 (Chinese language), 过于 (too much/excessively), and 过誉 (praise too much) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 13:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither the company nor its software appear to be notable. (Ahoova ITSM/BSM has been PROD'ed for lack of notability.) No sources can be found, and the article's author, having been notified of the PROD of Ahoova, merely added a link to the company's Baidu Baike page (essentially a Chinese language Wikipedia knock-off). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Gave it a try, can't find any references either. Dengero (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot even find a website. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This software company is one of the only Chinese ITIL software producer in China. As I am learning for ITIL foundation class and their product has been used in the class as a demo. I thought it'd worth to put on Wikipedia. I spent a long time in translating the materials from Baidu Baike (the most influencial online encyclopedia in China) and hope to introduce the world more similar Chinese companies soon. However, I am not sure how to keep my first article from being deleted at the moment. This company's Chinese website is www.bangzhutai.com. Searching by Baidu should work well because that is how I found the information.
- Regarding your question how to keep the article, please add reliable third-party sources to establish verification and notability, English or non-English sources are acceptable. Adding a LinkedIn profile would be considered primary and insufficient. If you are new to citing references, visit Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Feel free to contact me at my talk page if you need additional help. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 06:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The Chinese name is 国聿软件 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestion - perhaps userfy the page for the creator? Dengero (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Using the Chinese name I got no hits on Google News but some mainland sites may not index on Google News WhisperToMe (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AdBan[edit]
- AdBan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, proded previously ;"Not notable. No reliable sources independent of the subject.". Hu12 (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Could've went for A7 maybe. Fails to establish notability. Dengero (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wow, this is a weird one. I'd say this is a 'movement' that fails WP:GNG or at worst a neologism. §FreeRangeFrog 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Apart from being a pile of nonsense, the author appears to have a conflict of interest. All in all, even if the reasons above prove false, this article ought to be deleted until such time as a neutral editor wishes to create it. Op47 (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:POINT and as above. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Virtual Free University[edit]
- The Virtual Free University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY Hu12 (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It appears to be more of an advert than an informative article. Op47 (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Puff Piece. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:ADVERT. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Keep and make into a table! (or whatever!) SarahStierch (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isotope lists[edit]
- Isotope lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should be converted into a template. An independent article is unnecessary Professorjohnas (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Conversion to a template is a good idea, deleting the list is probably not; see WP:CLN.הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Convert to Template per both editors above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Note that there are a number of related articles also nominated; I've listed them below. In that context, talking about deleting several articles and a wealth of information? No thanks. I might be open to a template, but converting six articles to a template is a much bigger task than doing just the one. I think a more open-ended discussion would produce a better result, as opposed to the Delete/Keep dichotomy you find at AFD. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that, it seems that Isotope lists is transcluded into the detailed lists. I've noincluded the AFD, since the nominator did not say anything about the sub articles - but I think the point stands that they should be included in whatever discussion we're having. We're talking about Isotope lists, 0-24, Isotope lists, 25-48, Isotope lists, 49-72, Isotope lists, 73-96, and Isotope lists, 97+. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: How does all this fit in with this previous discussion: Articles for deletion/List of isotopes? This article was also mentioned there, from a cursory glance. (The result was keep—now redirected to "table of nuclides".) הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite lede, which needs to explain all the jargon terms used in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holly Bernier[edit]
- Holly Bernier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability requirements for journalists according to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, is unsourced, and was created 3 months too soon for BLPROD ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as too soon - IMDb found a little bit of work and Google News found only three relevant results here, here (notes 2007 as the year she started at APTN News) and here (the last result at the bottom). It seems to me that she has received insufficient work to be considered notable and her official website provides nothing to improve this article. SwisterTwister talk 07:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 11:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as having insufficient coverage. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dabble[edit]
- Dabble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
article gives no indication of notability, and i could not find any refs online aside from their website, which is in beta Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know enough about Dabble to know whether it should stay or go, but all I would like to point out that if the article is going to stay, the article's English will have to be improved a great deal. One can see that it is currently an article that begins with the word "Also" - since there is no information before the opening sentence, this is quite clearly bad English. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I had not looked at the article's history - but I have also been here long enough to know that vandalism normally gets reverted by ClueBot. Does any one know who attempted this bad reversion of vandalism? Incidentally, I see that the bad English has been improved upon now - the article is in better English than it was. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As I've said before, there is no guideline that says "startup generated hype and then died off". Notability is not temporary, and I'm seeing coverage from Crunchbase, Mashable and CNET. It's just badly sourced. §FreeRangeFrog 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability may not be temporary, but it does have to exist in the first place. Where are these independent sources documenting the sbuject in depth that you allude to but don't cite? So far, I've just found a two sentence treatment in a magazine (Monson 2007) harv error: no target: CITEREFMonson2007 (help), a one-sentence treatment in The Hindu (Murali 2006) harv error: no target: CITEREFMurali2006 (help), and lots of press releases which are not independent of the subject and don't count. That's three sentences, total, some of which is overlap. It's hardly in-depth coverage.
- Monson, Kyle (2007-08-27). "Video — Top 100 Undiscovered Web Sites". PC Magazine.
- Murali, J. (2006-09-04). "Tracking on-line video content". The Hindu.
- Uncle G (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as basic coverage: [12][13][14][15][16]. I think that's enough to get it past basic WP:GNG. I remember Dabble being quite the hype at the time. Without merit, as it turned out. But that's the reason for my !vote. Another older startup recently came into AfD and my comment was pretty much the same, because of that. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one that I'd take slight issue with in that list is Sterling 2006 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFSterling2006 (help), and that mainly because it doesn't provide much about this particular subject except a pointer to a press release. The merit of the WWW site in our personal opinions is, as you rightly say, irrelevant. It's whether the subject is properly and fully documented or not. What you have there is a lot more than three partly overlapping sentences. Well found. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as basic coverage: [12][13][14][15][16]. I think that's enough to get it past basic WP:GNG. I remember Dabble being quite the hype at the time. Without merit, as it turned out. But that's the reason for my !vote. Another older startup recently came into AfD and my comment was pretty much the same, because of that. §FreeRangeFrog 19:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability may not be temporary, but it does have to exist in the first place. Where are these independent sources documenting the sbuject in depth that you allude to but don't cite? So far, I've just found a two sentence treatment in a magazine (Monson 2007) harv error: no target: CITEREFMonson2007 (help), a one-sentence treatment in The Hindu (Murali 2006) harv error: no target: CITEREFMurali2006 (help), and lots of press releases which are not independent of the subject and don't count. That's three sentences, total, some of which is overlap. It's hardly in-depth coverage.
- Speedy Delete. No assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Also, as the article is, it explains almost nothing about what the product (?) is or does. It gives the impression that Dabble is a video search site which I use by waving my arms at my computer. Maproom (talk) 11:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per WP:CSB (web related bias). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'generated hype' is not independent. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology (book)[edit]
- Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology (book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm completing this nomination on behalf of an IP address that tagged the article for deletion. As of yet I have no opinion in either direction. The article does have some issues and could be edited down for brevity. There are sources, but I have not checked any of them to see if they are discussing the book or are merely listed to back up other facts in the article. Again, I have no opinion either way at this point in time, just completing the nomination. There is some discussion on the article's talk page and the article has been tagged for notability since 2008.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've done some extensive editing from the original version, so anyone interested in seeing the original format of the article can do so here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it's used as a reference here, but I am also pulling up a lot of junk hits such as google searches masquerading as academic journals, which is a first for me. There's also the possibility of a language barrier here, as the lead scientist is Russian, the book is mostly about Danish dig sites, among others. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This book does not remotely reach notability. The search ["Magnetic Surveying in Archaeology" -wikipedia -translation review -"write your review" -amazon -wn] gets just 55 hits, mostly nonsense. There are a few citations (e.g. in 'The Detection of Human Remains' by Edward Killam) but we're nowhere near the threshold here. A worthy book but not notable as a stand-alone article. Could possibly add a bibliography ref to Magnetometer in place of the existing "Further information" link there.Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insufficient notability as yet. May increase later. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. To pass WP:GNG we would need multiple published reviews, preferably in high profile venues. One review on a web site isn't good enough. I searched Google news and Google scholar looking for more but didn't find any. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to one of the authors (which is where the notability might lie, if there is any notability here). If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012 Germany workshop fire[edit]
- 2012 Germany workshop fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tragic but otherwise non-notable event. WP:NOT#NEWS; news reporting belongs to wikinews. Lupo 07:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not even worth a transwiki - nowhere near enough information on this event in the article. Rewrite it with more information on Wikinews. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Presidentman rationale. Dengero (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a news event; plus the text was entirely copyvio from the BBC source. As a kindness I did not speedy delete it but instead rewrote it; others may not agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. While tragic, this topic is unlikely to have enduring notability to qualify for an entry on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or move to WP:AfC space as WP:TOOSOON. Some such disasters achieve on-going notoriety, others don't. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. May also be a mix of WP:TOOSOON SarahStierch (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Allele (band)[edit]
- Allele (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Band lacking notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is reposts of press releases on Blabbermouth, a trivial mentions on tunelab.com (not a reliable source), a dead link to their label's site (probably press release), another press release and a tour announcement. None good enough coverage for notability. I found nothing bettter. Just the band talking about themselves. Has to blue linked members but neither are independently notable. One is only a member of this band (and is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wally Wood (singer)), and the others notability is dependent on this band. Lacks multiple albums on an important label. Award is not major and not sourced. Article namedrops a lot but notability is not inherited. Nothing satisfying WP:BAND duffbeerforme (talk) 07:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 09:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - they've had a song featured in the game WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2007, and apparently a TV programme; however, most of the references appear to be pure PR - all the Blabbermouth.net articles are either very short and/or pure PR, for example - everything else is also very short and fairly PR orientated. They've never charted, and I can't see any evidence of them passing WP:BAND. I'm surprised that their two albums, plus their discography, and indeed Wally Wood, have not been directly linked into this AfD - maybe the nominator should change this? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - completely bereft of any reliable sources (and yes I searched and the best I could find was this which isn't independent as it's promotional in nature), total lack of notable record label activity, let alone any chart placings. A textbook WP:GARAGE. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete due to the fact that they were able to sell a song (or give it away) to a production company, but otherwise not notable. If it turns out that they are more notable in some way, I will change my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of awards. No evidence of charting. No evidence of in depth coverage in independent reliable sources. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of their albums does have this Allmusic review. It is short, but is a first reliable source. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A good find, but unlike all the other Allmusic references I have used to cite stuff, it doesn't have a real name on it, which makes me mildly suspicious. How can we check the reviewer's credentials? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was SPEEDY DELETE, WP:CSD#A7. All of the sourced content in the article is about cock fighting and internet streaming of it generally; no actual claims of importance (sourced or unsourced) are made about the website itself. postdlf (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LiveCockFights.com[edit]
- LiveCockFights.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like a blatant attempt to get links to the referenced site; regardless, the site is now defunct. Diamondgurutayler (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for LiveCockFights.com[reply]
- SNOW Delete --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Yunshui 雲水 11:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hotaru Preschool and Childcare[edit]
- Hotaru Preschool and Childcare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN pre-school Travelbird (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Google search turns up nothing that is related to the subject, aside from a Facebook page evident on the search results. Also per Travelbird. hmssolent\Let's convene 05:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probably as CSD A7. Unreferenced article with no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under A7, and I've tagged it as such. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As many participants point out, this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E, and we have to take this very seriously when the one event is negative or controversial. If he does continue to do things which are noteworthy, an article can be recreated, but only then - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - filelakeshoe 10:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sacha Dratwa[edit]
- Sacha Dratwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person only known for one event. Notability is not temporary - in six months no-one will remember this person, even the event isn't really notable long term. Travelbird (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I strongly disagree. Dratwa's first news mention was just a few days prior to his rather bigoted photo coming to light, wherein he was discussed as the new head of Israel's social media fight, just when the IDF's Twitter began to directly engage terrorist groups via the internet. [[17]] How the IDF responds to this, and the greater discussion it causes about race and race relations, certainly make it noteworthy. If Mr. Dratwa's career as the head of the "cyber propaganda squad", per his own words [1], continues unabated after this incident, there is a very good chance he will do things that continue to be noteworthy. ThatBajoranGuy (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's a top spokesman for the IDF. Per nom's own words, "Notability is not temporary." Once notable, always notable.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly encourage editors to read Wikipedia's policy on people known for only one event : Wikipedia:ONEVENT#People_notable_only_for_one_event and WP:NOTNEWS Travelbird (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ThatBajoranGuy. This is not a case of ONEEVENT; while he has been getting a burst of news coverage lately in regard to the picture incident, his notability stems from his inherent position (a top spokesman for the IDF), not the picture event. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you decided that he is top spokesman?He is merely leutnant.
- I said a top spokesman (not the), which fits the descriptions of him given in the sources. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly WP:BLP1E he is not known for anything else.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:ONEVENT#People_notable_only_for_one_event and WP:NOTNEWS. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Do spokespersons of other armies have their own Wikipedia articles? He is not even the main spokesperson. I assume the answer to the questions is no and therefore this should deleted per WP:BLP1E.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your first question, the answer is actually yes: see Anil Shorey, Subcomandante Marcos, Mohammad Zahir Azimi, Ben Ncube. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the aricles again they are all notable on grounds outside of being a spokesperson.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to your first question, the answer is actually yes: see Anil Shorey, Subcomandante Marcos, Mohammad Zahir Azimi, Ben Ncube. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete BLP1E --Nouniquenames 18:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- a check of available sources via findsources above makes it very clear this is BLP1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this person is a spokesperson, it's their job to appear on TV, just like a weatherforecaster. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Juncture. MBisanz talk 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oronym[edit]
- Oronym (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for verification since December 2010 and for notability since October 2012. I have been unable to find any sources for the topic under any of the three names suggested (oronym, continunym, slice-o-nym). The book that is purported to have introduced the term 'oronym' does not appear to include the word. A Google search finds only Urban Dictionary and a number of copies of this page. Cnilep (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this is weird. Re-checking Google with a lowercase '-wikipedia' does find other sources, including About.com, Fun with words, and glosbe. I'm not withdrawing the nomination just yet, but given my erroneous searches earlier I might be convinced to do so. Cnilep (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual linguistic concept, which this is a recreational approach to, is properly named juncture. We don't have it, as you can see. We used to have it, back in 2005. As one of the editors who was involved in the cleaning of the huge transwikification backlog where we lost this article, I'm going to use my tools to resurrect it. Uncle G (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've no opinion yet on the sense of "oronym" as outlined in this article, but I see from The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (p. 398) that it also means "a name of a hill or mountain". A lot of the other hits from Google Books seem to be of the mountain variety. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a real and documented term. It's even well sourced. The problem is that the article is horribly written, for example there are at least two sources in the lead that are not cited as sources in the article. It needs some wikification and TLC, but the article itself seems notable enough to keep, at least in my opinion. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Juncture. Thank you, Uncle G, for restoring that article. I think these are not precisely the same (ononymy as described here seems mainly lexical or perhaps just theoretically naive; juncture is phonemic/phonological), but close enough for recreational linguistics, I think. Also, as Strad points out, and as I should have mentioned earlier, there is an unrelated word in onomastics, where oronym means "a toponym for a mountain or hill". This sense accounts for every instance in Google Scholar that I skimmed, and nearly all of those in Google Books. On the web, on the other hand, I found—on my third attempt—several mentions of the Gyles Brandreth sense, a set of homophonic phrases. Cnilep (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that there is perhaps room here for a disambiguation page. Merge this article to juncture, then make oronym a disambigation page that points to both juncture and toponymy. It is certainly a reasonable search term for both senses. LadyofShalott 22:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as above or transwiki to wikidictionary. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing the deletion request. NN has said she agrees to merge it, and I'll help her. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fraternal benefit society[edit]
- Fraternal benefit society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I accepted this AfC, but am having second thoughts. Checking some of the content, I found 2 sections to be copyvio from http://fraternalalliance.org/ fand removed them. The rest of it reads similarly promotional. I taker note of another less than satisfactory article covering more or less the same ground from a very different viewpoint Benefit society. Others have noticed Mutual organization, I do not think has significant overlaps, though the types of organizations are closely related. The author himself noticed Friendly society. The editor noticed the page does not seem to appear on Google, and wondered on my talk p. "what more I need to do to ensure it's publication and availability on Internet searches.". From all of this, I rather think the purpose of the page is promotional for Friendly alliance. I'm not sure what course to pursue. I recognize I'm not necessarily asking for deletion, though in view of the parts that were copyvio, a delete and redirect might be the simplest solution. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DGG,
I'm Nina, the author of the article of the Fraternal Benefit Society page. I appreciate your input and would like to clear up any confusion regarding the article. Can you identify the sections that you found were copyright violations? I'm more than happy to correct any issues that would prevent the page's publication. As you may have read in my "talks" with reviewer MatthewVanitas (who is very helpful), I wrote the article because when I did a search for Fraternal Benefit Societies, I was redirected to Mutual Organizations, which is very broad and not indicative of FSBs. Trying to squeeze in a section on that page, which is already large and broad, would only further confuse what FSBs are. I am a member of a Fraternal Benefit Society (not a hired employee) and did not write it for promotional purposes, but simply to get the message out there that FSBs are still around and still relevant today when most people have misconceptions about what they are and what they do. But I am also a journalist and do have considerable writing and research experience in writing objective articles. If you prefer that I edit an existing page, I would choose the "Benefit Society" page, but I need your clear direction here that this is what you want. Also, does the author of the Benefit Society page have the option of rejecting my additions? My apologies--I am new to Wiki and learning your process.
Best,
Nina Ninalill (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- the copyvio content is already removed; I removed it in the edits [18] and [19]. If there is other copyvio, and there may be, I did not find it.
- I agree completely that Mutual organization is a considerably different topic, and although the article was initially not accepted because it duplicated that, I thought that not a valid reason. But I carelessly had not at the time noticed the other article, which are closer to the same topic as the present article. If I had seen it, I would not have accepted the article from AfC.
- the page copied was that of an organized that seems to be in large part devoted to advocacy to keep the federal tax exemption of these organizations. That's what gave me the impression of promotionalism, but this may have been unfair--it may just have been used because it was convenient,
- nobody owns an article. I would expect the principal editor of a article considered for merging to have an opinion about it if still around. (Sometimes the question is disputed only because the people principally responsible for the two articles strongly prefer their own titles, but I doubt that will be an obstacle here.) My own rule is, better one strong article than 2 weak ones. I'd be very willing to withdraw the article if someone will undertake the merge. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine motor skills in infants[edit]
- Fine motor skills in infants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be original research. Wikipedia is not a "How to". Insufficient sources. Unremarkable topic. Mediran talk to me! 02:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is an essay or a how-to guide, not an article. JIP | Talk 06:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Mergethis can be merged into any of the child development articles. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 03:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems like it fails WP:OR, so isn't even worth merging anywhere. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are indeed correct. Additionally, this is already covered in other articles. I have changed my opinion accordingly. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete - still spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ETEENZ[edit]
- ETEENZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems not to meet WP:ORG. However, input from editors currently in India would be appreciated, as the company seems to make some expansion only recently. Dwaipayan (talk) 06:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There simply aren't the sources. There is only one remotely RS in Google News Archive 1 and everything else on a Google search is either advertising or promotional. Mabalu (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 03:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nominator's rationale, and the rationale of the previous AfD a fortnight ago, overtaken by a speedy-deletion. No evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under G4 and G11 - tagged as such. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - filelakeshoe 10:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan D. Lovitz[edit]
- Jonathan D. Lovitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Performer who fails to meet the standards of WP:ENTERTAINER. Article has been a vehicle for effusively promotional edits from a variety of single-purpose accounts; little of the information is sourced, and what is sourced references the subject in a tangential fashion. Note that I removed the most recent round of promotional editing (six edits from an IP address and a account with 10 edits, all to this article); there was a single citation (to this article) which dealt substantively with the subject of this BLP. Of the five references currently in the article, one is a picture of several people from a site called "Society Allure" (one of the five people in the picture is the subject); one is a private YouTube video (who knows what it contains); one is a list of people who have won an award from The Miami Herald; one mentions him in part of a single sentence in a review of a show in which he performed; and the last is a broken link (to which there is no working Internet Archive link), which (judging from the title) appears to be primarily about Johnny Weir, not Jonathan D. Lovitz. His biggest role of note seems to be a 10-episode reality show which ran a single season on Logo in 2011. (FWIW, the one working link from Setup Squad is to "Homorazzi", which is a gay gossip site, sort of like Gawker for gay men. The other link on that page is broken, naturally.) Mr. Lovitz does not meet any of the requirements for WP:ENTERTAINER, particularly the first: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. He certainly does not fill either of the other two criteria: He doesn't have a cult following, and he has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Also, before voting, please note that this is not and AFD for the (extremely) notable Jon Lovitz; this is for another individual entirely. Horologium (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This article is purely promotional in nature, fails to meet any Wikipedia guidelines on notability, and hence should not be part of Wikipedia. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And just in case there is any question as to my stance on this issue, I vote delete. --SchutteGod (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is fine, and supported with 9 citations. That is more than many other pages. Also, direct links to the subject answer many of the questions above. — BroadwayTV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Furthermore: Jonathan D. Lovitz has been compared in multiple press outlets to fellow actor/advocate Wilson Cruz-- who has a very similar page. — BroadwayTV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The only difference being, Wilson Cruz is notable as an actor and activist, whereas this "Jonathan Lovitz" person is clearly not. Wilson Cruz has a number of notable acting credits, Jonathan Lovitz does not. Being merely "comparable" to a notable person does not make one notable. --SchutteGod (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nominator covers it well - this is a promotional puff piece for someone who is essentially 'known' for having been dismissed from a jury and nothing else. WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E, etc. §FreeRangeFrog 00:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no notability here. I only checked because I mistook his name for that of another entertainer. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:ADVERT. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep but rewrite . Beeblebrox (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeterminate system[edit]
- Indeterminate system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible neologism--I can't find this term anywhere on google except in an unrelated context. Only one reference is given. The article is self-contradictory about the intended meaning of the title term: sometimes underdetermined (which means fewer equations than unknowns), sometimes infinitely many or no solutions (which permits either more or fewer or same number of equations as unknowns), sometimes fewer "unique" (another neologism) equations than unknowns. Subject matter is adequately covered elsewhere: System of linear equations, Underdetermined system. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Disambiguate I agree that the article is poorly written, contains insufficient references, and contains no content not already in other articles. "Indeterminate system" is not a neologism; http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Linear_algebraic_equation defines it as an system of linear equations having more than one solution and http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Statically+Indeterminate+System defines it as a mechanical system which cannot by solved for all forces and constraints using a static analysis alone. The term is also used in the context of linear Diophantine equations; http://www.jstor.org/stable/108738 is a reference from 1861. Given the indeterminate nature of "Indeterminate system", setting up a disambiguation page could be more helpful than simply deleting this article with no pointers. Mark viking (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article isn't perfect, but after reading both I'd say it's better-written than Underdetermined system; perhaps make that a redirect to this? DavidLeeLambert (talk) 14:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the meaning of "underdetermined system" is well-established and is stated clearly in that article, whereas there is no established meaning for "indeterminate system" and this article is self-contradictory about what meaning it wishes to assign to that term. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 03:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Underdetermined system which is the much more common term. I'm not sure why DavidLeeLambert says that this article is better written than Underdetermined system (at least in the current versions). I don't think there is really anything useful here which hasn't already found its way to the other article, so no merge needed. Dingo1729 (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. The term is apparently used in the reference given in the article, and also in the sources dug up by Mark Viking, so I feel we should have something at "indeterminate system". What is not so relevant for AfD. Looking at the first revision of the article, it seems pretty clear to me that "indeterminate system" means a system of equations with no unique solution (so either it has no solutions or it has more than one). That's presumably the meaning in David Lay's book. The Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics says "indeterminate system" means a system with more than one solution (which is also the meaning used in some non-reliable sources). So even within linear algebra, there are multiple meanings, but the term is not in wide use, which suggests to me that a disambiguation page as suggested by Mark Viking is the way forward. Underdetermined system is about systems with fewer equations than unknowns; this is yet another concept and not quite the same, so I feel redirecting there is not the best. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Drastically rewrite almost from scratch (from the original deletion proposer). I'm persuaded by the above arguments that instead of just deleting it we should have "Indeterminate system" go somewhere. But where? There appears to be no other term conveying the same meaning, so we can't just redirect it to somewhere, and there would be nothing to put on the disambiguation page after "Indeterminate system" can mean.... So how about if I drastically rewrite it, almost from scratch, with lede sentence "An indeterminate system of equations is an equation system that has more than one solution." I believe all of the definitions referenced by Mark Viking agree with that, as does the one referenced by Jitse Niesen. The definition that allows for either multiple solutions or no solution (1) is contrary to conventional mathematical usage of "indeterminate", and (2) is sourced nowhere (not even in the article; the reference at the bottom is not linked to from the article's definition). Duoduoduo (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't want to discourage you from re-writing, but I would point out that the encyclopedias referenced here are all open source (including the Springer one). So we are short on reliable sources. I note that the Springer encyclopedia is based on a translation of a Russian encyclopedia, so the use of 'indeterminate' may simply be originally a case of the translator not realizing that 'underdetermined' is the common english usage. Cases like that are quite common in translated papers. 'Indeterminate' seems to be synonymous with 'underdetermined' when used for linear systems (at least for characteristic zero). When we come to non-linear equations (and other rings) there are numerous annoying special cases. But the generic case is still the same. I agree that a disambiguation page is a non-starter (see WP:DISAMBIG). I still think that a simple redirect to Underdetermined system is the way to go, together with possibly a short comment there if we think that there are slight consistent differences between 'indeterminate' and 'underdetermined'. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For linear equations "underdetermined" and "has multiple solutions" are overlapping sets. x+y+z=1, x+y+z=2 is underdetermined but has no solution; x+y=1, 2x+2y=2, 3x+3y=3 is overdetermined but has an infinitude of solutions. I think redirecting to underdetermined system would muddy the waters since it would not allow discussion of the overdetermined possibility. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that a rewrite is a good solution here--thanks for taking the initiative. If there are not suitable targets, then a rewrite is superior to a disambiguation page. Mark viking (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @duoduoduo. Do you have a reliable source for definitions of overdetermined and underdetermined? I looked briefly on-line and in the library here but couldn't find anything. I think that what matters is the rank of the coefficient matrix. That would make your example rank 1 and underdetermined rather than 3 equations and overdetermined. People (and wikipedia) are often careless about this sort of thing. The rank is, of course, less than or equal to the number of equations. So fewer equations than variables implies underdetermined, but you can still be underdetermined with more equations. Dingo1729 (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't want to discourage you from re-writing, but I would point out that the encyclopedias referenced here are all open source (including the Springer one). So we are short on reliable sources. I note that the Springer encyclopedia is based on a translation of a Russian encyclopedia, so the use of 'indeterminate' may simply be originally a case of the translator not realizing that 'underdetermined' is the common english usage. Cases like that are quite common in translated papers. 'Indeterminate' seems to be synonymous with 'underdetermined' when used for linear systems (at least for characteristic zero). When we come to non-linear equations (and other rings) there are numerous annoying special cases. But the generic case is still the same. I agree that a disambiguation page is a non-starter (see WP:DISAMBIG). I still think that a simple redirect to Underdetermined system is the way to go, together with possibly a short comment there if we think that there are slight consistent differences between 'indeterminate' and 'underdetermined'. Dingo1729 (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. While the article underdetermined system doesn't contain one, overdetermined system has a reference to planetmath that says
- An overdetermined system of linear equations has more equations than unknowns. In general, overdetermined systems have no solution. In some cases, linear least squares may be used to find an approximate solution.
- Good question. While the article underdetermined system doesn't contain one, overdetermined system has a reference to planetmath that says
- The first sentence seems unequivocal, and the corresponding definition of "underdetermined" follows directly. But the second sentence is a little vague (does "in general" mean "in every case" or "you cannot say the contrary is always true"?). More clearly, planetmath here says (and I can put this cite into our article):
- An under determined system of linear equations has more unknowns than equations. It can be consistent with infinitely many solutions, or have no solution.
- The first sentence seems unequivocal, and the corresponding definition of "underdetermined" follows directly. But the second sentence is a little vague (does "in general" mean "in every case" or "you cannot say the contrary is always true"?). More clearly, planetmath here says (and I can put this cite into our article):
- The historical authors of overdetermined system seem to be very sure about it -- its definition has been there since inception on 20 March 2007, and the section "An example in two dimensions" has covered it at great graphical length ever since 15:51, 30 May 2007. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with what you've said, but of course planetmath is yet another crowdsourced website and not Reliable. And even that says An overdetermined system of linear equations has more equations than unknowns. (which I don't disagree with) not A system with more equations than unknowns is overdetermined. And I'm sure you'll agree that just having been in the articles for 5 years doesn't make things true. I'm feeling that there's a lack of solid ground. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about it too. I found this on mathworld:
- If k<n [fewer unknowns than equations], then the system is (in general) overdetermined and there is no solution.
- There's that "in general" again -- here I think it means "usually". But I interpret this passage to mean that "overdetermined" is the same thing as "no solution". So yes, I'm uncomfortable. Duoduoduo (talk) 23:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But our article System of polynomial equations#Basic properties and definitions says
- A system is overdetermined if the number of equations is higher than the number of variables. A system is inconsistent if it has no solutions.... Most but not all overdetermined systems are inconsistent. For example the system x3 − 1 = 0, x2 − 1 = 0 is overdetermined but not inconsistent.
- I agree, I'm somewhat uncomfortable about it too. I found this on mathworld:
- I agree with what you've said, but of course planetmath is yet another crowdsourced website and not Reliable. And even that says An overdetermined system of linear equations has more equations than unknowns. (which I don't disagree with) not A system with more equations than unknowns is overdetermined. And I'm sure you'll agree that just having been in the articles for 5 years doesn't make things true. I'm feeling that there's a lack of solid ground. Dingo1729 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A system is underdetermined if the number of equations is lower than the number of the variables. An underdetermined system is either inconsistent or has infinitely many solutions in an algebraically closed extension K of k.
- Duoduoduo (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Least squares says
- The method of least squares is a standard approach to the approximate solution of overdetermined systems, i.e., sets of equations in which there are more equations than unknowns.
- Duoduoduo (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfied. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Twibanire Esterification[edit]
- Twibanire Esterification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
lack of notability The article appears to be initiated by a researcher seeking attention for a recent paper in a specialized journal. The paper that is the basis of this article is rather specialized and has not received much attention (as is normal for most technical publications). The term "Twibanire Esterification" is not widely used term, but is probably an effort to promote the achievements of the researcher(s). There is nothing evil going on here, just someone or some group trying to use Wikipedia to get some press. They are excited about their results but lack perspective about notability.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - When I posted this article, I never expected this reaction. I am surprised about this type of criticism. I will be surprised if a scientist looks to seek attention via wikipedia because that often never happens. mgyannick has no conflict of interest here. This article was created mostly due to the novelty of the work. People who are familiar with protecting group chemistry understand the importance of this kind of esterification. It has never happened before that you can take a diol of polyol like galactose or trehalose and carry out high yielding esterification on the primary hydroxyl group only without having to protect secondary ones. usually protecting/ deprotecting strategies are used and this leads to many steps with more chamical wastes produced for each added step. As the world switches to greener methods, protecting group-free methods are of great interest. A classical example is the preparation of maradolipids,recently identified as components of the outer membrane of dauer (enduring) larva of the well-known nematode caenorhabditis elegans. This preparation required a minimum of 5 steps to acconplish.[2] Using this regioselective esterification however, maradolipids would require only two steps for its synthesis. I must point out that 3 nobel prizes (in 2002, 2006, and in 2008) have been awarded towards c. elegans related research. In my opinion, this article should atleast be reclassified under other topics like esterification. Any suggestion of how to improve this is welcome Mgyannick (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it helps, esterification already exists but it redirects to Ester. You could raise the idea of creating a separate "process" article at Articles for Creation. Most editors will assume good faith and accept your explanation for why you created the article, especially given your subsequent (very technical) explanation / rationale for doing so. That said, it can be hard to differentiate between an expert editor covering someone else's work and the expert who created the work. A solid understanding by one can be misinterpreted as the voice of the other (if that makes sense). The nomination here by Smokefoot is just part of the routine process we have here at Wikipedia for articles that don't seem to conform with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You shouldn't consider it an attack on your work and as you read various policy documents you'll see what I mean. You might like to have a read of WP:EX as a starting point - you're not the first editor in your situation. I'll post some more on your talk page. As for this particular article, perhaps userfication is in order until the article is ready for the main article space. Stalwart111 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy - until the article is ready for main space publication. Stalwart111 02:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries! I have now userfied the article. It is available for you to edit at User:Mgyannick/Twibanire Esterification. Once you think it is ready, you can submit it for inclusion or leave a note at my talk page and I can give you a hand. If you're happy with that solution then the original article should probably be deleted and this will allow you to continue to work on your draft in peace. You might like to have a read of WP:MOS before you get stuck in again. Stalwart111 03:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the term "Twibanire Esterification" notable? Give me sources, preferrably WP:SECONDARY that support this assertion. Stalwart111, respectfully, on what basis do you accept the statement from Mgyannick? --Smokefoot (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it may well not be notable. If it is not then Mgyannick will likely have trouble convincing those at WP:AFC that it should be included. It is his responsibility to ensure material is verified before it is added. This will be all the more the case when concluded this way because it would need to be substantially better to get past G4. But all of that is probably inconsequential now; the main-space article will likely be deleted as a result of this AFD and Mgyannick seems to have accepted why that is so. But Mgyannick is also a new user and should be given the option of working on the article in his own space/time if he thinks it can be brought up to scratch. As for accepting statements from other editors - I've seen nothing definitive to prove otherwise so I will continue to assume good faith. If it turns out that assumption is unfounded and Mgyannick does have a conflict of interest then, again, he'll struggle at WP:AFC. If nothing else, everyone is entitled to WP:ROPE (conceptually) and lying now (if that is the case) will only compound the pain later. But that is for everyone to work out in their own time. Stalwart111 04:16, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 03:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to close - given the original author now has this in his userspace so that it can be prepared for a move into the mainspace, the current mainspace article should probably go. Stalwart111 03:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy as above, agreement seems to have been reached. The article is probably too technical for most readers, so I'd suggest a slightly easier article on Esterification (instead of the current redirect) could be a suitable route, with basic descriptions of different esterification pathways, suitably referenced, of which this could be (a complex) one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- REQUEST TO CLOSE This appears to have been handled. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vive le Canada[edit]
- Vive le Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website, unsourced since creation in 2005 (except for a link to the site itself). I can't find any mention of it in reliable sources. Previously nominated for deletion in 2006, it was only kept that time because of a bad-faith nomination. Robofish (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted, the original nomination was a bad faith attack edit by someone who was actually impersonating the site's owner, so it was (rightly under the circumstances) closed as a keep. However, it's also true that by current standards of notability and reliable sourcing, which are both much tighter now than the loosey-goosey "making it up as we go along" approach that pertained in 2005, this article ain't very good at all. That said, the site does have notable contributors — of the site's six regular "columnists", four of them already have Wikipedia articles and a fifth doesn't yet but probably should — so a notability claim is certainly possible here. On the question of sourcing, however, I'm not having any better luck than Robofish, which means we have a problem. I'm certainly willing to change this to a keep if someone can actually muster up some real live sources, but as things stand right now it's a delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Editors may want to look at this version of the article when looking for sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I connot find sigfnificant coverage in reliable soruces. -- Whpq (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 03:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Weak KeepGoogling using keywords from this version (Tnx Whpq) reveals multiple hits.At one time it seems to have been quite notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:05, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A massive amount of the page was deleted three edits before deletion was proposed. I have added the content back into the article. I do note that there is a lack of sourcing, but that discussion was based on a different article than in stands now. Frist afd was a good laugh to look at, otherwise a source showing if the org is still active would be nice. I see it as an acceptable article. Outback the koala (talk) 07:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Independent sources are required. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - filelakeshoe 10:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beth Willman[edit]
- Beth Willman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Beth Willman appears to be notable for only one event (it would be stretching it to say that each satellite is a separate event); and there is no coverage of any other biographical detail in secondary sources. Thus, she probably isn't notable by the general criteria for people. Nor can I find anything in her CV or in a Web of Science search to support academic notability. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to gscholar she has a H-index of 44, which based on a random sampling appears to fairly typical for members of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey collaboration. She also has a handful of papers with 200+ citations, on two of which she is the first author. This probably puts here over the bar of WP:PROF#C1.TR 13:27, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's strange - I did a WOS search a week ago and thought I remembered a low figure; but this time I get 24, which is good. The best estimate may lie between the two figures. So maybe she passes the citation criterion. However, there is still verifiability - is there any source besides her home page for biographical details? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to her CV her h-index is 26 (in April this year). Of course, this still leaves the question whether this is high compared to other professors in her field. (The quick survey of authors on the Sloan Digital Sky Survey paper suggest that it might not be exceptional.) In principal, having the personal faculty page as source for basic biographical details is not necessarily a problem.TR 07:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's strange - I did a WOS search a week ago and thought I remembered a low figure; but this time I get 24, which is good. The best estimate may lie between the two figures. So maybe she passes the citation criterion. However, there is still verifiability - is there any source besides her home page for biographical details? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vacationnine 03:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm inclined for deletion on this one. A good faith search by me turned up no more independent references that discuss her, other than the ones listed in the article. Those, by the way, are not even about her, so it's a stretch to call that "significant coverage" of the subject (William). I think there's many ways of interpreting the academic notability criteria, and even with the above discussion of impact factors and H-indices, I'm not convinced this subject has had a great enough impact on the field nationally or internationally to warrant an article. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing WP:PROF. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - filelakeshoe 10:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Avaus Consulting[edit]
- Avaus Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable company. "Fastest-growing" is a dubious merit. A company that goes from $1000 to $1000,000 grows fast, but not amazingly so. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PROMO for entity that thoroughly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. §FreeRangeFrog 00:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam. We have few thousands more spam entries like that to delete. Sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 09:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per FreeRangeFrog. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will provide deleted content upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warren Gatland: Welsh Rugby Union Coaching[edit]
- Warren Gatland: Welsh Rugby Union Coaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is almost exclusively made up of stats about Warren Gatland's time as head coach of the Wales national rugby union team; such an article is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. There is no need for an entire record of Wales' results in this manner. – PeeJay 02:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- Andy Robinson: Scottish Rugby Union Coaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
– PeeJay 03:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - both articles are totally unnecessary, badly named, and contain irrelevant information. However, I do see evidence of edit-warring between the article's creator, and the nominator. That may need to go to the AN/I, perhaps (if it hasn't already) Lukeno94 (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both WP:NOTSTATS - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User:Jarkson appears, possibly, to be related in some way to the article creator, having looked through some of the nominator's talk page (only one edit, which was to PeeJay's talk page, and in identical format to the article creator). I suspect socking is involved here. Lukeno94 (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete possibly after merging a summary (such as the first table) into the bio-article on the coach. For the rest this is a list of the team's results during the period when he was in charge, which would be better dealt with in an article on the team (or not at all). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 22:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George Hilton (diarist)[edit]
- George Hilton (diarist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Only reference is a primary one, written by the author himself. RadioFan (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The source is reliable and published, with mention of the book, the author and the publisher. Moreover, the subject itself is entirely verifiable as the library catalogue to the original MS is cited. The source is available, secondary and independent of the subject. The reference is not a primary one, since it consists of a transcription of a diary (which is the subject, not a source) with full editorial coverage. The subject meets the notability guideline. Moreover, I can't think why anyone should want to delete an article on an important 18th century diary and diarist. It seems that the proposer for deletion attempts to enforce the "rules" blindly (no offense intended) without taking into consideration that articles like this are what Wikipedia is all about, and that deleting it will do nothing but impoverish our grand project. Nick Michael (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe one or two book hits but this is basically WP:EXISTS (or existed). There's nothing here that could establish notability for the person. I searched for The Rake's Diary and I see a few hits as well but nothing really major, so this couldn't even be turned into an article for the work itself. §FreeRangeFrog 00:26, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added several citations and other references. I really think this article should be kept as it is about an interesting and important historical subject. By the same tokens you cite, there are many more such significant journals and diaries in Wikipedia that should, according to your criteria, be deleted (look through the List of diarists). I still cannot comprehend why you should want to delete this article: looking at other AfD this subject really stands out among them. It's not as if it were a fly-by-night music band... I rest my case and hope the closing admin has some vision... Nick Michael (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Let's stick to discussing the notability of this article, other articles and whether or not they should be deleted is a discussion for another place.--RadioFan (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added additional source. The topic has been the subject of scholarly study with subsequent coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. In-depth coverage in a scholarly book and a BBC documentary adds a lot of weight to the notability. Notable historian Amanda Vickery says the subject is "unusual amongst diarists.." -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think that having been featured on a BBC documentary gets this from simply existing to past WP:GNG. Reversing !vote. I will note however that I think the diary itself is more notable from a historical perspective than the person. In response to Nick Michael (talk · contribs), I don't "want" to delete anything. AfD is about finding reasons to keep information, not delete it. That is true for the entire Wikipedia deletion process. §FreeRangeFrog 19:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry Frog, I should have been editing WP long enough not to get emotional about such things, but I have usually limited my relatively few (but hopefully high quality) contributions to scholarly and encylcopaedic subjects, and this one seems to me to fit the ticket perfectly. I suppose you and RadioFan are rather like necessary macrophages, going around tidying things and cleaning up. Long life to you then... Nick Michael (talk) 21:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Don't sweat it :) My point really was that this was not historically significant, something that has now been disproved. I mean, between the latest 'huh-huh-yeah' single from a rapper and this, I'll go with this any day. But the notability guidelines have to be met either way. And I understand sometimes we do get emotional about things. Bottom line is, this gets rescued from AfD and the encyclopedia is all the better for it! §FreeRangeFrog 22:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, consensus is that this person does not meet the notability criteria. - filelakeshoe 10:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bill McKown[edit]
- Bill McKown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason: This is a resume for an individual managing a small airport; not worthy of any note. Scarfscarfscarf (talk) 02:18, 27 November 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 November 27. Snotbot t • c » 02:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a good man, but nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep - Not sure if this nomination is serious? (It's the first thing this editor has ever done) Notability is asserted (very clearly) and backed by multiple reliable sources - arguably enough even to pass WP:GNG without having to go anywhere near any of the topic-specific criteria. But I would suggest he would probably pass the criteria outlined at WP:SOLDIER on the basis that he was Commanding Officer of the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps. But I'm happy to defer to military people on that question. His current (post military service) day job as an airport manager is irrelevant - his notability is surely based on his military career and notability is not temporary. Stalwart111 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I am afraid you are confused about deletion process. The fact that "notability is asserted" is relevant to speedy deletion, so that the article "'Sarah Lee is the prettiest girl in South Ohio', says local jock on KTVU interview." - would not be summarily deleted. At AfD, "is asserted" is not enough; the notability must be confirmed. I found none. Colapeninsula below detailed point by point. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all confused; that was more a response to the suggestion from the nominator (that called the article a "resume") that notability hadn't even been asserted. That may not be what the nominator was suggesting but it was hard to tell. If anything, I'm confused why a brand new editor would chose an AFD as their first "contribution". I'm more than happy to drop the "speedy" from my !vote if there's a want to discuss this article. The nomination, though, is clearly based on some misguided belief that the notability of the subject is entirely based on his current role as manager of an airport. That's clearly not the case, so the nomination is strange to begin with. Aside from that, there's no suggestion that WP:BEFORE was even considered - it actually looks like the nominator didn't even read the article in full before nominating. The fact that someone would join WP for the sole purpose of having an account with which to nominate something for deletion strongly suggests either WP:COI or a real-world-related WP:POINTY nomination. I really couldn't care less about the subject - as I suggested and as Cola confirmed, I'm not familiar with the ins-and-outs of the application of WP:SOLDIER. I'm just not particularly excited about what seems quite plainly to be an abusive nomination. Stalwart111 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does your opposition to the deletion rest on the fact that I don't have a lengthy wikipedia history? That's a bit of a straw man. Yes, I should have been more clear in my opposition and cited WP:SOLDIER but I'm not exactly well versed in the ins and outs of procedures and didn't even know thing like WP:SOLDIER existed. Since you seem offended by that, I apologize. However, if you require a psuedo-resume for my editing history, I created the pages for Prism (tv channel) and Task Force Viking which I am very proud of. And yes, I made another mistake by creating a new user name instead of going back and figuring out the user name for an account I haven't used in years (since I don't log in when i do occasionally make edits). It just seemed to me that this article is simply about man has not really done anything of note (once again, sorry for not citing WP:SOLDIER). 0-6s, while a high rank, aren't particularly uncommon, and nothing in his history stood out that distinguished him from the tens of thousands of 0-6s that have served in the last 30 years. Scarfscarfscarf (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't rest on it - my point was that it surely takes something particularly concerning about an article to prompt someone to create a new account (regardless of previous accounts) for the sole purpose of nominating an article for deletion. That in and of itself is not problematic but it struck me as strange that someone would go to the trouble of creating an account for that sole purpose, only to then cite the most inanely trivial part of a biography as a reason for deletion while ignoring the 75% of the biography which relates to a subject's military record. Maybe it's just me. But where was the talk page discussion (nothing since 2010) or improvement tags or any attempt at all to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM? I appreciate your explanation and I'm sorry if I'm sounding a bit indignant about it. I suppose I'm just concerned that this is step 10 for an article where no-one has even considered steps 1 to 9. Stalwart111 01:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I guess it's at this point we "Agree to Disagree". I'll just say these two last things and then go about my merry way. First, creating a new account was an insanely easy process and was told to log in or create a new account when I put the delete tag onto the article, and I took the path of least resistance creating the new account(sorry); it was so much easier than looking up my old account. Lastly, I simply ran into this McKown page during my regular browsing of Wikipedia and this o-6 has done nothing any other o-6 (sorry to him) hasn't done. If McKown ran SOC or received a bunch of Bronze Stars with V device, I wouldn't have flagged it; but this is simply an article detailing a career officer like the millions of career officers through history that have done their job but not anything of note such as running SOC or valor in battle. Okay, I'm done. I'll probably edit another article in two years under another account after I forget about this one. Sorry! I'll try to follow the guidelines better in the future (but don't hold me to that, ha!). Scarfscarfscarf (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probable delete I don't see that he meets WP:SOLDIER. He was a navy captain which isn't a flag officer; he doesn't have the highest medals for bravery; he's not made a contribution to military science or technology or played a leading role in a major event. CO of the Naval ROTC is much lower than Chief of Army Staff (the given example of a notable position in WP:SOLDIER). He comes close to meeting WP:GNG but the coverage is mostly very local press (Pagosa Sun) and some newsletters; a document hosted on scouting.org doesn't count for notability, and nor does this brief mention in a news story, or a report in The Talon, "a community-input newsletter" from Aztec, NM. Being a distinguished eagle scout doesn't make him notable (it has zero independent press coverage) and nor does running an airport. If there are articles about him in national press/major newspapers, or material in books from major publishers, I would reconsider, but Google Books doesn't show anything. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After going through this article I have to say I'm pressed because it's the most detailed attempt at meeting WP:GNG that I've seen, yet it seems to fail badly at it. Colapeninsula summed it up perfectly well. This seems like a nice person, and he's had some accomplishments, but I'm just not seeing anything that would make me conclude he is notable for anything in particular. Certainly not from a military standpoint. §FreeRangeFrog 01:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He's never done one notable thing. Where'd they find this guy, the phone book? Qworty (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't have to be biting. I'd guess a daughter or a girlfriend for an author. Staszek Lem (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of people-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 03:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete. A distinguished career, but not an especially notable one. He didn't reach flag rank, he didn't hold a major command (he didn't command the whole NROTC, as alleged above, but simply the NROTC at a single university) and he wasn't awarded any significant decorations. In addition, his current job and scouting status are not senior enough for inclusion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty sure it fails WP:SOLDIER I could be wrong. He doesn't seem all that notable. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not all great guys are notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. There is already a clear consensus to keep, and this has been discussed before, with a speedy keep, with the last being in July 2012 as WP:SNOW. The rationale is that the articles are useful, notable throughout Wikipedia, pass WP:GNG, and that these nominations are clealy I "don't like it" types. Further evidence is provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination) (non-admin closure) TBrandley 20:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2012–13 United States network television schedule[edit]
- 2012–13 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this after the AfD's for DirecTV and AT&T Uverse television guides previously were deleted, and some careful thought. This article has no more than those, as it is truthfully just a channel guide for those channels, plus a list of returning series. I don't think a merge is neccesary as the information is in each of the networks' own articles. The article itself, after the tables, is no more than a (somewhat repetitive) list of shows canceled/new/kept/renewed, etc. which serves no purpose other than in the articles for the networks themselves. Thus, I nominate this article for deletion (and any more I may find after this) on the basis of Wikipedia is not a channel guide, among other reasons I have stated above. gwickwire | Leave a message 02:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other AfDs: 1 2 (now a redirect, but arguments still stand). These aren't exactly the same, but follow the same idea as my arguments here. They were guides to what's on where on the TV. That has no place here, in my interpretation of policy (WP:NOT). gwickwire | Leave a message 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This should not be deleted for the reason that every U.S. television lineup since 1946 is on Wikipedia and that IS encyclopedic information; it is the history of television. Once the 2012/13 schedule is over, it becomes a part of television history and should be included on Wikipedia. Television history books have included schedule grids as reference to when a show aired. This is more than a useful page; it is necessary to keep. As has been for years now, a 2013/14 schedule page should be created by the summer of 2013. Mjawiki2940 | Leave a message 05:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The network TV schedules were nominated for deletion in July 2012, resulting in a snowball "Keep." (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The US network TV schedule articles (2nd nomination). This article can be distinguished from the previous versions of the 2012-2013 US network TV schedule which were deleted, since those were deleted on the basis of being crystal ball gazing and too early. It can also be distinguished from the deleted trivial articles about listings on cable channels which were deleted recently. Satisfies notability by having multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Complies with WP:NOT as not being an electronic program guide, since it is not a listing of what the particular episode of each show will be on a given evening. There is emergent information when the network schedules re presented this way in comparison with what is on the competing networks. This article is a useful organizational tool in addition to the individual network articles. There are competitive reasons, which have been discussed in books about television, for why program X on one network is doing fine until it is put up against program Y on another network. Edison (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd seriously consider nominating those again now, after I can gather a more complete nomination than was presented last time. I didn't nom this based on other versions being deleted. It is an electronic program guide, as it's a guide to the electronic programming avaliable on the channels at times on certain days. See the DirecTV and UVerse AfDs, those weren't specific episodes either, and yet those got deleted. I don't really care about the sourcing, because in my opinion, this "article" (more of a table/list thing) doesn't add any information to Wikipedia. It just takes info already in respective articles for networks and compiles it into a program guide for a certain night at a certain time, and then follows that by repetitive wikilinks to shows cancelled/kept/renewed/new/etc. for this season. That has no place here. If the reader wants to know what's on their TV at a certain time on a certain night, they can read their local paper, go to the internet, go to TVGuide channel, contact their cable/satelite provider, etc. Not go to Wikipedia, which is an encyclopedia. I refer you once again to the Uverse and DirecTV AfDs, and urge all to read the arguments there as well. I will link those above for easy reference. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I expected to vote to delete. But looking at the article I can see that the information is well-sourced and useful, at least for people who want to learn more about current TV shows -- whether for their own viewing or some research purpose. Not exactly the kind of article WP's founders probably had in mind, but no real reason I can see in policy that forbids it from being here. (To me the article seemed to invite me to click on some of the shows to find out more about them, not turn on the TV and watch one.) Borock (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick question, do you believe this article doesn't violate WP:NOT for electronic program guides? See my comment above (response to Edison) for more. Thanks gwickwire | Leave a message 03:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because the purpose does not seem to be to tell me what's on TV tonight. I do usually vote to delete program guide/how-to type articles. Borock (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I would rather see the information together in this article than in the articles on individual networks. Borock (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)I'll just have to disagree there. This tells the reader what's on a given (only basic cable) channel at a given time on a given night during this season. That's the purpose. To tell the reader what's on at a given time on a given night. The rest, after the tables, is better used (and already in) the network articles themselves, and on most of them (if not all) in the show article itself. On the separate articles (network/show) it serves a purpose, to tell the reader the status of the show(s). Together here, it doesn't really serve any purpose other than to be a guide to this season's TV. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I would rather see the information together in this article than in the articles on individual networks. Borock (talk) 03:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because the purpose does not seem to be to tell me what's on TV tonight. I do usually vote to delete program guide/how-to type articles. Borock (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a quick question, do you believe this article doesn't violate WP:NOT for electronic program guides? See my comment above (response to Edison) for more. Thanks gwickwire | Leave a message 03:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC)This article has historic importance, as much as the comparable article for the 1960-61 season, which you cannot denigrate as a mere guide to what is on TV tonight. An electronic program guide is an ephemeral guide to what one might tune in to, not a listing of what kind of lineup the programming bosses chose to provide on a give night, against what opposing programs. Edison (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It (this article) is a program guide. See the below comment. I personally (and some editors at the other AfDs) believe in a different definition of EPGs than you do. Agree to disagree? gwickwire | Leave a message 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Further: That (60-61) article is still kind of iffy on what purpose it serves, where a list would be the same purpose without the tables with times that make it look like a guide. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (EC)This article has historic importance, as much as the comparable article for the 1960-61 season, which you cannot denigrate as a mere guide to what is on TV tonight. An electronic program guide is an ephemeral guide to what one might tune in to, not a listing of what kind of lineup the programming bosses chose to provide on a give night, against what opposing programs. Edison (talk) 03:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I use this website daily to check the status of each show I watch and they are all hotlinked so I do not have to type all of them into a search. PLEASE KEEP! Ryan Marcantonio74.77.50.142 (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what I'm saying. It's used as an electronic program guide, because it is. Wikipedia is explicitly not an electronic program guide. This user's keep vote is proof to my point. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article hosts lots of encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article hosts a lot of necessary encyclopedic content and keeps viewers on the status of each show that are aired. I do not agree with any reasons why it should be deleted. A lot of check this article for important updates and they are many references on there. So I like it to stay. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the 10,000 comments, but please see WP:USEFUL. Just because a lot of people use it, doesn't mean we keep it. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I like the policy on that. This is a ridicious one if you ask me. Sometime many readers would want to be updates through that article, regardless of what you and some others think of that. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is a nonprofit free encyclopedia, not for people to be updated on TV schedules. There are many other ways (TVGuide, newspaper, direct from station, etc.) that people can get updates. Wikipedia is not an electronic program guide. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I like the policy on that. This is a ridicious one if you ask me. Sometime many readers would want to be updates through that article, regardless of what you and some others think of that. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the 10,000 comments, but please see WP:USEFUL. Just because a lot of people use it, doesn't mean we keep it. gwickwire | Leave a message 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems valuable and well-sourced. Is this much different from a comparison of, say, passenger airplanes from Boeing and Airbus? We're showing a grid of the most important products of major companies in a huge industry. That seems like a perfectly reasonable thing for an encyclopedia to do. That people can also use it to plan their TV habits is nice, but I don't think that's the real value of this article, since you can get that information in a more convenient form elsewhere. GabrielF (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Christina Kottoooran[edit]
- Christina Kottoooran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article do not meet WP:BIO. Amartyabag TALK2ME 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST so badly it's not even funny. §FreeRangeFrog 00:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not Notable. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence found that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Gongshow Talk 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything that meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. — sparklism hey! 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Appears to fail WP:BASIC. After source searching, not finding coverage in reliable sources about this person. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. - filelakeshoe 10:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Safdar Shaheen[edit]
- Safdar Shaheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Long-term unreferenced BLP, author of same-universe novels from another author in Urdu. Couldn't find secondary coverage of his work, there are single copies of some of his works in a particular British library according to Worldcat, but no wider coverage. Nonetheless, I don't speak Urdu, and there's certainly a possibility that there is coverage of some of his 700 books in that language. More eyes appreciated, with existing sourcing I don't see him meeting WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR, but ...
The works themselves are apparently available at [20], according to an earlier version of the article, PDF format. j⚛e deckertalk 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unsourced BLP. -- Patchy1 01:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; not a particularly notable author and an unsourced BLP. Though similar in many ways to those low-profile Western authors who take on the role of expanding or continuing a series, with or without the original author's permission, the lack of sources or evidence of real notability is too much of a concern to keep it. dci | TALK 03:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless sources can be found. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JetBlue Airways Flight 191[edit]
- JetBlue Airways Flight 191 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not think this article has any long term notability. Most articles similar actually included a hijacking. In year to come this will simply mean nothing. The incident didnt bring any change to the industry Media coverage of the incident doesn't create notability. JetBlast (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment sorry i didn't know this had been listed before. I looked for the tag on the talk page but some how totally missed it. Sorry. --JetBlast (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. As stated in the first AfD and contrary to the nom's stipulation, Time published an extensive article of how this and other cases will have long term effects on US pilot training, screening monitoring laws and procedures.[21] --Oakshade (talk) 01:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep based on the previous AfD and the points made by Oakshade. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG & WP:NTEMP. Also as it was covered by Time as stated above by User:Oakshade I think it also meets WP:INDEPTH not 100% sure on that one though. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. NickSt (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE Mark Arsten (talk) 17:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CoalSwarm[edit]
- CoalSwarm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:N, WP:SPIP, WP:SOURCES. Self sourcing their own website, press releases, etc. Possible merge with the parent entity: Earth Island Institute PeterWesco (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Jugulator. (non-admin closure) I believe additional votes aren't necessary as it seems consensus is clear here. A Google News archives search provides minor mentions and Google Books only provides one mention. It seems the song hasn't charted or been used for commercial use so redirecting is the best option. SwisterTwister talk 21:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cathedral Spires[edit]
- Cathedral Spires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not especially notable. It was not a single, and there are no sources L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jugulator, the parent album. The song does not appear to warrant an article (fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONGS); the latter guideline suggests that such songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist". Gongshow Talk 15:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Club TV[edit]
- English Club TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is only referenced with primary sources, and the only source I could find online was a short article from Digital TV Europe]. This source looks like routine coverage to me, and not enough for the subject to pass WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep. Google News finds several (~65) short news articles, mostly written in Ukrainian, that appear to be reviews of the service. Google Scholar also finds four pieces archived at The Ukraine National Library. I am unable to evaluate them, since I don't read Ukrainian. It is not all that likely that this will add up to sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG, but I'd like someone who reads Ukrainian to weigh the sources. Cnilep (talk) 01:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have just looked again, and I see the sources that Cnilep mentions. I didn't find them before because of a bug in my vector.js script that adds Google search links to the Wikipedia toolbox. Though the news articles are short, they do contain usable information about the channel, and they verify that it is available in at least the Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia. After seeing this, I'm pretty sure that the subject is actually notable, and I think the new information is enough grounds for me to withdraw this AfD nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 03:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abdulla A. Alshammam[edit]
- Abdulla A. Alshammam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable diplomat. No indications that this diplomat has been anything other then a minor functionary among the various diplomatic missions. He was not the ambassador to the United Nations, just a member of the diplomatic mission there. Claims that Alshammam (alternately Al-Shammam) represented Yemen in most UN committees are not borne out by the available sources, which state merely that he rose to make a statement (among dozens of others) at two particular UN resolution votes. No source to verify that he is the "Ambassador for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs" (or, for that matter, what such a vague title might actually entail). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the original author of the article in question tried to edit this nomination (rather than comment on it) but broke some of the links and source-search functions. I have reverted to WikiDan61's original nomination. Happy to assume good faith and assume that the original editor wasn't aware of how AFDs work, rather than that it was an attempt to "undo" the AFD. Comments on the nomination itself can be added after this note. As per usual, please lets all comply with WP:CIV and remember that AFDs are based on WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers, Stalwart111 02:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - several editors have now raised issues relating to this article with the original author who has refused to discuss them. Instead, the original author has continued to edit the article adding further unreliable sources, masses of redlinks and whole paragraphs of WP:OR. The article still does not provide any verification that the subject is notable. Without some reliable sources that provide "significant coverage" of the subject, I can't see how the subject could possibly pass WP:GNG. Given the unwillingness to discuss the issues, I can't see any way for those concerns to be addressed. Stalwart111 00:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the author ignores requests to provide references, which could have been helpful in confirming notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep - filelakeshoe 10:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DYE Precision[edit]
- DYE Precision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evident notability, just a plethora of the company's own web links Andy Dingley (talk) 16:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Divided between delete and keep - They achived a partnership agreement here with San Diego Aftermath. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert with paintball but it seems San Diego Aftermath is a member of the National Professional Paintball League so that may be a notable partnership. What also divides is this article which notes they are one of the largest paintball manufacturers and this NCPA tournament they hosted. A search at Google News immediately provided several results, three of them are primary and four are not. As listed there, it seems the company received attention because of an acquisition (the links are #1 and the result below) and the link below that talks with the president of VANS and DYE Precision (notes some of the details mentioned in the article such as their Germany, London and Taiwan offices) and finally, the next and final result also talks about the acquisition. Visiting Google News archives provides 2010 announcements here and here where DYE provided the Portland Naughty Dogs with a special jersey and limited edition gun, this announcement allowing teams to experience of their new paintball guns and a partnership agreement here with Chattanooga CEP. In 2006, this news article says they sponsored a paintball team, XXTIONEER, which probably isn't notable. They also sponsored the 2009 Mid-Atlantic Open here which doesn't provide many details. I also found minor mentions here and here (press release). Google Books also found a minor mention here. A different Google News search adding "Dave Dehaan" provided this brief mention and a Google Books search with "Dave Dehaan" provided this directory and this interview with the page provided but no other details. I plan to use these links to improve the article soon, SwisterTwister talk 03:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I have since improved the article as shown here. I'll admit, it may not be the best improvement but it's at least better than what it was before. SwisterTwister talk 23:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Due to SwisterTwister's improvements. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Major paintball equipment manufacturer. Major deals with pro paintball teams. douts (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep based on new refs above. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear Strikes[edit]
- Nuclear Strikes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band. No evidence of any significant press coverage other than what appears to be a press release in Metal Underground. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not enough coverage in reliable coverage (apart from the press release). Unfortunately the band's name makes searching a little more difficult. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBrandley 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find reliable secondary sources on the band to evidence notability under GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Nuclear Strikes per WP:BAND.[22][23][24][25][26] There may not be many English language sources but this band seems to be just about notable.
- Merge Megastorm Eyes to Nuclear Strikes, per WP:NALBUMS.
- -- Trevj (talk) 09:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both unless significantly more refs are found and added to the article. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. The actions of the major contributor to this AFD have been contemptable - full of badgering, and ad hominem arguments, PLUS all the quite-likely canvassed SPA's that is utterly inappropriate and shameful. When I reduce the AFD to the only non-SPA and truly policy-based arguments, we narrow the discussion down to a handful of valid entries. Take in toto, those few provide no specific consensus to delete at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MADNESS[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}} . |
- MADNESS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable computer package. No evidence of independent coverage. No independent references. It appears to have won an award (this is the link given, this appears to be the best URL), however, this URL certainly makes this award look like a pay-per-play advertising event rather than a merit-based award. Note that there appear to be a number of completely separate computer systems called 'MADNESS,' see for example Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MADNESS (Embedded Systems). PROD removed. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lack of uniqueness to the name 'MADNESS' is not justification for deletion. This is why Wikipedia frequently has "disambiguation" content on many pages. Jeff.science (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
R&D 100 Awards states that "the winners [are] picked by a panel of outside judges selected by the publisher and editor." If this is erroneous, then Stuartyeates should deal with that independently. It has nothing to do with MADNESS. Jeff.science (talk)
- To be clear, we're judging MADNESS against the WP:GNG which requires in depth coverage in independent reliable sources that may come to light. I'm admit that googling this project is challenging due to the use of a common word as the name. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google "MADNESS Robert Harrison", "MADNESS ORNL", "MADNESS multiresolution", or "MADNESS" plus any number of technically significant words found on MADNESS. Jeff.science (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that you can find dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles that describe the algorithms and applications of MADNESS using Google Scholar with "author:g-fann MADNESS" and "author:r-harrison MADNESS" or "author:r-harrison multiresolution". Note that these are not "pay-for-play" journals (since you seem to distrust any legitimate recognition) but rather some of the most trusted non-profit journals in chemistry, such as the Journal of Chemical Physics. Jeff.science (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some papers on MADNESS:
- * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v137/i10/p104103/s1
- * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v129/i3/p034111/s1
- * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v121/i23/p11587/s1
- * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v121/i14/p6680/s1
- * http://link.aip.org/link/jcpsa6/v121/i7/p2866/s1
- * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063520307000048
- * http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1063520311001072
- Are these not reliable sources? I can describe the peer review policy of Journal of Chemical Physics in vivid detail if necessary. Jeff.science (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are indeed reliable sources. But they're not independent reliable sources, as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [27] is a reference to MADNESS by someone who does not work on the project. Do you want third-party media coverage? If that's the burden of proof here then I am going to propose to delete absolutely every software package on Wikipedia that doesn't have this.
- See this discussion on a reputable science community discussion board by an independent expert Jed Brown referring to MADNESS.
- See this for a notation of MADNESS by a renowned scientist in this exact area (wavelets in quantum chemistry), Stefan Goedeker. Here's another notation by an independent expert, C. J. Tymczak.
- Here is another notation by someone from Peking University who does not work on the code either.
- This is a review article on wavelet-based TDDFT written by some of the foremost people in the world in this area that cites MADNESS as one of the two codes in this domain.
- Jeff.science (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are indeed reliable sources. But they're not independent reliable sources, as required by the WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Google "MADNESS Robert Harrison", "MADNESS ORNL", "MADNESS multiresolution", or "MADNESS" plus any number of technically significant words found on MADNESS. Jeff.science (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what else you want. This nonsense is exasperating. Do you seriously not having anything better to do? There are so many pages on Wikipedia in need of greater attention than MADNESS. Do you have a personal vendetta against Robert J. Harrison or something? Jeff.science (talk) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want to delete MADNESS, you need to take responsibility for scrubbing Robert J. Harrison of the references to this project, since you deem it unworthy of coverage on Wikipedia. Jeff.science (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) I'm trying to maintain the quality of wikipedia.
- (b) If you give me a list of articles you believe need attention, I'll see what I can do.
- (c) My interactions with the Robert J. Harrison article were some time ago but seem to have been both entirely positive and not supporting deletion in any way; I'm happy to walk you through them edit by edit if you're new here.
- (d) I'm glad you added the link to Robert J. Harrison's article, because it seems like a suitable merge target. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (a) How does deleting articles such as this one make Wikipedia better?
- (b) See anything involving US politicians.
- (c) If you would like to add more organizational structure to MADNESS that better presents the content I've added there, please feel free. I've given you more than enough references online and in the scientific literature to create new content as you see fit.
- (d) NO! MADNESS is a large software project with numerous contributors (see https://code.google.com/p/m-a-d-n-e-s-s/people/list) and should not be merged with Robert J. Harrison. Conversely, Robert J. Harrison is not synonymous with MADNESS because of his numerous leadership roles within the scientific community (most recently, http://insidehpc.com/2012/08/07/stony-brook-launches-institute-for-advanced-computational-science/) and his pioneering work on NWChem. Why do you think that MADNESS and Robert J. Harrison should be merged? This makes no sense to me. Jeff.science (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC) (edited for Wikipedia:Civility Jeff.science (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]
At this point, I would like to see this matter closed. I have refuted all of the criticisms in the following manner.
- Non-notable computer package. - In addition to the R&D 100 Awards, this package is noted as being mission-critical at two of the largest supercomputing centers in the world and it has dozens of references in the high-performance computing community, at least in the US.
- No evidence of independent coverage. No independent references. - Numerous peer-reviewed publications document this code. While they are written by the developers of the code, this is because they are the ones who are qualified to write about this. I don't know what burden of proof Stuartyeates is using, but I believe that at least 50% of the software packages noted on Wikipedia do not meet it if MADNESS doesn't. I have just now added half a dozen independent, third-party references to MADNESS.
Jeff.science (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've not read most of the argument above, but whilst some of the sources added seem a bit trivial, there are enough good, solid mentions about the subject for this to be notable and verifiable. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm intrigued as to which of the sources above you see as meeting the independence requirements. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being a fellow scientist I can confirm the sources Jeff.science is citing, and I am also of the opinion that the MADNESS code does fulfill the notability criterion mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.202.3.35 (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC) — 130.202.3.35 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While there are some mentions of MADNESS floating around out there, everything I've been able to dig up so far fails WP:GNG. The "papers on MADNESS" that Jeff.science presents are not, in fact, papers on MADNESS. What he is showing is a list of papers that are used as references in a single paper on MADNESS - this paper here. Although this paper seems to be legit, a single paper on a given topic does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Most of the other links that Jeff.science presents are PowerPoint presentations. I don't know who they are presented to, and who they are presented by, but they do not seem to meet WP:RS. It also doesn't help that the article as it is currently written contains no sources! If anybody is able to present multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS, then I would most certainly change my !vote. I too am interested to see which sources Lukeno94 is referring to, as he seems to be an experienced editor with a good amount of AfD involvment. I've looked through them all and don't see enough there. MisterUnit (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterUnit You will now see that MADNESS has a more extensive reference list and more detailed description than almost every other quantum chemistry software package covered on Wikipedia (e.g. TURBOMOLE, MOLCAS, MOLPRO, GAMESS (US), etc.). I would appreciate it if you would change your vote now, since you said that you would do this if "anybody is able to present multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS", which I believe that I have just done. Jeff.science (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterUnit Do you have any response to my request to change your vote, given that I have "present(ed) multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS"? Jeff.science (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterUnit appears to be unresponsive regarding changing his vote in response to the appearance of exactly that which he claimed would cause him to change his vote. I don't see how this negative vote should continue to stand given the previous comments. Jeff.science (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MisterUnit Do you have any response to my request to change your vote, given that I have "present(ed) multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of MADNESS"? Jeff.science (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MisterUnit: "I don't know who they are presented to, and who they are presented by..." You can easily resolve this with straightforward research tools like Google and inspecting the hosting site names. I'm not going to do this for you, but you can't declare my evidence to be invalid on the basis of your refusal to avail yourself of such information. Jeff.science (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, by saying "I don't know who they are presented to, and who they are presented by..." I meant that I don't recognize the authors or audience of the presentations as notable and reliable figures, not that I didn't check to see who they were. For example, I don't find a powerpoint presentation by Junchen Pei at the School of Physics to be a reliable source. Sounds like a bachelors degree candidate doing his homework. MisterUnit (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Junchen Pei is a faculty member at an internationally known university. Would you please use facts rather than making baseless, pejorative remarks about people you don't know? You're making it more and more evident that you're just a Wikipedia troll with nothing better to do. Jeff.science (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since journal articles don't seem to be sufficient evidence that this project is relevant, perhaps MisterUnit and Stuartyeates find the following funding agencies credible citations of existence/importance:
- DOE: SciDAC, Office of Science divisions of Advanced Scientific Computing Research and Basic Energy Science, under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725 with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in part using the National Center for Computational Sciences.
- DARPA HPCS2: HPCS programming language evaluation
- NSF CHE-0625598: Cyber-infrastructure and Research Facilities: Chemical Computations on Future High-end Computers
- NSF CNS-0509410: CAS-AES: An integrated framework for compile-time/run-time support for multi-scale applications on high-end systems
- NSF OCI-0904972: Computational Chemistry and Physics Beyond the Petascale
Jeff.science (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not after 'credible citations of existence/importance' we're after 'in depth coverage in independent reliable sources.' Stuartyeates (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuartyeates I don't know what you mean here. I've read many of the other Wikipedia entries for quantum chemistry software packages and do not see examples of this. In nearly every case, the references are primary sources. Can you please point me to a Wikipedia package for a quantum chemistry software package that includes "independent, reliable sources" so that I can understand what your definition of these is. Jeff.science (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd encourage you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which expressly addresses this class of argument. I have tagged a number of quantum chemistry software packages and WP:PROD'd and WP:AfD'd many software packages. Good faith, WP:BEFORE and practicalities mean I can only nominate some many at once. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuartyeates Please try again to answer this: Can you please point me to a Wikipedia package for a quantum chemistry software package that includes "independent, reliable sources" so that I can understand what your definition of these is. I am more interested in an example of how to add the appropriate content to MADNESS than your principled, but fundamentally useless arguments about why everything on Wikipedia sucks and there is not enough time in your day to delete all of it. Jeff.science (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd encourage you to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which expressly addresses this class of argument. I have tagged a number of quantum chemistry software packages and WP:PROD'd and WP:AfD'd many software packages. Good faith, WP:BEFORE and practicalities mean I can only nominate some many at once. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stuartyeates I don't know what you mean here. I've read many of the other Wikipedia entries for quantum chemistry software packages and do not see examples of this. In nearly every case, the references are primary sources. Can you please point me to a Wikipedia package for a quantum chemistry software package that includes "independent, reliable sources" so that I can understand what your definition of these is. Jeff.science (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even though jeff.science comes off as a bit emotionally vested in the issue, I believe his points are valid. There is no sense in deleting an article with about ten reliable sources discussing it, even if some are primary, and it is not our place to judge whether the award is a "pay-per-play advertising event". -Anagogist (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY, WP:GNG. The 2011 R&D 100 Winner does it for me. -- Trevj (talk) 10:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP because it was recognized at the R&D 100. Jeff, I mean this most politely, I was leaning strongly to the delete side because of you. I know you were frustrated, and you are obviously new to Wikipedia, but you have to try to keep a cool head. Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sue Rangell, I am upset that random people who don't seem particularly informed or qualified are trying to remove information from Wikipedia for reasons that are false at face value or have been extensively rebutted at this point. MisterUnit and Stuartyeates appear to be predators who attacked an article I co-authored on a whim and have extorted an extraordinary amount of time from me just to satisfy unjustified complaints. Jeff.science (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you genuinely feel aggrieved, I would encourage you to complain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the pointer, Stuartyeates. Unfortunately, I do not understand how to report you for assigning yourself an inappropriate level of authority to adjudicate the significance of a software project complete out of your field of expertise (as ascertained by LinkedIn and Google Scholar. I only wish I knew what entity on Wikipedia can give you your McCarthy moment. Jeff.science (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you genuinely feel aggrieved, I would encourage you to complain at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Jeff.science has good points here. R&D 100 and use in numerous other international projects and broad recognition in the scientific literature is enough. Mallonna (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP I am a scientist, and Stuart Yates criticisms above are unfounded. The R&D 100 Award is reputable, and independently adjudicated. Furthermore, MADNESS is notable for being the only free software package using a wavelet discretization for this problem. Knepley (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP I am also a scientist working in the field and corroborate the statements made by Jeff.science and Knepley. The package has received significant outside recognition and has driven the development of innovative methods of great significance, both within quantum chemistry and in many related fields of computational science.JedKBrown (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The R&D 100, the scientific accomplishments associated with the project, and the fact, that as a side benefit the code generator produces useful linear algebra routines with exemplary performance (useful for many things outside the scope of MADNESS) suggest that it is not only a valid, but a noteworthy scientific accomplishment. I liked the 80s ... I loved the "Our House" video, but, really, in the grand order, which is more valid/useful? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagunnels (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I believe technical authority matters in this discussion, I'll add that Matt Knepley is a major author of PETSc and a recognized authority in massively parallel numerical simulation on at least four continents. Jagunnels (John A. Gunnels) has been a finalist for the Gordon Bell Prize six times, winning three times, and is an undisputed expert in supercomputing. Jeff.science (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am a computational scientist, and MADNESS is a notable, widely used code within the community. Aron Ahmadia (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG KEEP I am a quantum chemist, computational scientist and computer scientist who is a developer of MADNESS, NWChem and Global Arrays, among other things. My technical authority on this subject is affirmed by numerous papers in this field (see my professional wiki for details). I am obviously quite biased in this matter, but I assert that even with this bias, I am more credible than the few critics of MADNESS, namely Stuartyeates and MisterUnit, who have no demonstrated technical authority in computational chemistry or parallel numerical software. Jeff.science (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the ultimate arbitrator of this matter? There are only two dissenting parties:
- MisterUnit, who has failed to respond to requests that he change his vote since his stated burden for doing so has been met.
- Stuartyeates, who has no demonstrated credibility to evaluate the importance of high-performance computing software, numerical libraries or computational chemistry codes, and who has been refuted by numerous experts during the course of this discussion.
If the Wikipedia permits people like Stuartyeates to have editorial authority on content well outside their subject-matter expertise, it undermines the legitimacy of the entire project. Jeff.science (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Those who have mentioned the R&D 100 Awards above maybe interested to note that it was just nominated for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree at all with the nomination of R&D 100 Awards for deletion or merger to R&D Magazine (which does not yet exist). That this award is not worth of mention on Wikipedia should not detract from the significance of MADNESS though. There are plenty of notable awards not worthy of an independent entry on Wikipedia. Frankly, Stuartyeates's arguments apply equally to Priestley Medal and he should propose that that page be merged into American Chemical Society. Jeff.science (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:::The way wikipedia works is that anyone can nominate anything for anything, then we reach a policy-based consensus on it. If you disagree with a proposed action, read the relevant policies and put your informed arguments on the page so that they're part of the consensus. Arguments put forward on this page in relation that that consensus are not considered. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am interested. It appears that the standard is "This is not well known, I have never heard of it". I myself have Googled it, does that make it "notable"? I find this obsession for categorization by people who do not understand things pitiful. It would be more productive to find someone who understands the content, and criticize from there. I can see several legitimate arguments that the content might be weak, but these have not been presented. In their place, we have a silly argument as to who knows about something. -- Knepley (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable" is measured according to the WP:GNG, as always on wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am interested. It appears that the standard is "This is not well known, I have never heard of it". I myself have Googled it, does that make it "notable"? I find this obsession for categorization by people who do not understand things pitiful. It would be more productive to find someone who understands the content, and criticize from there. I can see several legitimate arguments that the content might be weak, but these have not been presented. In their place, we have a silly argument as to who knows about something. -- Knepley (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: Peer-reviewed scientific papers and journals are what makes sciences work. The notion of peer-review assures that papers are reviewed by people with expertise in the field (Note: the field, NOT the subject - i.e Computer Science in the case) who were not involved in either the research, experiments or writing of said paper. That clearly allows scientific papers to be included as reliable independent sources. Indeed, if scientific papers were not considered as reliable independent sources then every single article on wikipedia that falls under science would require severe assessment of its sources. Also scientific papers are considerably more reliable that media sources and yet media sources are considered allowable? This article is a DEFINITE KEEP. douts (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Pearl Samurai[edit]
- Mount Pearl Samurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable hockey team in a regional league. Speedy declined with the reasoning "WP:NHOCKEY indicates that national senior teams are notable". This isn't a national team (and WP:NHOCKEY in fact says nothing of the sort). Prod declined by article creator without comment. Hairhorn (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regretfully, Delete. I'm from Newfoundland but I can't see any reason to consider this notable; concur that WP:NHOCKEY says nothing to support keeping this.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This pageisliketheotherpagesinthe AESHL page. It is no different and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cable1998 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most small hockey teams do not have any thing notable. I think it would be a shame to delete any of them. Its a small bit of history. I am just learning this wiki stuff and it takes time to learn how to do every thing when you work full time and have a family tro look after. I hope you can reverse your decision, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cable1998 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Avalon East Senior Hockey League. I don't believe the subject is currently notable, however a redirect would benefit our readers in finding a relevant article. Note that I was brought here after discussing the it with the article's creator in #wikipedia-en-help. Legoktm (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a Herder Memorial Trophy and therefore Allan Cup eligible (National) senior hockey club. There is no need to delete this page, the Mount Pearl senior teams have no shortage of media exposure and these teams have large followings in Eastern Canada. The team is new, more information on it will come as it gets older. DMighton (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not keep A Google News Archive search reveals nothing. No objection to redirecting to Avalon East Senior Hockey League as wisely suggested. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The major paper in the area is the St. John's Telegram. Many articles older than a few weeks are not given access to google news but are instead stored away on the Transcontinental website for people to buy... one headline about the team was made on October 16, 2012 in the sports section (remove the space after url? and this link should work... it's been spam filtered for some reason -- http://www.google.ca/url? sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&ved=0CGYQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2%2Ftranscontinental.newspaperdirect.com%2Fepaper%2Fviewer.aspx%3Fissue%3D60732012101600000000001001%26page%3D17%26article%3Dbdb953aa-7d30-448e-94ee-5cc95b11dfe2%26key%3DH9hv82IgJ8%2BcPtdGn7scAw%3D%3D%26feed%3Drss&ei=e8GyUMHxN4qxygGr2IGICg&usg=AFQjCNG3HICcmO7ihGsNQ_RBwksms0WllQ)... they do and will get press. DMighton (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to find that URL got a message that it was for a black listed site, which the Telegram surely is not. I can't change my !vote based on your assertion, therefore. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep your vote Shawn, it's yours... http://www.thetelegram.com/ The St. John's Telegram stores most of its articles here http://transcontinentalnewsnet.com/thetelegram/ so people will pay for back issues... making most of their articles not available on google news... just like the good old days before google started storing... some articles. My point is that there has been coverage of this extremely new team by a fairly major newspaper... google news has its limitations... pay2view papers are one them. DMighton (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks!! I tried to use the google search link and it obviously didn't work. DMighton (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DMighton. Allan Cup eligible senior teams are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they notable? Can you point to a policy that mentions the Allan Cup specifically? Hairhorn (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd be interested in seeing as well how simply being eligible for a senior amateur trophy confers notability on every such amateur team in existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Teams that compete for the Allan cup are covered widely in the media. That being said senior teams have been discussed at wp:hockey a number of times and consensus always has fallen on them being notable enough. And as DMighton mentions, notability guidelines are guidelines not policy. -DJSasso (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd be interested in seeing as well how simply being eligible for a senior amateur trophy confers notability on every such amateur team in existence. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability has guidelines... not policies... and although the Herder Trophy and Allan Cup bolsters notability, the team is notable itself. DMighton (talk) 22:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the relevant guideline is wp:org, even WP:NHOCKEY says nothing about the Allan Cup. Hairhorn (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they notable? Can you point to a policy that mentions the Allan Cup specifically? Hairhorn (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural keep - with respect, the line by which a discussion should close as "no consensus" comes well before four relists. As to the topic, however, the Allan Cup and notability is a tricky thing. For a very long time, the Allan Cup and its participating teams were easily the equal to the Stanley Cup and its teams in both coverage and prestige. But the trophy's importance has fallen into sharp decline since, and I can't agree that any modern team eligible is automatically notable. Regional news sources seem to be offering some coverage however, and if that can be expanded, then I'd see no reason not to keep the article. Resolute 15:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Will provide deleted content for use on other pages upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of names similar to Mick[edit]
- List of names similar to Mick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Was prodded "pointless list; places that need this list should list the elements directly" at 17:51, 19 November 2012 by User:JHunterJ.
- Or, convert into a template, and replace each incoming link by a transclusion of that template?, to save having to update every copy when another name is added to this list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Like this? Uncle G (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Mick" and "Mike" disambiguations | |
---|---|
- Or, leave out the hide/reveal feature and transclude a plain asterisked list. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. JHunterJ (talk) 16:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. List the pages normally on pages that require them, varying as needed (there would be little need to include MICS on the Mikki page, for instance). The savings of "having" to update every copy is not a burdensome expense. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template-ify. Having to update every copy IS burdensome, I have had to do it several times in this sort of case. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to contact me in this sort of case, and I'll do it, since it's not burdensome to me. See also Wikipedia:MOSDAB#Images and templates for recommendation to avoid templates on disambiguation pages; if I found a disambiguation page with the template, I'd continue down the path and bring the elements from the template directly into the disambiguation page (and filter them as needed -- the MICS/Mikki example above; a one-size-fits-all approach is improved by tailoring). See a similar recent discussion about formatting-assist templates at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages/Archive 40#Use_of_.7B.7BUSS.7D.7D_and_similar_templates_on_disambiguation_pages -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without redirect to Mick's See also section, as is usually done.Clarityfiend (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in that case, delete that sucker. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Template-ify - a good idea; more conventient for navigation: less mouse clicks. And navigation is indeed necessary here: it is hard to remember who is Micki and who is Micky. An a alternative approach would be to merge them all into a single page, them this page will naryrally go. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The template is not more convenient for navigation; it's more convenient for some editors, but the usual "See also" list with "Micki" and "Micky" (or a merging of those two pages) is convenient for navigation, with no additional mouse clicks, but I wouldn't merge all of the pages listed on this list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: it is more convenient compared to what we are discussing here. "See also" will do nicely, but it has maintenance problems inherent to any "content forking": there are many reasons why it is good to have only one copy of the list. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are many reasons why one list doesn't fit all places. MICS is no more similar to Mick than Mice is similar to Mick. MICS should be linked from the MIC page, but not from the Mick page. Disambiguation pages (again) benefit from "See also" entries that are actually close to the ambiguous title, not longer lists of things that are close to the title along with things that are close to things that are close to the title, let alone things that are close to things that are close to things that are close to the title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: it is more convenient compared to what we are discussing here. "See also" will do nicely, but it has maintenance problems inherent to any "content forking": there are many reasons why it is good to have only one copy of the list. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The template is not more convenient for navigation; it's more convenient for some editors, but the usual "See also" list with "Micki" and "Micky" (or a merging of those two pages) is convenient for navigation, with no additional mouse clicks, but I wouldn't merge all of the pages listed on this list. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sounding similar to another name is not a reason to be included in a list. JIP | Talk 06:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I fail to see why this trivial information is remotely worth keeping - at the very most, some information on the Michael disambiguation page about the shortened names may be worth having. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivial. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or template-ify. Sounding similar to another name is important in disambiguating. Often people confuse a name with a similar name or get spelling wrong. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Grumbling comment :I find lists of people by first name riduiculous, but apparently it is impossible to break the tide of John/Jon/Ian/Ivan/Johann/./. listpages, so introducing these "Same-name-only-mutated" templates may be a good idea. Can someone devise some common template for first name "etymology clusters" such as I see, e.g., in {{Smith-surname}}? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Delete I hate these pages people create to boost their create-counts. Also, it's covered elsewhere. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's conceivable that wikipedia could do phonetic disambiguation, but that would require significant consultation and investment in IPA skills. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Benton-Brown-Fremont-Clay-McDowell family[edit]
- Benton-Brown-Fremont-Clay-McDowell family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here's a family tree that's non-notable as a stand alone article. Who's related to who can be (and is) listed in the family sections of the individual family members where it is better suited. Tavix | Talk 03:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing is said about the family, just about individual members. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep - this is the sort of article that could be improved and sourced easily. However, it may entail original research. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There is nothing to indicate that the family has ever been studied or considered as whole (a requirement for an article describing a family often brought up here); in fact, the "family" described does not seem to be a coherent group at all. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, potentially notable members should be split to stubs. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 00:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GNG. As a group, this extended family doesn't seem to have been discussed in reliable sources. Are any of the links between any family members sourced (sorry, I've not really checked individual members' articles)? If this happens, it can always be undeleted. -- Trevj (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've notified the article creator - which should ideally have been done by the nominator - and would like to suggest that relisting would be appropriate. -- Trevj (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Brother-in-law, cousin-in-law etc. do not make these discrete individuals a "family." Original research and synthesis. Edison (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - smacks of WP:OR, also, who on earth is going to search for this with its current name anyway? Lukeno94 (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR, also the article isn't properly titled. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Theatre in Pittsburgh. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12 Peers Theater[edit]
- 12 Peers Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Userfied after the previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12 Peers Theater. Many sources, but closer inspection shows that they are either passing mentions, primary sources (the theater and organisers of events), unreliable sources (blogs and the like), or sources that don't even mention the Theater. Not a notable company. The sources that are supposed to give recognition are [30], a blog; [31] which has a short mention of a top ten of local things to see and do, and [32] which is another blog. One paragraph in the Pittsburgh Magazine isn't sufficient to establish notability. Fram (talk) 09:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Theatre in Pittsburgh. I removed a lot of unusable sources from the entry. The ones I removed were non-notable blogs that cannot show notability, a Salon article by someone involved with the theater, and a score of brief trivial mentions and notifications of upcoming events. There was also one article that did not specifically mention the theater at all. The only ones I left were the various Pittsburgh Magazine articles and the link to the Pittsburgh New Works festival site. I do know that PM is considered a RS, but here is the issue: the articles aren't actually about the theater but about some of the people associated with it or performances held in it. Even if we ignore that, the theater has only been covered by one magazine. That's not showing a depth of coverage. What I suggest is that this article be redirected to Theatre in Pittsburgh. While the PM articles don't show that the theater is notable enough to warrant an entry, it does show that the theater has enough of a presence to merit a mention in the TiP article. Nothing has to be merged, as the theater is already listed in the article. The only thing that would be necessary is that the brackets be removed from the name within the article. Other than that? It's doubtful that this theater will gain enough notability to merit an entry. It doesn't inherit notability from the performances held within it or from people that happen to work with the theater, although I could argue that the brief mentions in the articles about the performances could merit that mention in the TiP article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An article about people associated with a theatre or performances held in a theatre is about the theatre. Those are really the only two things one can write about when one writes an article about a theatre company. Therefore the PM articles cited are ostensibly about 12 Peers Theater, making it notable enough to receive significant attention from a secondary source. The PM articles include a review of a production and two preview articles about upcoming productions. These articles talk about the theatre for considerably longer than a paragraph. No, there is not a huge wealth of secondary citations, but if you look at articles about similar theatre companies, such as Organic Theater Pittsburgh, Throughline Theatre Company, Pittsburgh Playwrights Theatre Company, and Barebones productions, you'll see that they have been considered notable on the strength of citations from one or two secondary sources. Is it a major regional theater? No, but it meets the minimum requirements for notability on Wikipedia.Frankgorshin (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't really an argument for inclusion and besides, even if we count the PM source we still have the issue of that being the only magazine that has covered the theater at all. While there have been articles kept with one source, that source is usually something along the lines of a notable and authoritative book written specifically about the subject by a known authority. If the only sources we have come from one magazine or paper, that in itself is almost never enough to pass even the most basic notability guidelines. It doesn't help that even with the sources on the page, there are issues with them:
- [33] This is more a notification of an upcoming event than an actual article. It doesn't really go into depth at all and it really isn't even a review. It just says "hey, this will happen and it will probably be fun, so let me list everyone that's performing and when it'll happen". It's not in-depth and is more of a trivial source than anything else.
- [34] This one is actually a review, so it's good if we're going to say that the theater inherits notability from performances held in it. However, was this really that notable of a performance that we can say that the theater is landmark for presenting it? If my local comedy club hosts Bobcat Goldthwait's latest standup and it gets a brief review in the local paper but nowhere else, would that really give the comedy club notability enough for an article? I'm not entirely sure about that, especially if the theater itself is only mentioned as the place the performance is located and isn't actually discussed in depth.
- [35] This just says that the group took part in a festival. Other than very insanely brief mentions elsewhere, the theater received no coverage for this. The most they got were a few mentions in relation to other things or a mention in a schedule roster.
- [36] This has the same issue as the second link. It's a review, but the theater is only mentioned briefly in passing as the place it's held.
- I honestly don't think that reviews about local performances are enough in this instance. They might help back up claims of people performing, but none of these performances were really covered in-depth elsewhere or if they were, they didn't mention the location. Even then, nothing I've found shows that these shows were so notable that everything associated with them inherits notability. I'd be hard pressed to even say that the plays/monologues/etc would merit their own entries. If the theater had ever received indepth coverage from an independent and reliable source then we could debate whether the sources would help push it beyond being your typical non-notable theater, but it hasn't received anything of that sort. Other than brief mentions in relation to other things, this theater is pretty much a non-entity to the media world in general. I know that not every theater has to have the notoriety of say, Ford's Theatre, but they do have to have received coverage in reliable sources and to gain notability from their performances, the performances would have to be more notable than one or two offhand mentions in the local press.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I'm not sure what more you want from an article about a theatre company. Reviews and previews of performances are pretty much the only kind of coverage you can find for any kind of theatre organization. A theatre company is composed of the performances it's held and nothing else, really. Ford's Theatre is not an example of a theatre company, it's a building that has hosted performances. A theatre company is an arts organization that actually produces the performances; that is, 12 Peers Theater as an organization was directly involved in creating the performances referred to in the articles. It's different from Bobcat Goldthwait performing in a comedy club. 12 Peers Theater is not a building, it's an organization that has put on performances in multiple buildings. Bobcat Goldthwait is notable because he has received coverage for his performances, just as 12 Peers is notable (to a much, much lesser degree, obviously) because of the coverage it has received for the performances it has developed. I realize that the "other stuff exists" argument is not reason alone to keep it; however, Wikipedia does say, "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." The articles I pointed to do establish a precedent that small arts organizations which may not be notable on a national level but have still received coverage from the local press are notable enough for Wikipedia. Pittsburgh Magazine has devoted three separate articles to performances that 12 Peers Theater has created as an organization; similarly Organic Theater Pittsburgh was considered for deletion and kept due to three or four articles from secondary sources, including Pittsburgh Magazine. I think the key here is to understand the difference between a theatre building that merely hosts performances and a theatre company that is directly responsible for the performances itself.Frankgorshin (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no depth of coverage to these sources. Only one place has covered the theater at all and the big difference between the sources for Organic Theater Pittsburgh and 12 Peers is that more than one paper actually covered OTP. Not including the primary sources, I see at least 5-6 different sources covering OTP. Only one source seems to have given any notice to 12PT and given that the sources aren't really deeply in-depth reviews, I have to say that this isn't enough to show notability for the theater even if I were to agree that every performance review necessarily gives notability to a theater. I'm just not convinced that reviews for a production held at a theater give it notability, especially when you consider that not every production held at a theater is actually produced by the crew there. Some just come through on a tour. I'm not saying that the particular reviews for this article are tour productions, just that not every production is actually put together by the theater hosting it. Even ignoring the debate over reviews, only one magazine/paper has actually reviewed the theater or mentioned it in anything other than passing, and that's not enough to show me that this place has notability. The only times one source is enough is when the source is such an authority and is so in-depth that notability isn't questionable in the slightest. Magazines and newspapers are almost never the types of sources that would fall under these guidelines to where only being reviewed/covered by them would show notability. Will the theater eventually get this notability? Maybe. Maybe not. They just opened last year and so far it's too early to tell, but we don't keep articles based on the "maybe". You have to prove notability in the here and now and I'm not convinced that 1-2 reviews by one magazine is enough. The other two sources in the article are really just mentions of performances and are trivial at best. So far this theater isn't notable enough for its own article based on what I could find and the sources already in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the type of theatre that hosts tour productions. It is an example of a resident theatre; if you read that article it explains the nature of this kind of organization and how they are actually responsible for the artistic content--once again, it's very different from a theatre building booking a pre-existing performance. Anyway, the OTP article only had about 3 sources that were considered legitimate when it was considered for deletion and kept. That's the precedent that I'm basing this on. Over time, more sources were added, but at the time it was considered notable based on 2-3 reviews of one performance and nothing else. If OTP met the minimum notability requirement, this article, which has exactly the same level of credentials, does as well. There is precedent for a small resident theatre which has had its performances covered either as a review or a preview by a magazine or newspaper to be notable enough for Wikipedia. Again, these articles are not passing mentions of a theater that happens to have booked a pre-existing show; they are articles which critique and/or otherwise describe artistic content that this organization is responsible for creating. Are they tremendously in-depth? Are you going to find long editorial essays about 12 Peers Theater in the New York Times? No, but you're not going to find that depth of coverage in the types of sources cited in articles about organizations similar to this. Precedent is important here. If you look objectively at the precedent established by small resident theatre Wikipedia articles, it is notable. Frankgorshin (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the fact still remains that it was coverage in more than one magazine. As of this edit of OTP, I count five different sources: Pittsburgh Magazine, Pittsburgh City Paper, Pittsburgh Out Theater Reviews, and Pittsburgh Broadway World. The last two are dubious, in my opinion, but it's still far more sources than this article currently has. You can't compare an article that has received coverage in multiple sources to a theater that has only received coverage in one and that's ignoring my skepticism over sources that only report on things held in the theater. My point is that there is no depth of coverage for 12PT and there has only been one source that's reported on them and even then that one source is rather light in their coverage. I think it was very premature for you to transfer this back to the mainspace. I have no issue with you userfying it, but I would recommend that you get more sources and maybe getting an experienced WP:THEATER editor to help you out before deciding to move it to the mainspace. Even a non-theater WP user would be good and I recommend Schmidt for anything art world related in general because he's savvy when it comes to recognizing RS and when something isn't yet ready for the mainspace. This is just a case of WP:TOOSOON when it comes to this theater because it hasn't received anything than a few offhand production reviews from Pittsburgh Magazine. I know you want to help promote the theater in your area (NOT insinuating COI here, just that you take pride in your local scene) but I really think that you're seeing more notability here than there really is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 12P has a Broadway World article[3] as well that I can add, but as you say, that is considered kind of dubious as a source; I don't really see what the huge difference is between having one article from City Paper and another one from Pittsburgh Magazine and having two articles from Pittsburgh Magazine if all of the articles are of comparable length and depth of coverage. In my opinion, that's really splitting hairs in terms of notability. I just don't see how you can argue that OTP has more depth of coverage than 12P, especially considering the fact that OTP has received coverage for one production and 12P has received coverage for multiple productions. I think you're drawing distinctions that aren't particularly important. Frankgorshin (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that there isn't a depth of coverage. You can't show that something has received a depth of coverage if ultimately and quite frankly, nobody thinks that the theater is worth covering in anything other than 1-2 sources. That's ultimately what it means when an article has only received coverage from one or two sources. That there is another article out there by someone other than Pittsburgh Magazine is good, but I really ultimately think that this is just too premature for the mainspace. I think that you're overestimating the strength of Pittsburgh Magazine. I'm not entirely certain about the PBW source, as someone in the previous AfD questioned the neutrality of the site as it sells tickets. What it ultimately comes down to is that even if PW has covered multiple productions, it's still just one source covering the theater whereas multiple sources covering one production means that more than one place thought that OTP was notable enough to take mention of. It's ultimately very important as far as establishing notability goes. It's very, very rare that one source shows overwhelming notability and this is not one of those exceptions.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't think the difference between 1 source and 2 sources makes something worthy of deletion. That's ultimately what it comes down to. OTP had two sources, 12P has one. There is coverage of 12P from other sources that are considered less legitimate. If coverage from 1-2 sources considered legitimate by Wikipedia is not enough to merit notability, then OTP should have been deleted, but the fact is, it was not. I think that precedent should be respected. Other sources may come along for 12P, but as of right now, it has the bare minimum. Not enough for a large Wikipedia article, but not enough for deletion either. Frankgorshin (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you can say that only one publication thought 12P was worth covering, but you can also say that 2 publications only thought OTP was worth covering once. You can also say that one publication thought 12P was worth covering multiple times. What's more notable? A theatre company that receives two reviews from two different publications for one production, or a theatre company that receives two reviews from the same publication about two different productions? You see how that's splitting hairs? Either way, you can find the theatre mentioned in two different places, whether it's in one issue of a newspaper and one issue of a magazine or in two different issues of the same magazine. I don't see how you can say that's not comparable depth of coverage.Frankgorshin (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that you need articles from multiple sources that cover the subject in-depth. That's pretty much the most basic, most simplistic definition of WP:RS in a nutshell. While one source can sometimes, very rarely show enough notability to warrant a mention, these sort of things are usually very very rare. In these cases the source is almost always a book or journal written by a trusted authority on the subject that has been reviewed by peers that are also considered authorities in the subject. I'm talking journals along the lines of The Lancet or similar. Even then, the source must be saying something about the subject that is so overwhelmingly notable (winning an amazing prize, doing an accomplishment so notable that it gives automatic and permanent notability) that all we need is one reliable source to back it up. The reviews by PM do not do this. They are run of the mill short reviews for a production held in the theater. I'm going to try walk away now because I'm just re-stating my point over and over again, but you really do not seem to understand how reliable sources are supposed to work when it comes to sourcing articles. Theaters are not special exceptions to the notability rules. If anything, theaters would probably fall under WP:GROUP, which is one of the more difficult notability guidelines to fill because of all of the stipulations in WP:ORGDEPTH, but I've been going by the more basic rules of WP:GNG. You can't re-write the rules to make an exception for something you feel passionate about. Trust me, I know it stinks to put something out and then for someone to say it's not enough, but this is just far too soon for an article about this theater. It just isn't notable enough yet.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to not understand my point that I am not "re-writing the rules" but merely pointing out the precedent established by an article that was in a very similar situation where the consensus was that it should be kept. You seem to be defining the phrase "multiple sources" as multiple publications, whereas I define it as multiple articles, be they from the same publication or from different publications. You seem to be drawing the distinction that OTP is notable because it has citations from two publications and 12P is not because it has citations from one; I think this is an arbitrary distinction, and furthermore, I can't find anything in the pages of notability guidelines you've cited that back up this reasoning. At the end of the day, Wikipedia operates by consensus; similar articles to 12P have been kept by consensus, and the 12P article as it exists now has been kept for months without any controversy. So, in the end, given the consensus about these kinds of articles and the kinds of sources they need to be considered notable, I don't believe there is a very strong case for deleting this article.Frankgorshin (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:RS: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And per WP:GNG: Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Sources, plural. In 99.9999999% of the people on Wikipedia, this is considered to be different papers. I've had AfDs I've participated in where the subject received coverage, but only from one source (a local paper/magazine, usually) and the AfD consensus was that one news source is not enough, no matter how many times that one source has reported on the subject.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's just my point. Your estimation that "99.9999999999% of the people on Wikipedia" interpret "sources" as coming from different publications is, I'm guessing, not a precise statistic but your own assumptions based on your experience of Wikipedia, which is not all-inclusive. What you're citing are guidelines, not black-and-white rules, that ultimately have to have some kind of subjective interpretation by the people who edit Wikipedia. I interpret "multiple sources" to mean multiple articles, and you interpret it to mean multiple publications. It seems that we won't be able to come to a consensus on how we interpret this guideline, but as I said before, I think it's important that we defer to the consensus of the Wikipedia users who have not found several Wikipedia articles of an extremely similar nature appropriate for deletion, especially OTP, which had pretty much exactly the same amount of coverage in secondary sources when it was debated for deletion and kept. The only difference is that it was covered in two different publications instead of one, a difference that I don't think you can rationally say is huge by any means. I think the only reasonable way to decide this is not based on how one person interprets the guidelines of Wikipedia or the myriad ways the vast amount of Wikipedia articles about organizations are set up but through looking at it in the very specific context of how similar Wikipedia articles about small theatre companies establish notability. Pittsburgh is a small city that has only a few publications that would count as secondary sources; therefore, you are going to find a limited number of sources that establish notability for a Pittsburgh theatre company. Multiple articles of any kind from a secondary source establish that a theatre company has a presence in that city, and the fact that the 12P article has existed for a while implies that other Wikipedia users have seen this article and not been troubled by the fact that the sources come from only Pittsburgh Magazine, and not one from PM and one from Pittsburgh City Paper. I vote let's respect that consensus and not draw distinctions that are ultimately pretty insignificant and arbitrary in the context of similar articles about theatre companies from this region.Frankgorshin (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've asked for clarification on this from other users, so we'll see. I'm going to stand by my affirmation that it has to be coverage from multiple separate sources and not multiple articles from one source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect title to Theatre in Pittsburgh where it can be listed as its existance is sourcable AND, if he wants it, Userfy current content back to User:Frankgorshin for continued work just as one done at conclusion of first AFD in July 2011. I was asked to look in on this topic, and researched before coming here to comment. Please review the essays WP:LOCAL and WP:MILL. My conclusion, just as was decided in July 2011 (arguments about other topics not withstanding), is that THIS topic still lacks an acceptable level of notability. Yes, it has been written of quite briefly, and is mentioned in a few Pittsburgh sources about theater related events, but it remains a local institution. If or when this changes, I would urge Frankgorshin to seek input from those editors who opined last year and those opining here, before another return to mainspace and a risk of an AFD #3. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I realize that comparisons to other articles and AfD debates are not reason alone to keep something, but I still stand by the concept of precedent exemplified by the statement in WP:WAX: "...It would be ridiculous to consider deleting an article on Yoda or Mace Windu, for instance. If someone were, as part of their reasoning for keep, to say that every other main character in Star Wars has an article, this may well be a valid point." Similarly, my point is that practically every other theatre company in Pittsburgh that has had the same level of coverage is undisputed and/or decided to be kept. Regardless, this essay goes on to say that it's better to look at the policies that were cited in a similar debate rather than compare the articles themselves. The OTP AfD debate was concluded citing this policy: "When some topic has been found notable due to sources and other information, the burden of proof falls on those wishing to delete, by a preponderance of the evidence, which has not been met here." I do not think there is a preponderance of evidence here. The article, having multiple secondary sources, meets the bare minimum of notability. WP:LOCAL states that "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." It then goes on to make the distinction that "local" coverage is not enough. I think you can make a solid argument that Pittsburgh Magazine is an example of a regional, not local, publication. Its audience is the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, which covers numerous communities, boroughs, and townships. Many of these townships and boroughs have their own newspapers; these I would consider "local." But any publication covering the whole of the Pittsburgh area covers a broad range of southwestern Pennsylvania, making this theatre company a step up from the run-of-the-mill type of restaurant that has only gotten reviews in the local papers. If this theatre had only been covered in the Norwin Star or the McKeesport Daily News I don't think you could consider it notable. PM reaches a wider audience and a broader culture.Frankgorshin (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I still think it better to return the topic to you for more work... and when comparing it to other Pittsburgh theaters which have articles herein, it is worth noting that those other theater/groups have longer documentable histories. Toward the newer 12 Peers Theater, we have numerous writeups of performances at that venue, and information ABOUT the venue to be found in articles at Broadway World, [37] [38] and enough information in the "mentions" of it in other sources to verify information that could be added to the article. Yes, it has caught the attention of Pittsburgh Magazine [39] [40][41][42] but to be honest, local theaters almost always have a difficult time establishing notability, and this discussion has become one of subjective interpretations of what constitutes local. I am not at all suggesting it be deleted when it could benefit from additional work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the new sources! I just added them to the article. So are you saying the article should be kept? I can continue to work on it whether in the userspace or in the mainspace, but my point is, why move it to the userspace when it already meets the minimum notability requirements and continues to grow in coverage and have sources added to it?Frankgorshin (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is nothing that establishes the notablity of this theater and very little information that can be found about it. Until reliable sources begin to write about it, there is no basis for an article. TFD (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I dispute the notion that "nothing" establishes notability since it features multiple secondary sources coming from a regional publication, and the same amount of coverage can be found for very similar articles about theatre companies from the Pittsburgh region, establishing a precedent that's extremely pertinent to this debate. Frankgorshin (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to provide sources that establish the notability and provide information on the theater. You need to find a source that provides basic information such as whether the company has a permanent location or goes on tour, what types of plays they put on, do they present original work, have they won any awards, are they amateur or professional, which major American schools of drama have provided their greatest influence, what size of audiences they normally have, whether they are for profit or not for profit, do they have a political agenda, what did the founders do before they set up the company. All you have are a group of mentions of upcoming plays presumably based on press releases. TFD (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources do provide information on the locations 12 Peers has held performances, what types of plays they put on, who wrote them...the other litany of information you list is not required to demonstrate notability. What is required are multiple secondary sources, whatever information they contain. They are not press releases; they are articles that are independent from 12 Peers Theater that review or otherwise describe performances that were held in the past. Wikipedia articles about theatre companies do not need to contain all the information you describe; some of those bits of information are relevant to some theatre companies and not others. The only thing all theatre companies do have in common is the fact that they have put on theatrical presentations of some kind. Therefore, that's the only kind of information you can say is absolutely necessary for a Wikipedia article about a theatre company. Look at the basic requirements for notability. Multiple sources on a regional level indicate notability. Frankgorshin (talk) 01:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IOW they have mentioned individual performances but almost nothing about the company itself. You could of course put together all the mentions of performances and form your own conclusions, but that would be original research. That is what newspapers and books are for. They do the research then we summarize what they have found. Why do you not contact your local paper and ask them to write about the company then we might have the basis of an article. TFD (talk) 01:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia article lists the specific plays the theatre company has put on, which is backed up by the sources that are cited. This is not original research. Frankgorshin (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And also, this idea that you can separate coverage of the performances of a theatre company from the theatre company itself doesn't make sense to me. The theatre company is the performances, the performances are the theatre company. An article about a performance from a theatre company is ostensibly about the theatre company. Please see the discussion above for an elaboration on this point. The article summarizes what has been found about the theatre company at this point without doing any original research. Frankgorshin (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per tokygirl above. Appears to fail WP:GNG --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't see how it can be argued that the article fails WP:GNG when there are multiple secondary reliable sources that are more than just trivial mentions of the theatre company. Frankgorshin (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a mention of 12 Peers Theater's production of tick, tick...BOOM! in Pittsburgh City Paper. The show opens this weekend, and a full-fledged review of the show from City Paper is anticipated to go up by Wednesday, right around when this discussion should be drawing to a close. This should take care of tokyogirl and presumably Sue_Rangell's concerns that the theatre has not received coverage in multiple secondary sources in different publications. Frankgorshin (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been staying away because we were just endlessly bickering over the same things, but in this case the PCP article doesn't count towards notability because it's pretty much just a routine notification of a performance. What little there is to the brief paragraph would make it a trivial source at best and wouldn't show notability for the theater or the performance. It's not in-depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tokyogirl79, I realize that the City Paper source cited now is just a brief mention; I'm saying there will be a more substantial article about this production coming out on Wednesday that should take care of your concerns about it being reviewed in more than one publication. Once this source comes out, it will have the same amount of coverage in the same number of publications that Organic Theater Pittsburgh did when it was considered for deletion and kept. Frankgorshin (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Theatre in Pittsburgh : Per WP:Run of the mill. Fails all notability guidelines as far as substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources is concerned. Coverage is limited to local publications, and consists mostly of routine matters like announcements and reviews. Nothing out of the ordinary for just about any theater group, and nothing that indicates the topic is notable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the argument above concerning the concept of "regional" versus "local." Reviews and articles devoted to previewing upcoming performances are not "routine." The publication covering the theatre has to decide the theatre is worth assigning a specific writer to cover it; the theatre doesn't just issue an announcement that the publication then reprints. Please also consider the precedent established by many other articles of this kind, many of which are linked to in Theatre in Pittsburgh. Especially Organic Theater Pittsburgh. Frankgorshin (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What’s bothering me about this thread is that many of the commenters don’t seem to be taking into account the precedent of numerous other articles like this as well as the previous arguments that have been made. Yes, WP:Otherstuffexists is not a good argument alone, but as I quoted above and will quote again so that it is more visible to people jumping to the bottom of the thread, "In consideration of precedent and consistency…identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into general notability of concepts, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia." There is a lot of talk about reviews and previews of productions from Pittsburgh publications not being enough to establish notability, that they are just “passing mentions” in “local” publications, but this is pretty much the only kind of source a Pittsburgh theatre company depends on to establish notability. Publications covering the Pittsburgh metropolitan area are regional, not local. And reviews and previews (different from press releases) feature writers independent from the topic describing or critiquing performances that a theatre company is responsible for in more than one paragraph. There are many theatre companies out there that do not have their performances reviewed or previewed at all, or if they do, they are only covered in publications covering the immediate area; these are not notable. Yes, this theatre is newer, yes, there are fewer sources for this than, say, Bricolage Production Company, but please look at Hiawatha Project, Phase 3 Productions, and Theatre Sans Serif. I hesitate to bring this up again since I have many times before, but Organic Theater Pittsburgh had exactly the same amount of coverage when it was considered for deletion and kept. Even if you make the argument that OTP was reviewed in both Pittsburgh Magazine and Pittsburgh City Paper while 12 Peers was reviewed in only Pittsburgh Magazine, as Tokyogirl79 did, this will be remedied when a review of the theatre's current production of the same length and substance as the ones cited in the OTP article appears in Pittsburgh City Paper this Wednesday. This theatre is covered in multiple secondary sources that were considered good enough for other Wikipedia articles about theatre companies of a very similar nature, and it’s going to receive at least one more review from Pittsburgh City Paper for its current production in the upcoming week. I genuinely don’t understand why this article has caused so much controversy when other very similar articles have not. Frankgorshin (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above and per WP:OTHERSTUFF. If anyone nominates any of the other pages raised here, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate that the burden of proof is on those wishing to delete; most of the commenters have briefly cited guidelines without explaining in-depth what their reasoning is or responding to previous arguments. Most of the conflicts here are arguments over subjective interpretations; what should be considered regional vs. local, what types of articles are considered "significant" coverage for a theatre company vs. what are "routine". tokyogirl79, Schmidt, and I have hashed out a lot of this, and I think we have basically come to a consensus that some Pittsburgh regional theatres are notable while others are not. This particular one is on the cusp due to the limited coverage, which may be considered enough for some and not enough for others, depending on how you subjectively interpret the guidelines. The coverage of it continues to evolve (i.e. reviews of the theatre's current production which will come out over the next few days). Again, the kind of coverage this theatre has received is the kind of coverage any theatre company receives; it just hasn't received a lot of it. However, the coverage continues to grow. Frankgorshin (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rajinder Singh (Sant Mat)[edit]
- Rajinder Singh (Sant Mat) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article was proposed for deletion by PROD, and another editor seconded the proposal. The PROD reason was "Somewhat promotional article without any independent sources, and no indication that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines." The PROD was contested with the edit summary "I believe he is not [sic] notable enough, see http://www.sos.org/page/global-leader.html". However, that is a page on the website of the organisation that Rajinder Singh is the head of, and tells us in glowing terms about his "life and work", which, it informs us, "can be summed up as a continuous journey of love and selfless service". The article cites no independent sources, and I have searched, and found no coverage of him in independent reliable sources. The article was originally written by a single purpose account, as unambiguous promotion. There have been attempts to make the article less promotional, but it has never ceased to be substantially promotional, with a very large proportion of the editing being done by editors with unambiguous conflict of interest. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:ANYBIO #2: Sant Rajinder Singh is the spiritual head and leader of a spiritual organization called Science of Spirituality (one source said 300,000 members).[43] He was mentioned in a Presidential Press Briefing with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow as a "spiritual leader from India".[44] Per WP:AUTHOR #4, Sant Rajinder Singh's primary book, Inner and Outer Peace Through Meditation a meditation handbook with emphasis on world peace, contains a Forward by the Dalai Lama[45] - who is arguably the world authority on meditation and peace - saying "I greatly appreciate Sant Rajinder Singh Ji’s contribution here to the goal of peace that we are all working towards." WorldCat shows it in 219 libraries.[46] To further notability, Sant Rajinder Singh received various recognitions from various NY officials:[47] NY State Senator Adriano Espaillat presented a proclamation from the State Legislature praising his “tireless work and creative genius”. Congressman Peter T. King sent a Citation, and tributes from NY State Comptroller Thomas Di Napoli, NYC Comptroller John Liu, and one each from Nassau and Suffolk County Executives Edward Mangano and Steven Bellone. Added other sources in the article, some behind commercial databases. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- from the titles of those sources, they appear to be regurgitated press releases,/ promotional announcements of events in local papers. What sort of significant content about the subject is actually covered in them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is a fair bit of PR material out there on this subject, but I believe the sources in the article are intellectually independent. If you disagree please be specific which ones. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are not able or willing to assert any specific substantial content about the subject actually exist in any of those sources? It is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding content to provide reliable sources. this one that you have listed], is textbook example of " passing coverage" . and this one looks to be a clipping of an advertisement from a newspaper that is hosted on a personal website? reliability and suitability appear questionable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) The New York Times says Sant Rajinder Singh was a member of a group of a few hundred world religious leaders who organized a function for the United Nations. It's a reliable source that helps to establish notability of the subject. 2) The second link is not a "personal website", it's the paper Desi Talk, owned by Parikh Worldwide Media LLC the largest Indian-American publishing group in the United States. There is no evidence that piece is an "advertisement". Finally, the purpose of this AfD is to determine if the subject is notable. Many of those sources may be small mentions, like the NYT piece. That doesn't negate their importance or inclusion for notability determination. If the subject is notable then the article stands. Maybe the sources will only have enough content to cite a 1-paragraph article, doesn't matter so long as it's notable. Notability might be established by 50 small mentions, or 2 or 3 big mentions. It doesn't matter so long as notability is established and we have enough content to write a stub article that is more than a dictionary definition. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So you are not able or willing to assert any specific substantial content about the subject actually exist in any of those sources? It is the WP:BURDEN of the person adding content to provide reliable sources. this one that you have listed], is textbook example of " passing coverage" . and this one looks to be a clipping of an advertisement from a newspaper that is hosted on a personal website? reliability and suitability appear questionable.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there is a fair bit of PR material out there on this subject, but I believe the sources in the article are intellectually independent. If you disagree please be specific which ones. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- from the titles of those sources, they appear to be regurgitated press releases,/ promotional announcements of events in local papers. What sort of significant content about the subject is actually covered in them? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- there are LOTS of people who participate as "one of hundreds" who do thing for the UN. hundreds of groups every day. thats not noteworthy nor is being named as one of hundreds "Significant coverage".
- Facebook is one of the largest corporations in the world, but content posted on facebook isnt reliable. do you have evidence that that page is part of an editorial controlled reliable source portion of the media group?
- and right now the question is can you provide significant coverage by third party reliable sources about the subject, not whether you can conjecture their might be. there might be significant coverage about my cat and I can post lots of links behind paywalls and say "trust me, with all of these links theres probably stuff to prove that hes notable. you cannot make a vague handwave, particularly when the "evidence" that you have offered is so weak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a group of world religious leaders doesn't happen "every day" at the UN attracting an article in the New York Times. Facebook and your cat has nothing to do with it please stick to the facts. If the subject is notable, they get an article on Wikipedia. Period. Per the Notability guidelines WP:WHYN: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page". In this case the sources have more than enough information to write more than a few sentences. The sources offer significant enough coverage to write an article, that is the spirit of the rule on "significant coverage", that is "why we have this requirement" for significant coverage (the title of the rule section). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- uhhm, no, the significant coverage is the minimum requirement and not a guarantee. AND an interview quote in the NYT is not sufficient to qualify as "significant content about the subject.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a group of world religious leaders doesn't happen "every day" at the UN attracting an article in the New York Times. Facebook and your cat has nothing to do with it please stick to the facts. If the subject is notable, they get an article on Wikipedia. Period. Per the Notability guidelines WP:WHYN: "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page". In this case the sources have more than enough information to write more than a few sentences. The sources offer significant enough coverage to write an article, that is the spirit of the rule on "significant coverage", that is "why we have this requirement" for significant coverage (the title of the rule section). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The importance of the Science of Spirituality (aka 'Sawan Kirpal Ruhani') can be found in this Encyclopedia[48] which says it has 300,000 followers worldwide; in Europe it is the best known form of the religion based on Radha Soami, which in total has 3 million followers world wide. SoS's main publications are translated into 50 languages. It would seem strange for the spiritual head of a religion with so many followers around the world to be non-notable. We have not even begun to mine sources in those 50 languages. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc. Qworty (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've re-written the article.[49] -- Green Cardamom (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nonnotable. THe listed awards are of low merit. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep based mainly on the encyclopedia entry. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to Science of Spirituality and then severely trim and refocus- while the encyclopedia mentions Rajinder Singh, it is a trivial passing mention stating that he is the current leader of the organization, but there is probably enough content reliable sources for a basic article about the movement-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was rewritten from scratch by me using only the available sources, all reliable, so there is enough sourcing to write an article. Per WP:NOTE->WP:WHYN : "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." That is the spirit of the "significant coverage" requirement, it is "why we have this requirement". It doesn't matter if the facts are spread out between 10 sources with small mentions, or condensed all into one solid source, so long as there are sources to provide content to write an article with, which is evidently so in this case, the "significant coverage" requirement is met. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:42, a million trivial passing mentions does not guarantee "significant coverage". Significant coverage = significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing an off-beat essay which anyone can (and does) edit. Here's the thing: the mathematical count of words can be irrelevant, the guidelines say nothing about physical count of words for a reason. A reliable source might say "He won a Major Prize". That's five words. Is it significant? Of course. Because we look at the content of the words, not the mathematical count of words. "Trivial" means stuff like "the person was at a location on Jan 1", trivial content like that. "Significant" content means exactly that, it is of significance towards notability and useful in writing a full article. It's the content (and context) of the words, not the mathematical number of words. If you disagree, take it up at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. 42 is a great essay for teaching newbies about Notability but a terrible thing to cite in a rules discussion, stick with the actual guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- if you dont recognize WP:42 as being the easy to read version of WP:GNG and think that it is some fringe essay .... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:42 says things WP:GNG does not... that you would favor this essay over the actual guideline.. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- if you dont recognize WP:42 as being the easy to read version of WP:GNG and think that it is some fringe essay .... -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are citing an off-beat essay which anyone can (and does) edit. Here's the thing: the mathematical count of words can be irrelevant, the guidelines say nothing about physical count of words for a reason. A reliable source might say "He won a Major Prize". That's five words. Is it significant? Of course. Because we look at the content of the words, not the mathematical count of words. "Trivial" means stuff like "the person was at a location on Jan 1", trivial content like that. "Significant" content means exactly that, it is of significance towards notability and useful in writing a full article. It's the content (and context) of the words, not the mathematical number of words. If you disagree, take it up at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion. 42 is a great essay for teaching newbies about Notability but a terrible thing to cite in a rules discussion, stick with the actual guidelines. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:42, a million trivial passing mentions does not guarantee "significant coverage". Significant coverage = significant coverage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was rewritten from scratch by me using only the available sources, all reliable, so there is enough sourcing to write an article. Per WP:NOTE->WP:WHYN : "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." That is the spirit of the "significant coverage" requirement, it is "why we have this requirement". It doesn't matter if the facts are spread out between 10 sources with small mentions, or condensed all into one solid source, so long as there are sources to provide content to write an article with, which is evidently so in this case, the "significant coverage" requirement is met. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maximilien de Hoop Cartier[edit]
- Maximilien de Hoop Cartier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ridiculous hagiography cobbled together from unlikely sources including trademark registration filing. If the subject is notable, there should be no shortage of reliable, third party coverage to support the claim. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources do not relate to the subject of the article at all, or have only passing mentions. For a sample, his alleged alma mater's website does not even mention him (go ahead, use the search engine therein), nor does the Brunel hotel website, and this source is about the launch of his beer line. The whole coverage reeks of WP:UPANDCOMING. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Miles of claims to fame and not a single actual assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 06:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree with above, the introducing paragraph is greatly exaggerated and the following sections are written like a narrative and not an encyclopedic biography.Pjposullivan (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't think that Bearian looked at the non-English references in La Nación, El Cronista, and Ámbito Financiero, all of which are reliable sources. While I cannot read Spanish, it's abundantly clear that all three talk directly about the subject of this article in detail. Coverage in three major newspapers is plenty to satisfy WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am fluent in Spanish. I looked at the sources. This one and this one cannot be considered WP:RS, and the second even says at the bottom that the source is La Nacion anyway. This one, this one and this one seem more reliable (the third one is regional in scope). So basically, this guy is known for importing artisan beers into Argentina. So yes, he has had some coverage for that. Three articles. I'll leave it to other editors to consider that. The rest of the article is an unsubstantiated puff piece with a storm of irrelevant external links to add volume. §FreeRangeFrog 19:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am looking at the Spanish sources now; I can read un poco -- and Google Translate helps. :-) This source, a "Drinks and beers" blog is very chatty - essentially, it says that a friend directed the blogger to a beer made by Cartier, which is between the high and low ends of the market and has no preservatives or artificial flavors but is made from 100% malt; it does not mention Cartier himself. This retail industry online magazine does quote Cartier himself, but it reads more like a press release, as it merely links six paragraphs of quotes from him, without any analysis. This article appears to be from a reliable source and is actually about Cartier. This article calls Cartier a "craft (artisinal) brewer". So perhaps he does barely pass notability, having two good sources, but even so, the article needs a total re-writing. I can be convinced to change my mind, but I'd like to see what others say first. Bearian (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kaori Ishihara[edit]
- Kaori Ishihara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP article relying entirely on primary sources, unable to find in-depth coverage in RS to establish notability Nouniquenames 18:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to justify a biographical article like this. --DAJF (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per DAJF's case referenced above. Jun Kayama 01:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]Delete - Appears to not be the subject of enough reliable coverage. Since it appears she is a member of a number of idol groups, perhaps any content can be included there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep - It appears that she charted on Oricon, and per WP:MUSICBIO that's enough for me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - According to Oricon, Ishihara has had two solo singles that have charted (see [50]]). According to WP:MUSICBIO, a musician "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria," one of which is "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Note there is no stipulation about how high it has to chart. Also note that there is some independent RS coverage of Ishihara's activities apart from YuiKaori, such as [51] or [52]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michitaro (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:ENTERTAINER, due to multiple significant roles in notable TV series, including leading roles in Lagrange: The Flower of Rin-ne and Magi: The Labyrinth of Magic. Calathan (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Not seeing that much past Ameblo and Mixi, but better to keep and work on expansion than just torpedo this article. Jun Kayama 21:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, surely passes WP:MUSICBIO, probably WP:ENTERTAINER too. Cavarrone (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warren Leslie Forrest[edit]
- Warren Leslie Forrest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable convicted murderer and most worryingly a "suspected serial killer" who will be "eligible for parole in 2014". There ARE some sources, but they all seem to say he is either "suspected of murdering x person" or "he killed x non-notable person in a non-notable way" PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Until conviction, this remains a news source and does not meet notability requirements and does not meet point 1 or 2 of crime perpetrator notability requirements. If a sentence is given, Mr. Forrest's name can be added to the list of serial killers. — comment added by Thedropsoffire (talk • contribs) 01:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - When I started my search, I started suspecting he may never have been properly convicted and sentenced but this news article suggests he was sent to jail where he is now eligible for parole. I'm not having an easy time finding old news articles from that time period so it probably never received any news coverage and that is typical for some court cases. I found another news article here that clarifies the case, he was at first sent to a mental hospital after kidnapping, raping and stabbing a 20-year-old woman and was later sent to prison for a different murder but was never charged for the Jamie Rochelle Grisim murder. Before I found these news links, I found relevant links (although not news articles) here, here and here. However, I later found a news article here. At the end, unfortunately, Warren Leslie Forrest is not notable for any of the crimes. SwisterTwister talk 05:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's some weirdness going on with the news reporting for this guy. No one news story gives the entire time line of everything that went on. I have Murderpedia's account of everything, but considering that this probably wouldn't be a RS to draw from, I'm forced to piece things together from the news story and see how much of it parallels with that site. I am finding coverage, but bits and pieces here and there. I have no doubt that more coverage probably exists, but is off-internet. I'm finding some brief mentions of him in correlation with Bundy, as there's a potential Bundy victim that could possibly be one of Forrest's potential victims, but there's nothing 100% confirming this. So far the woman is believed to be a Bundy victim. I've added the mentions of this into the article, but again- I'm running off of several different reports that seem to say different things. From what I can gather, Forrest was initially brought to trial for the murder of one woman, acquitted due to shenanigans by his lawyer, then brought to trial again and convicted. I wish I could find one source that stated all of this in a linear fashion!Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see where one of the family members of one of the suspected victims has a page detailing various news reports, ([53]) but unless we can trace those back to the papers and verify that the coverage did happen and that the stories read as posted, they're unusable.Tokyogirl79 (talk)
- Ah... here are some timelines, if anyone savvier with crime articles wants to try their hand at typing it up. [54] [55]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yay someone taking the time to re-write this. However, I am still uneasy about this, regardless. Sources like this simply say he is suspected, which isn't worth much/right to put in an article. This seems like a good sum-up of all the others. It's got some coverage, but like I said at the beginning, he killed a non-notable person in a non-notable way. I don't see this fulfilling any of the criteria here and am especially worried regarding the point made in the note. The man is a suspected serial killer yes, but he isn't a convicted serial killer and it is both not a criteria for notability, nor is it morally justifiable (although that's neither here nor there), to have an article on someone's suspected criminal activities. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree on that. It's why I'm taking such a long time to debate this. I'm honestly leaning towards delete right now. There might be potential in making an insanely brief note in the Ted Bundy article about the one victim that detectives think might be Forrest's since we have a few Bundy books that mention him, but I'm kind of stretching for even that. What makes all of this so much more frustrating is that the guy himself is rather vague about everything. When asked a bunch of questions including one about the various murders, he just said "yes" and then didn't answer anything more. This will probably be something that would be better served on a private wiki or website rather than Wikipedia, I think. I have no issue if someone wants to userfy it, but if brought back it'll probably need a lot of work and more definitive sources.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Nonnotable convict. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Mozer[edit]
- Paul Mozer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is excluded from that guide by the following exception: "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the event is significant? John Hinckley, Jr. is an exception to WP:BLP1E because the event, the Reagan_assassination_attempt is significant, hence have an article about the event. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - originally created by a sockpuppet so should've been deleted a long, long time ago. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article is indeed excluded from WP:BLP1E per "the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented". also per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I cannot understand why this article would even be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.137.241 (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC) — 86.168.137.241 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Delete: per WP:BLP1E. Subject is not exempt. Comparing this accountant/trader to the man who shot President Reagan is borderline silliness. He was a minor player who worked for a company fined by the US Governement. Outside of this one event, a topic already covered elsewhere, he is a complete unknown. There were literally hundreds of people who got in trouble over that company's schemes. Do they all get Wikipedia articles? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Has run for >month, sources provided. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moonlee Records[edit]
- Moonlee Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article fails to meet our standards of notability for music or companies by providing reliable, independent sources of any kind. Steven Walling • talk 01:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, WikiPuppies bark dig 03:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Considering I'm not fluent with Slovenian or Croatian, I can't offer my vote but I searched at Google News and found results here and Google News archives also provided results. With hopes of achieving a clear consensus, I have notified WikiProject Slovenia and Croatia. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The label has received extensive reviews in major Slovene news outlets (e.g. [56], [57], [58]) and has been claimed to have set new milestones in Slovenia by the Slovene Press Agency (STA).[59] --Eleassar my talk 14:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to PunBB. MBisanz talk 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FluxBB[edit]
- FluxBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has been tagged as needing independent sources for a few years, and concerns about the same have been on the article's talk page since 2008. No sources have shown up, so I think that this article fails the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I've looked for sources, but I found only forum and blog postings. MrOllie (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Mason Doering (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to this page from the FluxBB page, which I arrived at because it's notable and I wanted more information on it. ¦ Reisio (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's used by many web sites (also some notable ones, e.g. on Arch Linux). Google finds 28 million pages if you search for "Powered by fluxbb". So I think we should keep the article. --Crashie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GHITS. Google hits are not a substitute for reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, in addition to it being obvious that the (enduring) consensus is to not delete this article, we can also come to the conclusion that WP:GNG is poorly defined (that is, if you care about guidelines [as opposed to policies (that aren't contradicted by other policies)] at all). ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GHITS. Google hits are not a substitute for reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are more board softwares on Wikipedia that are less popular than FluxBB, just like said: it's used by some great websites, like µTorrent, also there are a lot website out there from Linux distributions using FluxBB. Anyway, in my eyes FluxBB is noteable, so, keep this page. Also: why is the 'changelog' removed? 'Cause Wikipedia isn't ment for changelogs? It wasn't a changelog it was a release overview. You know what I call a changlog? This: PSP, 3DS, iTunes version history, and so on... --84.194.42.17 (talk) 10:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC) — 84.194.42.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep per WP:NSOFT. I've found and included an independent third-party source for the 2008 finalist status. -- Trevj (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not an independent source, it's a reprint of Sourceforge's press release. For reference, here is a copy that is not encumbered by a paywall. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to PunBB (which has its own notability issues...). I was originally inclined to suggest keeping, as I'm pretty sure PunBB was one of the more prominent free bulletin board packages out there, and FluxBB is basically its direct successor, making it likely to be somewhat notable, but it does seem like there simply aren't that many independent sources. In light of this, merging it into PunBB for now may be a good course of action. wctaiwan (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Škoda 1203. MBisanz talk 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ocelot Auto[edit]
- Ocelot Auto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable auto manufacturer; no hits for "Ocelot Auto" on Google Books, Google News, or Google News archives, except this, obviously a false positive. CtP (t • c) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We need someone who reads Czech.When I searched for sources in Czech, I found things that convinced me that there was an auto manufacturor called Ocelot. But I don't read Czech, so I have no idea whether it is an auto company that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria or not. If there's someone who has the skills needed to write an article about this company, with reliable sources even if they aren't in English, I'd vote Go for it. But with the absence of English-language sources, if there isn't a person taking on the job of writing an article about this company, I'd have to say Delete the existing article until such time as someone writes an article that meets Wikipedia's basic standards. I think that's the most nuanced !vote I've ever made on an AfD. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't speak Czech, but everything I can see points to it simply being a company who took on the rights to the Skoda 1203/TAZ 1500 vans. Even on the Czech Google, however, one of the top links is a Grand Theft Auto wiki page for the Ocelot on that game, another the Ocelot/Foxhound US army vehicle, and a Minecraft creature! [60] and [61] - these are almost certainly unreliable sources, but they're what I've used to try and get my head around who Ocelot Auto actually are. (note the first one is actually a Slovak link, so that's yet another translator needed!) Trnavské automobilové závody links to Ocelot Auto, and one of the sources I found is also present in that article, so perhaps some kind of merge may be in order? [62] is the company's website. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It seems this book and this book discuss the vehicle. More sources might exist, although many of them might be unavailable online. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 20:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No hits for Ocelot Auto at iDNES, Lidové noviny or Deník. Cloudz679 05:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The ref picked up by Toshio above discusses a dune buggy designed by "Roy Dickey" in 1967 - the chances of any of this happening in Czechoslovakia seem minimal, it's likely another vehicle of the same name. See [63] - it seems the company took over production of the Škoda 1203 and the TAZ 1500 and now only makes spare parts. Not sure if this company is notable. - filelakeshoe 12:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't been shown to meet the general notability guideline, due to an absence of reliable sources, despite thorough checking by multiple editors in multiple languages. Cloudz679 09:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article doesn't meet the notability criteria. No one who is currently looking at it seems to have the necessary sources to write a better article. So, with no prejudice against recreation at a later time by someone who has a good collection of books about Czech automotive history, I don't think we need to hold onto this article in hopes that maybe it will improve. I've stricken my less decisive vote above. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the above comments, which I agree with, my preference would be to redirect to Škoda 1203 to preserve the page history. I edited that article to specify that the "small company located near Vrchlabí" is Ocelot Auto. - filelakeshoe 13:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - found links and references and added same.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You added two promotional websites - not sure they meet the verifiability criteria. Cloudz679 16:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Klypso (Producer)[edit]
- Klypso (Producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could not find more info on this person, and his only claim here is the too short song producing credit, one song on "no trespassing". I dont think this is enough for an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are two songs claimed, in fact. I'm afraid you have to be almost a superproducer before you generate the coverage needed to guarantee a wikipedia article, so this is WP:TOOSOON. 86.44.24.94 (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It seems his work is recent so it's probably too soon and Google News found nothing relevant despite adding "record producer" so I performed my own search but found nothing useful, this blog, brief mentions here and here and this interview. Emphasising how he is obviously a newcomer, his official website (IAmKlypso.com) hasn't been created yet despite the link provided. Additionally, it appears he has worked with well-known rappers such as Dr. Dre but there isn't any in-depth coverage about this. But then again, production crew members are rarely given any significant attention especially an obscure genre like hip hop. He is not notable yet. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Sanders (journalist)[edit]
- Steve Sanders (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. The article has had zero third-party sources that establish any notability for over two years, and searching online has yielded none either. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The Chicago Tribune source does not appear to be an independent source, since the piece's author is listed as "WGN News", and the article's copyright notice is listed as "Copyright © 2012, WGN-TV, Chicago". - SudoGhost 05:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the content can be sourced, it probably passes WP:N. Also the Trib source contains a lot of personal biography content that should be added to the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if sources can be found, I don't think this meets the threshold notability guidelines for people. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there are sources, it passes by WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Xplace[edit]
- Xplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:CORP, WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Mediran talk|contribs 11:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 02:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This company doesn't meet the notability guidelines. The article is also rather promotional in tone. Rotten regard (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wholly promotional piece for company that fails WP:CORP. The sources given are self-generated or regurgitated news releases. §FreeRangeFrog 00:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing verifiable as now stands. Refs of statements are either from the subject of article (therefore wholly unreliable or Origional Research); or are in Hebrew (unreadable to most). GenQuest "Talk to Me" 22:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Williams Van Proyen Records[edit]
- Mark Williams Van Proyen Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable record label; fails WP:GNG. Only stuff I can find online are just mirrors of this article. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 12:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources for this label; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Gongshow Talk 17:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing to support the information or establish notability aside from claims from their alleged clients and Google News and Books found nothing relevant. Benefit of the doubt, this may be a very small record label and it seems there isn't an existing official website or anything related (social media profiles, etc.). SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BQ Girls[edit]
- BQ Girls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reads like a promo. iTunes indicates an indie label and no apparent charting for their one single, so fails WP:MUSIC. All sources used were written prior to any release, and the tours referenced haven't happened yet (WP:CRYSTAL). Notability also seems to be predicated on the members' prior Miss Universe participation (and perhaps Donald Trump as well), and thus meets WP:NOTINHERITED. MSJapan (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - two of the singers individually are notable (hence why they have articles already), but the other two aren't, and as of yet, the group containing all 4 isn't either. A mention of the group in both Wendy Fitzwilliam and Chelsea Cooley is all that is required of yet. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - has released music single to Itune which has recieved attention from newspapers. pass WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Having singles on iTunes does not make someone notable. The fourth link used as a reference just goes to a generic page on Trinidad Express, who to me seem like a tabloid paper and are therefore not reliable - so that strikes out reference 1 as well. Reference 2 is a very, very low quality and short reference on a website that is very blatantly a tabloid style. So that's no valid references then. I found another article on Jamaica Observer, but once more that does nothing other than give a very passing mention to their music, whilst being very much a tabloid style. The group blatantly fails WP:MUSIC at present, and I'm also fairly sure they fail WP:GNG - two members are notable on their own; but that does not make the group notable yet as a whole. The fact that searching for "BQ Girls" pulls up links to an article about a B&Q worker and a Venezuela beauty school speaks volumes on the first page, I feel. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still passes WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC for now per coverage recieved for Itunes releases. We can twist the arguments around a million times I guess but I stand firm in my believes on this articles notability. Just because sources comes from a Trinidian newspaper doesnt make it less notable then lets say an American or English newspaper source.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete meets none of the criteria of WP:BAND. dubious notability of iTunes single. Fails WP:GNG as well. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep per consensus. (non-admin closure) Faustus37 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzzball (sport)[edit]
- Fuzzball (sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Totally unreferenced, external link doesn't work. No indication this has any notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick google search turns up multiple sources, which I have added to the article. ZX95 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 02:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, even with the addition of the two sources, I still don't think it passes WP:GNG or WP:NSPORTS. Go Phightins! 19:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep per WP:ILIKEIT :) Thinly sourced, little notability. My opinion could have gone either way, but I remember watching the boys play streetball. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - its existence is amply documented and appears to be more than just a one-neighborhood phenomenon. Kansan (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd go further than that - the sources indicate there are semiprofessional leagues, and it's documented on its own in multiple sources discussing games of the stickball family. There are plenty of non-notable local stickball games, but this isn't one of them. ∴ ZX95 [discuss] 19:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The first Google news archive search result shows a long detailed magazine article about the game. [64] Remember, search WP:BEFORE you nominate something for deletion, otherwise you are just wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 01:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No-Consensus. Non-Administrative closure. Relisted multiple times without any substantial response to the keep reasoning. No prejudice to speedy re-nomination pending a more reasoned nomination rationalle Hasteur (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sagi Haviv[edit]
- Sagi Haviv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional piece on a graphic designer. Current referencing is listings, passing mentions, him talking about himself, about companys he has worked for. No significant independent coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In Hebrew, there are at least two references that look to me like "significant independent coverage": [65] from Akhbar Ha'ir and [66] from Haaretz. Tomer T (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In a quick Google search, there are a few recent references that seem to indicate that established media institutions such as Bloomberg BusinessWeek, PBS and the Huffington Post treat Haviv as a "person of cultural significance" and an expert on design and branding: [67] from Bloomberg Businessweek, [68] from PBS and [69] from Huffington Post. I have added a few references to the article. DesignNerd74 (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I also found that Haviv authored a book that came out on Print publishers last year called Identify [70]. And Haviv's book was reviewed in the LA Times [71]. Authoring a book with a proper publisher and being reviewed in a major national newspaper is independent confirmation that this is a valid entry. I have added a few references to the article. User:Leighcn 1:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- From sources independent of the subject, it looks like he has been judging design competitions nationally for Print magazine [72] and Virginia Tech University [73] and internationally in India [74]. And I found two lectures on design he gave at Princeton University [75] and at the Design Thinkers conference in Toronto [76]. User:DesignNerd 4:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DesignNerd74 (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, discussion on whether, where and how to merge the sourced information should occur on the article's talk page. - filelakeshoe 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sociological theory of diffusion[edit]
- Sociological theory of diffusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This reads like an essay, and the idea is just non-notable. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - the term exists, but this seems like a synthesis written as an essay. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 00:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge We have similar articles at diffusion of innovation and lateral diffusion. The topic is evidently notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article cites a number of books and an Annual Review of Sociology article. The topic is notable with multiple reliable sources listed in the references. The article could use some work on developing inline citations and reducing the essay-like parts, but these are surmountable problems and AfD is not for cleanup WP:NOTCLEANUP. As diffusion of innovation and lateral diffusion are subtopics within the general topic of Sociological theory of diffusion, it makes sense to reference these subtopics within the article. Mark viking (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/israel-social-media-war-run-26-old-201813409.html
- ^ Sarpe, V. A.; Kulkarni, S. S. J. Org. Chem. 2011, 76, 6866-6870.http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jo200979n
- ^ http://pittsburgh.broadwayworld.com/article/12-Peers-Theater-Announces-THE-CULTIVATING-CULTURE-SERIES-98-22-and-1013-27-20121012