Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cape Canaveral, Florida DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of Cape Canaveral[edit]
- Timeline of Cape Canaveral (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)
Material has been merged to appropriate place articles. Student7 (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cape Canaveral, Florida. I would do it myself, but I already speedy-closed the first one so I'll give it some rest. Ansh666 23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of TV Networks airing The Fairly OddParents[edit]
- List of TV Networks airing The Fairly OddParents (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)
Indiscriminate list of international broadcasts of one show, inconsistent with MOS:TV#Broadcast and WP:NOTTVGUIDE Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a Nickelodeon show and entire article sounds WP:MADEUP. It would never be seen on any Disney network based on corporate rivalry alone, and zero sources to be found. Also suspicious in that no articles link to it, even involved with FoP articles. Nate • (chatter) 13:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unnecessarily forked article with questionable truthfulness. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRAS 12194-6007[edit]
- IRAS 12194-6007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I couldn't find much about it beyond the EY Crucis identifier. Fails WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 00:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atlanta Business Magazine[edit]
- Atlanta Business Magazine (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 only found online directories and the article has no references. This fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find any reliable sources about this topic. I also can't find anything about the Atlanta International Business Association. Ironically, in some other article, this magazine might feasibly used as a reliable source. romnempire (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no real irony in this situation, Romnempire. Many publications are reliable, but not notable. Consider the journals of state and provincial historical societies. They are reliable in most situations, but reliable sources are unlikely to write about them. On the other hand, some publications can be notable but not reliable. Weekly World News is my favorite, but many British tabloids qualify as well. On a darker note, consider Der Sturmer. Notability and reliability are entirely different concepts, although they often overlap. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am surprised that it is not notable, but Cullen is right. Bearian (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brocket 99. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Hitchner[edit]
- Tim Hitchner (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 biography of a deceased Canadian broadcaster lacks reliable sourcing and a significant claim to notability. Unreliable sources include reviews on Amazon written by subject, dead links to insignificant contributions/mentions in community newspaper, a private-access wordpress fansite for an underground audiotape offensive to some due to its racist humor. Does not pass notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:PERP (for his dangerous-driving-causing death conviction). Sole claim to fame for contributing to the underground tape is already more than adequately recognized in the Brocket 99 article which has been repeatedly abused by fans and the tape’s owner. The creator of the article deleted a prod shortly after it was added and has only ever contributed to the bio and the Brocket 99 article Canuckle (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Canuckle (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bulk of this article is found in Brocket 99. As mentioned above, the coverage of his notability is sufficient in the Brocket 99 article. —Kmsiever (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poorly sourced article about a person of minimal (at best) independent notability; mentioning his name in Brocket 99 is all we really need. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Brocket 99. Not sufficiently notable for a standalone article, but plausible enough a search term. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Demba Diakhaté[edit]
- Demba Diakhaté (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that the article Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Player has not played in fully professional league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Concur with Sir Sputnik's assessment. Fails WP:FOOTY. Finnegas (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Senegal-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - concur with above I-League 2 is not a FPL to my knowledge. Fenix down (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No prejudice against any editor performing a redirect. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adventure Time (season 6)[edit]
- Adventure Time (season 6) (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 that I think this is a problem with WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it is way WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this show's sixth season exist. I know the sources cited in this article as of this timeare reliable, but this looks too short right now for the season to have its own page. Unless more info from reliable sources can be found to make it long enough for the article to be here, a written work about it on this encyclopedia would be just none other than unnecessary. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 19:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I mean, I know that I created this, but the show is extremely notable and it has been renewed for a sixth season. In fact, according to the sources in the article, it's being boarded currently, and will probably air soon. I can't find anything in WP:TOOSOON that talks about a TV season being "too soon", especially considering what a heavy hitter (when it comes to ratings) Adventure Time is.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because this article is about a season of a well-known TV series, and that the show has had its previous season ratings very high, does not mean the season itself is notable enough for Wikipedia. There needs to be a lot more coverage from secondary sources about the sixth season cited and included here to merit its own article. Not that you need to do this, but getting a reliable source of when the season is going to start would also be nice. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, but I just feel that a deletion nomination based on WP:TOOSOON isn't exactly appropriate in this situation. For instance, this isn't an article about Adventure Time (season 7) because, while the show very well might go to that season, there is no sources that back this up. However, this article has sources (both from the network and the storyboarders themselves), so it does have sources to back it up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know there are sources here, but its not enough. I know it may not be too soon, but there still needs to be cited much more coverage in articles from webzines and/or newspapers to establish notability, and if that can't happen, there would be no reason for an article like this to be here. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 00:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I get that, but I just feel that a deletion nomination based on WP:TOOSOON isn't exactly appropriate in this situation. For instance, this isn't an article about Adventure Time (season 7) because, while the show very well might go to that season, there is no sources that back this up. However, this article has sources (both from the network and the storyboarders themselves), so it does have sources to back it up.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because this article is about a season of a well-known TV series, and that the show has had its previous season ratings very high, does not mean the season itself is notable enough for Wikipedia. There needs to be a lot more coverage from secondary sources about the sixth season cited and included here to merit its own article. Not that you need to do this, but getting a reliable source of when the season is going to start would also be nice. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Adventure Time episodes#Season 6 .28TBA.29. Adventure Time's notability is not being questioned. The problem with this season's article is that, barring a generic "series recap" paragraph, there's only two sentences, which proves hardly any sources exist as of this writing. The article is going to be razor-thin for a while, as production has hardly commenced. It is just far too soon as of now. A redirect is helpful, as it ensures that page history isn't lost and the page can easily be re-created when more info is released. Plus, Adventure Time fans can still get the small info on the season, instead of getting nothing at all. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and generally object to these sorts of pointless AFDs which do absolutely nothing to help the encyclopaedia. I see absolutely no benefit to deleting it and replacing with a redirect doesn't need an AFD. -Halo (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suspecting this is some sort of WP:EVERYTHING argument. Just because Wikipedia contains "All Branches of Knowledge", that does not mean every single topic that only 2 reliable sources can be found about it (or at least what can be included here). I see absolutely no benefit on making such a retarded complaint like this. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is an argument pointing out the self-evident pointlessness of AFDing an article that will be uncontroversially recreated in a few weeks and months with the same name and the same content, especially when you could have quietly redirected it instead. It's an inane exercise in bureaucracy that doesn't benefit anybody or improve the encyclopaedia. -Halo (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fine. Maybe starting a deletion discussion was unnecessary, and I can get that. However, because this discussion is pointless should not be a reason for keeping. How about suggesting a Redirect next time if you see another deletion discussion like this, dumbass. Thank you for your time. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because I'm not suggesting a redirect, I'm suggesting that could have been an alternate course of action. I think it should be kept via WP:NOTBURO. There is no good argument for deleting any article that will obviously be recreated in short order with the same content, and since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there shouldn't be any practical difference between page sections and individual pages anyway. The obsession with deletion on the site is poisonous. -Halo (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fine. Maybe starting a deletion discussion was unnecessary, and I can get that. However, because this discussion is pointless should not be a reason for keeping. How about suggesting a Redirect next time if you see another deletion discussion like this, dumbass. Thank you for your time. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 22:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is an argument pointing out the self-evident pointlessness of AFDing an article that will be uncontroversially recreated in a few weeks and months with the same name and the same content, especially when you could have quietly redirected it instead. It's an inane exercise in bureaucracy that doesn't benefit anybody or improve the encyclopaedia. -Halo (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm suspecting this is some sort of WP:EVERYTHING argument. Just because Wikipedia contains "All Branches of Knowledge", that does not mean every single topic that only 2 reliable sources can be found about it (or at least what can be included here). I see absolutely no benefit on making such a retarded complaint like this. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please watch the WP:MAJORITY arguments, or otherwise don't vote or comment at all. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 00:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is. We don't delete any upcoming or future seasons. JJ98 (Talk) 02:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...We don't keep if there are only primary press release about the season. Please, people, I know these are WP:MAJORITY arguments. I wish you guys still understood WP:GNG. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 14:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was '. Close and restart due to canvassing Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Emporis[edit]
- Emporis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of notability, unable to find sufficient RS (Gnews, google) to establish. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found some reliable sources about Emporis, Emporis is the database of skyscrapers worldwide, and is considered as one of the most reliable source for information of Skyscrapers, you can find a bundle of emporis citations in almost all the articles of Skyscrapers in Wikipedia, Emporis also gives annual skyscraper awards to best skyscrapers in the world. You can find some f the references Here: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5].Nabil rais2008 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Reliable sources found, you can easily find them by simple Google.الله أكبرMohammad Adil 09:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Both sides of the debate here have valid points; at this time, overall consensus is for the article to be retained. In this instance arguments to retain the article are outweighing to those to delete it in relation to WP:NJOURNALS. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EPlasty[edit]
- EPlasty (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)
Procedural nomination Randykitty (talk · contribs) originally PRODed this with the rationale
- Non-notable journal. Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. Apparently only indexed in PubMed Central, which is not a selective database in the sense of WP:NJournals. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but it seems like the question of notability warrants more than a PROD. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure whether a formal !vote of me is still needed, but just in case: Delete given the above PROD reason. And forgive me, but I'm not really sure why a PROD couldn't do the job... --Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The main cause of my unease is that this seems, at least on its face value, as a legit journal, which seems to be relatively well-cited (e.g. [6] [7], to pick some article randomly) that's been around for a while (~13 years). I would find it very surprising that it's only indexed in PMC, or that it really does fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it is in none of the Thomson Reuters databases (see Journal Master List), nor is it included in MEDLINE (see NML catalog). It is in PubMedCentral (see here), but that includes almost any OA journal that has some relevance to medicine and therefore does not qualify as a "selective" database in the sense of WP:NJournals. The journal's own website boasts about inclusion in PubMedCentral (and, hence, also PubMed), so I would assume that if they are included in any other database that I may have missed, that they would mention that. By the way, Google Scholar(searching for "Eplasty") indicates that only a handful of articles in this journal have ever been cited, but the vast majority was not cited even once. --Randykitty (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What about Ulrich's? Also a GScholar search seems to indicate articles relatively well cited. First page of results shows several in the 30+ cites. 10th page of results has 50% of articles cited, around 4-5 times when they are. I'm just not getting why it (apparently) doesn't have any more coverage, or lacks an IF. I mean I'm no surgeon, but I fail to see any of the red flags for non-notable / unreliable journals. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ulrich's strives for completeness and is therefore not very selective either. It can be used as a source for information on a journal, but does not convey notability. Looking through the GS results, it still looks to me like the great majority of articles don't get cited or only very little (and surgery is high-citation density field). Nobody is saying that this is one of the predatory OA journals cropping up all over the place, but I don't see any evidence of real notability either. --Randykitty (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to meet WP:NJournals. It is frequently cited by other reliable sources. On Google Books, I found 225 hits for "EPlasty" [8], 48 hits for "Journal of Burns and Wounds" [9], and 58 hits for "J Burns Wounds" when removing "Chin J Burns Wounds Surface Ulcers" [10]. Furthermore, around 12 pages link to this one (WP:MANYLINKS) (full disclosure: I have added links). --Edcolins (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment With all due respect, but I don't find those citation figures very impressive at all. If a single scientist had racked up that amount of citations during a 10 or 11 year career, we would not find him notable based on his citation record alone (see WP:PROF), let alone a whole journal publishing much more than any single scientist ever could. A low-end journal in this field, publishing the number of articles this journal does, should have that amount of citations per year, let alone over its whole existence... --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. The criterion "2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources" in WP:NJournals is rather difficult to apply. Indeed, how frequently should a journal be cited? The essay does not really help. When I searched for occurrences of "ePlasty", "Journal of Burns and Wounds", etc. within Wikipedia, I found around ten occurrences, which is not too bad in my opinion. I have checked who inserted these references and I could not see any "promotional" pattern. This means that random contributors seem to have added these ten occurrences or so. To me, this is a clear sign that this journal is, to a certain extent, notable. Having an article seems therefore justified, and will help Wikipedia readers to quickly find information about the journal, without having to rely on external sources. --Edcolins (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem for NJournals is that no fixed numbers can be given, as much depends on the particular field. Mathematics, for example, is a low citation density field and citation counts that are impressive in that field would be quite unimpressive in a high citation density field like surgery (note that if EPlasty were a mathematics journal, I still don't think the citation counts would meet NJournals' criteria...)
- Anyway, I have to admit that I strongly disagree with the essay that you mention (WP:MANYLINKS). I understand the reasoning behind it, but WP itself cannot be a measure of whether something is notable or not. If we would accept this as a keep argument, the floodgates would be open for every predatory OA journal out there (even though I absolutely agree that this moniker doesn't apply to EPlasty). The only thing a predatory publisher would have to do is create a dozen socks that each do some edits and then add references to different articles (so that people don't suspect them of being socks) and now suddenly their journal is notable. I'm sorry, I don't buy that (I'm not saying that that is what happened here, of course). I can live with the fact that a source is perhaps reliable, but at the same time not notable enough for an independent article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, the number of occurrences of "ePlasty" within Wikipedia shows that some readers are likely to search for information about the journal (considering that, from these occurrences, I was not able to detect an attempt to promote the journal, i.e. to construct a notability that wouldn't exist)... This in turn means that the journal is worthy of inclusion. --Edcolins (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, using WP to establish notability is the snake biting its own tail. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about this issue and see what the closing admin thinks of this argument. --Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To me, the number of occurrences of "ePlasty" within Wikipedia shows that some readers are likely to search for information about the journal (considering that, from these occurrences, I was not able to detect an attempt to promote the journal, i.e. to construct a notability that wouldn't exist)... This in turn means that the journal is worthy of inclusion. --Edcolins (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you mean. The criterion "2. The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources" in WP:NJournals is rather difficult to apply. Indeed, how frequently should a journal be cited? The essay does not really help. When I searched for occurrences of "ePlasty", "Journal of Burns and Wounds", etc. within Wikipedia, I found around ten occurrences, which is not too bad in my opinion. I have checked who inserted these references and I could not see any "promotional" pattern. This means that random contributors seem to have added these ten occurrences or so. To me, this is a clear sign that this journal is, to a certain extent, notable. Having an article seems therefore justified, and will help Wikipedia readers to quickly find information about the journal, without having to rely on external sources. --Edcolins (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As a quick experiment, I searched for review articles on Pubmed. Scrolling to the bottom of the first page of 20 results took me back to 2010 Jan 27. That article has been cited five times, in three different journals on PMC alone in the intervening 42 months. Its author has earlier and later papers published in very notable journals, e.g. Am Fam Physician and Lancet. I don't really smell a problem here, other than the possibility that Thomson may have a distaste for open journals.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no sign that Thomson has "a distaste for open journals": many OA journals are covered by them (all PLOS journals, almost all BMC journals that have existed for more than 2 years, and so on). And I'm not contesting that article in the journal do get cited. It's just that the citation rates overall are incredibly low (and 5 cites really isn't all that much). That an author has also published in other, notable journals, is a rather twisted reasoning running foul of WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, note that Scopus, although much less selective than Thomson, doesn't list this either. As for "smelling a problem", the only problem I smell here (and really the only one that we need to concern ourselves with) is a total lack of any sign of notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.
Although the citation rates on Google Scholar do cause me to reconsider, I am thinking these citation rates do not tell the whole story. For example, since it does not appear to be indexed in any selective databases, yet some articles do have citations, there could be something going on. To me this lack of indexing and having citation rates is cause for concern.
- Also, I plugged in "surgery" as a search term on the TR Master Journal List [11]. There are 115 surgery journals on this list. How many citations do these journals (or some of these journals) have?
- Well, first take a look at American Journal Of Surgery [12]. Citation rates of the first nine articles: 1,500; 869; 99; 148; 92; 239; 549; 249; and 167. Here is "Annals of Surgery" [13] and the first five listings: 1904, 680, 394, 449, and 705.
- However, "Aesthetic Surgery Journal" does not appear to be as highly cited [14]. Still, maybe the point is these are indexed in selective databases, and in my opinion, they are much more trustworthy publications. Furthermore, these TR indexed journals easily fufill notability requirements. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Anals of Surgery"? Remind me to never ever subscribe to that particular journal. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When a plausible case can be made for notability of a non-BLP, as above, the disagreement should be resolved by retention of the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This journal is borderline, and I think that for journals that are apt to be cited in WP we should keep borderline cases, because people trying to judge something about the reliability of information here need to know something about the sources used for articles. Additionally, I'm judging by a criterion which I used and taught through all my career, which is that many of the articles are from first-rate places, such as Stanford and Harvard , as the current affiliation of the principal authors. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with the arguments put forward in the last 2 !votes. The !vote by DavidLeighEllis has no basis whatsoever in any policy or guideline. As for the remarks by DGG, I respectfully disagree. The journal is not boderline. It is not indexed in any selective database. There is not a single reliable source. As for the argument (also put forward by others above), that being cited in WP shows notability, I couldn't disagree stronger. WP is not and cannot be an indication of notability (if only it's not a WP:RS...) Accepting this argument would create a very dangerous precedent. And whether or not the authors who published in this journal are from notable institutions or are notable themselves is immaterial, as notability is not inherited. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please note I struck my comment about Google Scholar citation rates giving me pause. Sorry to say but I am not impressed with the citation rates when compared to other journals which have been deemed notable on Wikipedia. What I mean is, the citation rates appear to be over 20 for the first nine articles and only two or three more with comparable citation rates.
- Conversely, returning to the citation rates of the notable journals I pointed out above, it can be seen that these have citation rates that are consistently higher - even the "Aesthetic Surgery Journal" here. In other words EPlasty does not have a significant impact in its field as per NJournals. Especially when compared to surgery journals that are not plastic surgery journals here. (I believe EPlasty publishes both surgery related and plastic surgery related).
- Therefore, please note the Google Scholar citation rates of the journals listed above. I am adding the links here for convenience: "American Journal of Surgery" [15], "Annals of Surgery" [16], and the surgery journals on the TR Master List [17].
- Furthermore, no reliable third party sources can be found that discuss this journal as a topic, per WP:N. Hence, it does not have independent significant coverage. The books on Google Books do not appear to discuss this journal as a topic, so these cannot be deemed as reliable sources. Also, it is not known how reliable these books are as reputable medical publications.
- Since, this journal is not indexed in any selective database and it does not have an impact factor (per WP:NJournals), it must then satisfy notability criteria per WP:N.
Likewise,Wikipedia has developed standards that are embedded in the notability concept.ItHence, this journal is supposed to have significant coverage in the press, media, or selective databases as a requirement for the following reasons:
- Reliable sources ensure "we are not posting" random or indiscriminate collections of information.
- Independent sources ensure a neutral point of view, rather than a promotional view often presented on a website with vested interest. Hence, Wikipedia does not exist to promote entities or organizations. We are not a primary source.
- Which leads me to also say, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and cannot be considered a reliable source. Therefore, it cannot be considered an indication of notability. Allowing this would say to me that Wikipedia is starting to lack standards for inclusion. In fact, this would effectively undermine standards if the bar for inclusion were being on Wikipedia. Editors are not allowed to cite other Wikipedia articles to help build new articles. That is almost a golden rule for any editor that edits or creates articles.
- Finally, I agree that in this case, wp:not inherited applies no matter the notability of the institutions from which some authors hail. And, I also agree that User talk:DavidLeighEllis did not actually make a statement based on policies or guidelines,
or evenincluding notability. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'd say WP:NJOURNALS is allowing it to be kept here, although it is close to the borderline. I also recommend an expansion of the article to show there is enough notable material. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 10:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind explaining how you think this meets NJournals? Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drishti (techfest)[edit]
- Drishti (techfest) (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, fails WP:EVENT. Page was previously deleted under A7, but was recreated and this incarnation was declined for speedy. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the article asserts importance and/or significance enough to indicate ineligibility for speedy deletion under A7, at this point, it meets the G11 criteria for blatant promotional content. I attempted to clean up the article and rewrite it to remove the promotional content, but it has been reverted twice with the editor refusing to communicate. In its current version, I would recommend deletion. Best regards, Cindy(talk) 14:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Not notable, fails WP:EVENT.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 20:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zetsumetsu Kigu Shōjo Amazing Twins. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zenryoku Gu Shōjo!! Action!![edit]
- Zenryoku Gu Shōjo!! Action!! (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)
Rationale: WP:CRYSTAL for an unknown series - it isn't even clear if it is a TV series, video game, or what it even is, or if this is even the title. (Posted on behalf of IP 192.251.134.5) AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 15:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, really too soon for a claim of notability. Cavarrone 15:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Keep for now as the main announcement about the series (the article states it's a TV series) will happen in about 6.5 days. That's hardly crystal-balling something in the far off future. It is likely the article will be recreated very shortly after this ends, so it's pointless to delete it given the news coverage already. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question is itself purely based on speculation from a webpage that contains no clear information. As near as I can tell they themselves are guessing this is a TV series. How do we know it isn't an OVA series? A movie? A web series? A video game? In short, there's really nothing to base the article on, not even a clear title. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's true, but the announcement is clearly coming in a very short time. I think this deletion discussion is a bit hasty given that significant information will be released right about the time this AfD is closing. Sometimes it's best to wait a short bit before pushing through an AfD without considering that. This AfD is likely just a waste of time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone would object to adding a day at the tail end to account for that announcement, and I would make such a recommendation to the closing admin. No need for a full relist, just wait a day. That said, An announcement that may or may not happen and may or may not render the subject notable is not itself a reason to keep - that's why we have WP:CRYSTAL in the first place. And turn it around, an article that says "X is an anime series that will be announced on 8 August 2013..." isn't a great way to show that the series is already notable. Just as the AFD may have been premature, the article may have been as well. But we'll see. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The series has been revealed to be an OVA called Zetsumetsu Kigu Shōjo Amazing Twins (confirmation here). Once this discussion is finished or relisted, the article should be moved to Zetsumetsu Kigu Shōjo Amazing Twins. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The article shouldn't be moved anywhere unless it can be shown by reference to third party sources to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually, in anime and manga related articles, ANN coverage (so far, the series has already been covered by ANN twice) is sufficient to establith notability
- Ok, now thanks to Narutolovehinata5 we have two one-sentence-stubs about the same topic of questionable notability, Zetsumetsu Kigu Shōjo Amazing Twins and Zenryoku Gu Shōjo!! Action!!. What a mess... Cavarrone 17:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that. At the time I created the original article it was thought that ZGSA was the going to be the anime's name, but it was later clarified that it was only a tag line. Someone could have simply waited for this AfD to close before moving it to the correct title though, but it appears another editor created an article at the proper title. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The article shouldn't be moved anywhere unless it can be shown by reference to third party sources to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mary A. Mann[edit]
- Mary A. Mann (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 individual. All of these books are print-on-demand, and while the article looks like it has a decent amount of references, there are only two that aren't inadmissible (press releases, blog posts, mere attestation of existence/trivial passing mention) and they are super local and super short. [18] [19] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I checked three references that appeared to be from the most Reliable Sources; they barely mentioned her, and they did not confirm or even mention the facts they were cited as supporting. For example, the claim that she produced one of her plays at the Globe Playhouse in Los Angeles was cited to three references, but none of them mentioned that play or the Globe Playhouse. (I deleted that claim.) Based on that, not only is notability lacking, but IMO much of the article is of doubtful verification. --MelanieN (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thinly-sourced BLPs that hide this deficiency in a plethora of citations are extremely problematic. This should be sent to /dev/null. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete on top of issues related above, it was created by a blocked user. Seyasirt (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Widensity Index[edit]
- Widensity Index (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 index (contested prod). Not a single hit on Google Scholar [20] or Google Books. Considering the explanations given on the talk page by the creator, WP:TOOSOON applies. Namely, it's too soon for the index to have an article. It should first become notable. Edcolins (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The research has yet to be published based on the article talk page and the complete lack of results in a Google Scholar search. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN neologism. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete neologism that hasn't caught on. Seyasirt (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Milchen[edit]
- Jeff Milchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only real claim-to-fame is cofounding a business advocacy group. No third party reliable sources whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are quite a few references quoting him (I have added some to the article), and a few articles that he wrote. However, I couldn't find any evidence that the person himself has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", thus failing WP:BIO. --Edcolins (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ninja (build system)[edit]
- Ninja (build 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)
Deleted PROD. Insufficient coverage from secondary sources to justify notability. None of the sources meets WP:RS and even those sources do not establish notability. Andrew327 21:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ninja is an open source project and as such its project page is a reliable source according to our rules. CMake, one of the big build automation tools, announces its support for Ninja in the other source. And CMake is unquestionable kind of an "established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". Besides that, there are at least Debian packages in testing and Chromium uses it as its build system for Linux. So it is not someone's hobby project. The one published source I found is from The H which cites mainly the blog post. I agree that we have to extend the article. Give me some weeks and I'll keep doing this. --Grünich (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Register had an article about Ninja as well. --Grünich (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The project page is a github account, anybody can get a github account. That does not constitute a reliable source and considering it's github, that would only really fuel an argument for this being a hobby project. My sudoku solver's on github, but I don't think that constitutes creating an Wikipedia article for it. However, The Register article you found is a reliable third-party source. If you can find more like that and include them in the article, you may be able to save it. But, I don't think you're entitled to weeks in order to save it and should act quickly to have the article at least meet minimum notability guidelines. --NINTENDUDE64 21:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The Register had an article about Ninja as well. --Grünich (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems to be used only for one significant project (the Linux port of Chrome). Might be possible to merge it to Google Chrome but I'm not sure if that's necessary. Very little coverage in reliable sources (the project's own web page is useless for proving notability). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a non-notable tool, and in my opinion it doesn't appear to really even warrant adding it to the Development section of Google Chrome. The tool website is the developer's github account. One of the sources is the developer's own blog talking about the tool, and the H-online source is pretty much a copy/paste job from the blog. So there's a lack of third-party coverage. The only actual independent third-party source here is the CMake website and it's mentioned while describing CMake functionality; that doesn't establish notability. --NINTENDUDE64 21:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Peterson[edit]
- Dennis Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per my previous AfD which closed as no consensus, no sources cover this guy. He's not notable. Beerest355 Talk 23:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2013 (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 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BAND, Peterson meets none of the criteria. He does not meet 6 - all of the 'Kats' bands seem to be the same bit, and that band _is_ barely notable, but per the article he has not been a member of any other notable bands. romnempire (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Member of numerous groups all of which redirect to George Moore, Fails WP:BAND. Finnegas (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Blank Pages[edit]
- Blank Pages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure about this one. Most of the references are primary sources, and there aren't particularly strong claims to notability from those. I searched around for sources but didn't come up with much. Am I missing something? BDD (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 26 July 2013 (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 (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I'm finding next to nothing; even what is said about the company's history is inferred, and some claims aren't even in the primary sources given. Seyasirt (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. postdlf (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Higher Institute of Engineering[edit]
- Higher Institute of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is mostly a procedural nomination. The article was tagged as an A7, which I had to decline because it doesn't apply to educational institutions. The creator kept removing the speedy delete tag before I removed it. The article was horribly written (still is but not quite as ugly). I prodded it for notability and sourcing. Naturally, the creator removed the prod. From what I can tell (the website is in Arabic), the institute is part of a broader umbrella of educational institutions. Whether the larger organization is notable, I don't know, but I doubt that each smaller one is (see WP:BRANCH). Bbb23 (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors might want to look at 6th of October City#Education facilities.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - educational institutes that grant their own degrees have long been considered notable and this plainly does. If this was in an Anglophone country it would be easy to source and we would not consider deleting it. I will clean it up in due course but am unlikely to get far with sourcing because I have no Arabic. We must avoid systemic bias and allow ample time for sources in Arabic to be researched and added. Unsourced likely non-notable subjects we delete but when a subject, as here, is probably notable, the way forward is to tag for sourcing and expansion not deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 19:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you use Google Chrome, it can translate pages on the fly, which is useful for sourcing. The Arabic search term for "Higher Institute of Engineering" is المعهد العالي للهندسة
- Google web search results for that phrase here
- Google news search results for that phrase here
- Hope that helps. It doesn't look like much, though, and Google Translate results for middle east languages are more difficult to parse than translations of European languages. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per The Whispering Wind. Institutes offering higher education are presumed notable. Ansh666 20:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me that if this presumption is based on practice and this essay, it should be formally adopted as part of the guideline, which actually says the contrary (restating the standard guideline for any organization, including schools).--Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment - every one of the very many attempts to produce high school and college guidelines has failed to reach consensus, after an enormous amount of Community time has been burnt off, and I know not of anyone who has the heart to jump through those hoops again. What we have is an accepted consensus even if not formally documented, so we should be pragmatic since these are all important institutions in their regions. Let me emphasise that my position is that with enough research in the native language WP:ORG can nearly always be met and that a series of AfDs to root out a minority that may not quite reach the standard is a very poor use of resources. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for reasons iterated above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bandizip[edit]
- Bandizip (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 does not adhere to general notability guideline. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - The only refs not from the publisher are (1)a brief cnet review, borderline on establishing notability, and (2) a Ghacks Technology News article which is a how-to article, not useful for estabilshing notability. A search reveals download sites but no further significant RS coverage. Page was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G7 and A10. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Electerodactylus portoricensis[edit]
- Electerodactylus portoricensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There was a spelling error in the species name, therefore this is a non existing species. The error is "Electerodactylus" should be "Eleutherodactylus" Mercy11 (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I was also the creator of the article, meaning, I created the article in error, but have since edited the correct (and pre-existing) article, Eleutherodactylus portoricensis. Mercy11 (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While we're at it, Upland coqui and Eleutherodactylus portoricensis should probably be merged. Chris857 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleutherodactylus portoricensis seems to be the more complete of the two articles, and if you look at Upland coqui everything there seems to be in Eleutherodactylus portoricensis already. Perhaps Upland coqui should just be deleted as well instead? (But I am not sure this is the forum to "shoot two birds with one stone.)" Mercy11 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - in the future, you can go with speedy deletion (G7) for these. Also, I redirected Upland coqui to Eleutherodactylus portoricensis. Ansh666 20:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) Nomination withdrawn and closed by nominator. Apparently the article subject is notable and the article just needs work. | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wideboys[edit]
- Wideboys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is primarily promotional, and has been sitting without any references since before 2008. Searches find plenty of other primary source bios, etc., but I can't find any secondary sources. Article is also a huge listing of non-notable remixes they've done. | Uncle Milty | talk | 22:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They meet wp:music with two top 40 hits [21], WP:COMPOSER for a top 5 hit [22]. Not every remix should have to be wiki-notable to be included in this article, as long as the subject is notable. On the contrary, properly encylopedic discographies should be exhaustive. 78.19.52.125 (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:MUSIC from the charting singles. The article needs a lot of work but this isn't criteria for deletion. Spiderone 17:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per CSD A7, with the closing comment, "No explanation of significance (real person/animal/organization/web content/organized event)." (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 17:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
River dogs[edit]
- River dogs (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)
Disputed PROD. Reason was "Rambling anecdotal blog style item, not a notable encyclopaedia article" Fiddle Faddle 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per nom. Pretty close to an A7 speedy deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. This is effectively an A1 speedy (who knows which paragraph is supposed to be the topic?) and the hockey material qualifies for A7 as well. There's no encyclopedia article here. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - disagree with A1 (applies to very short articles only) and A7 (not fully covered), but should be deleted as combination spam/essay/made-up/incoherent. Note, I replaced the AfD tag the creator removed. Ansh666 20:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unsalvageable mess of essay-type material. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Resolute 02:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unencyclopedic entry about disparate non-notable topics. Gobōnobō + c 20:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (also withdrawn) (non-admin closure) Theopolisme (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manarcad Church[edit]
- Manarcad Church (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 only source is the subject's own website Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I declined the speedy delete because I didn't think an A7 was appropriate. I then pretty much gutted the article, though, because of so much copying from the church's website, either verbatim or close paraphrasing. Plus, as the nominator states, there are no secondary sources (I didn't look for any). Someone who knows more about Indian churches and Indian sources might see if they can find something to satisfy notability guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - cathedrals are generally notable. StAnselm (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The question isn't about cathederals in general - it's about this specific one. Every "in general" by definition has exceptions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a cathedral, not a mere parish church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is there any guideline that says cathedrals are inherently notable, or is that just conventional practice here?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No there isn't - because "inherent notability" is one of the most persistent myths here on WP. If this pile of rocks really is a cathedral there should be at least one mention in a newspaper or other RS that proves it, otherwise every other wannabe televangelist can declare their garden shed to be a cathedral. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fond of inherent notability, either, unless it's guideline-based, but it doesn't really look like a garden shed, does it? Unless, of course, garden sheds are more elaborate in your part of the world. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's a cathedral of a denomination with over a million members. Hardly something set up by a televangelist in his shed. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not fond of inherent notability, either, unless it's guideline-based, but it doesn't really look like a garden shed, does it? Unless, of course, garden sheds are more elaborate in your part of the world. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No there isn't - because "inherent notability" is one of the most persistent myths here on WP. If this pile of rocks really is a cathedral there should be at least one mention in a newspaper or other RS that proves it, otherwise every other wannabe televangelist can declare their garden shed to be a cathedral. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my standards. It has at least three factors: "notably large for its denomination, either in the size of the buildings or its congregation numbers"; "It is the site of a major annual liturgical commemoration, or originator of a holy person's feast, or has been a major place of pilgrimage, beyond mere local interest"; and "It is a cathedral or basilica in the Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, or similarly large denomination...." Bearian (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a cathedral of a major denomination. Cathedrals of major denominations are notable. This is called common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Question - There is absolutely zero third party evidence of any of these claims of notability. If it really is a "frightfully important cathedral" where is the evidence? What kind of "cathedral" has absolutely ZERO mainstream news sources? All the Keep arguments are based only on the self-published claims by the church itself. WP:COMMONSENSE applies only to "water is wet" type of claims. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "What kind of "cathedral" has absolutely ZERO mainstream news sources?" Clearly one that's in a non-western country that doesn't put absolutely everything on the internet. Like, I don't know...India maybe?! As long as it's part of a major denomination, the fact of its existence is usually sufficient to keep an article on a cathedral. They are notable by virtue of being cathedrals, a designation only applied to a small minority of churches. They don't have to be "frightfully important". WP:COMMONSENSE actually says: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- India has a very lively newspaper industry - it's not a dirt poor shit-hole like say, Somalia or Afghanistan. Nobody said anything about "on the internet" - dead tree sources are perfectly acceptable although all the major national newspapers in India are online anyway. You seem to have a rather distorted image of the state of ICT in India. But OK - keep this piece of unsourced crap, I'm past caring... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't have a "rather distorted image of the state of ICT in India". I've simply been on WP a long time and seen the big differences between available sources for this sort of thing in India and the West. And it's neither unsourced nor crap. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- India has a very lively newspaper industry - it's not a dirt poor shit-hole like say, Somalia or Afghanistan. Nobody said anything about "on the internet" - dead tree sources are perfectly acceptable although all the major national newspapers in India are online anyway. You seem to have a rather distorted image of the state of ICT in India. But OK - keep this piece of unsourced crap, I'm past caring... Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "What kind of "cathedral" has absolutely ZERO mainstream news sources?" Clearly one that's in a non-western country that doesn't put absolutely everything on the internet. Like, I don't know...India maybe?! As long as it's part of a major denomination, the fact of its existence is usually sufficient to keep an article on a cathedral. They are notable by virtue of being cathedrals, a designation only applied to a small minority of churches. They don't have to be "frightfully important". WP:COMMONSENSE actually says: "Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found articles in The Hindu, which I believe is the top newspaper in the country, about its annual September festival of the Virgin Mary; one was in the External links, another speaks of an attendance of thousands. I also found this, which may be about its elevation to cathedral status, but locates the church in question in Kochi; I believe the evidence is that it has enough coverage in reliable sources, as one would expect of a cathedral, but that additional article would be a big plus if it can be established to be about the right St. Mary's. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination Mainstream news sources have been found and cited. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C. Matthew McMahon[edit]
- C. Matthew McMahon (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 sourced entirely to subject's own websites. Received his doctorate from Whitefield Theological Seminary, by the way, and unaccredited distance-learning institution. Did not find any independent RSes. Books appear to be self-published. JFH (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JFH (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. JFH (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Finnegas (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And don't let the title of this discussion page trick anyone into believing this article ever survived AFD before, because it didn't. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, the subject is not notable. I'd almost call this G4 because the article would definitely have been deleted at that deletion discussion had the author not requested deletion himself. TCN7JM 09:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patterns of a Horizon[edit]
- Patterns of a Horizon (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 demo from a notable band. Doesn't meet WP:GNG and certainly not WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notable band, but outside of extraordinary cases demo tapes, promo-only releases and the like are generally not article subjects. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This album does not even seem to pass the general notability guideline. TCN7JM 09:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Landboss[edit]
- Landboss (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 didn't find other independent coverage of this software. This does not appear to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. —rybec 14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]Becoming a Rigzone member is free and easy - all we ask for is some simple demographic data [...] Members enjoy the ability to: [...] Post equipment ads, company profiles, and event information
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, preferably via G5 as soon as that option is available to us. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG. Ansh666 20:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found nothing that shows notability. SL93 (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 20:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Langar Kattai[edit]
- Langar Kattai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Fails WP:NFILM. GregJackP Boomer! 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:20, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete... okay with it being Userfied back to its creator. The film exists but has not (yet) been on the receiving end of commentary or analysis in ANY reliable sources. It currently fails WP:NF. SCHMIDT, Michael Q. 20:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It fails WP:NF with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There isn't any good coverage of the film from reliable sources, fails NF. TCN7JM 10:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. There is no consensus whether the subject has received enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth Durham[edit]
- Kenneth Durham (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. Being a head teacher of a school is not sufficient to establish notability. Also, most of the information is unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In general we do not consider headteachers to be notable just for being headteachers. The headmasters of most public schools appear in Who's Who by virtue of their office and always have done, but appearance in WW is not by itself a justification for notability. I would, however, take issue with the statement that the information is unsourced, since it is taken from WW, which is generally a reliable source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Thanks for correcting me. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wikipedia's scope is wider than Who's Who (the British version) so appearance there confers notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't have an overall comment on the deletion discussion yet, but appearing in Who's Who is absolutely not an indication of notability. I was listed in Who's Who of US College Students simply because I had a high GPA in high school. Oh, wait, that's not why--it's because the trolled every single relatively decent scoring person in the US and said they were in Who's Who so that they would buy their books. At the adult level, they do the same thing--every person in a certain professional status or higher is marked as being in Who's Who, and then sent bunches of letters telling them about the listing, and what an honor it is, and wouldn't they like to spend thousands of dollars/pounds to buy books for themselves, their office, and all of their family? As Necrothesp pints out, most headmasters appear in the book. That is a far less restrictive definition of importance than our definition of notability. Unless independent sources that discuss the subject can be found, we still have absolutely no evidence of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand the difference between the US Marquis Who's Who of low repute, and the British and Australian Who's Who which are highly selective. I bet you are not in those. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- If nearly every headmaster gets in simply by virtue of being headmaster, they are not as selective as our notability policy. The only group of people who are automatically notable by virtue of their profession are politicians at the national level (and sometimes sub-national) and heads of major religions. All other people stand or fall based upon WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or whatever relevant notability guideline applies to them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only headmasters of prominent schools get in to Who's Who. See the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And it's not true to say that only headmasters of prominent schools get in. The headmasters of my alma mater, a relatively minor public school that most people have almost certainly never heard of, pretty much all have entries. The only one of them I'd consider writing an article about, however, is the one who got a CBE. It's a tradition stemming from the rather elitist origins of Who's Who that most public school headmasters get entries (just like all baronets get entries, despite the fact that after the first one who actually got the baronetcy most are non-notable as individuals and we don't have articles about them). -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Only headmasters of prominent schools get in to Who's Who. See the article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- If nearly every headmaster gets in simply by virtue of being headmaster, they are not as selective as our notability policy. The only group of people who are automatically notable by virtue of their profession are politicians at the national level (and sometimes sub-national) and heads of major religions. All other people stand or fall based upon WP:BIO, WP:GNG, or whatever relevant notability guideline applies to them. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please understand the difference between the US Marquis Who's Who of low repute, and the British and Australian Who's Who which are highly selective. I bet you are not in those. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I don't have an overall comment on the deletion discussion yet, but appearing in Who's Who is absolutely not an indication of notability. I was listed in Who's Who of US College Students simply because I had a high GPA in high school. Oh, wait, that's not why--it's because the trolled every single relatively decent scoring person in the US and said they were in Who's Who so that they would buy their books. At the adult level, they do the same thing--every person in a certain professional status or higher is marked as being in Who's Who, and then sent bunches of letters telling them about the listing, and what an honor it is, and wouldn't they like to spend thousands of dollars/pounds to buy books for themselves, their office, and all of their family? As Necrothesp pints out, most headmasters appear in the book. That is a far less restrictive definition of importance than our definition of notability. Unless independent sources that discuss the subject can be found, we still have absolutely no evidence of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- listing in British Who's Who (not US) is sufficient for notability under many precedents. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please site a Wikipedia policy or established precedent that this is the case. I'd like to see exactly when we abrogated our editorial discretion to that book. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not the case and never has been. We have rejected many individuals at AfD who were listed in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please supply links to Afds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Bull****. People arguing that Who's Who is a sufficient demonstration of notability are the ones who need to provide links. So far no one who has argued to keep the article has provided a policy compliant reason. No where in our policies or guidelines is there a statement that Who's Who listing is a sufficient demonstration of notability, so the burden lies entirely on those who wish to assert that it is. Xxanthippe, I would appreciate some attempt to actually follow our policies/guidelines from you and others asserting this article should be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you supply one link (not that that would be enough to make your case)? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm not an avid AfD follower, so I don't have a list at my beck and call. Why should I have to trawl through all sorts of AfD's, when policy is on my side? All you've cited is a handwave that absolves us of actually applying our own rules by stating "everyone in book X is notable". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. I haven't got the inclination to trawl through past AfDs either. But claiming "he's notable because he's in Who's Who" without any further evidence is not a good case for retention. Neither is "Wikipedia's scope is wider than Who's Who". In some ways it is, in others it isn't. As I've already said we don't have articles on baronets just because they're baronets or heirs to peerages just because they're heirs to peerages; Who's Who does. It has been generally established over many AfDs that inclusion in national dictionaries of biography, like the Dictionary of National Biography, is sufficient to prove notability, but inclusion in Who's Who is not. It contributes to a case for notability, certainly, but it does not establish it. Usually, in fact, I'd support retention of an article based at least in part on a WW entry, but in cases like this - inclusion because public school headmasters are traditionally included - I do not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not an avid AfD follower, so I don't have a list at my beck and call. Why should I have to trawl through all sorts of AfD's, when policy is on my side? All you've cited is a handwave that absolves us of actually applying our own rules by stating "everyone in book X is notable". Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you supply one link (not that that would be enough to make your case)? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Bull****. People arguing that Who's Who is a sufficient demonstration of notability are the ones who need to provide links. So far no one who has argued to keep the article has provided a policy compliant reason. No where in our policies or guidelines is there a statement that Who's Who listing is a sufficient demonstration of notability, so the burden lies entirely on those who wish to assert that it is. Xxanthippe, I would appreciate some attempt to actually follow our policies/guidelines from you and others asserting this article should be kept. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please supply links to Afds. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- No, it is not the case and never has been. We have rejected many individuals at AfD who were listed in Who's Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Who's who does demonstrate enough coverage). But note there was also a Sir Kenneth Durham who was chairman of Unilever from 1982–1986. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Who's Who, whatever the country, is not inherently notable on its own, otherwise we would just include every person without debate, and there is no rule for that. Who's Who is just one of multiple lines of evidence of notability. Since his claim is as a headmaster, check WP:Prof .. but none of the criteria seem to apply. There doesn't seem to be anything but Who's Who and that isn't sufficient alone, in fact WP:Prof shows non-notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Chairman-elect of HMC suffices by itself. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The chairmanship of HMC changes every year. That means more or less every member (i.e. the head of every British public school) is probably chairman at some point if he remains in post long enough! Certainly not an argument for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Who's Who is acceptable as a source in the UK as it is a standard reference work stocked by any decent library. And the subject is quite a high-profile head with plenty of detailed press coverage such as Kenneth Durham: 'To develop and flourish, pupils need choice'. Warden (talk) 12:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "Acceptable as a source" =/= "establishes notability". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Who's Who is a satsfactory source. It is selective as to who is included and is that at least an indication of notability. WP:PROF deals with university-level academics, and is thus irrelevant. Chairmanship of HMC also points to notability. WE are dealing here with the head of a Public School (effectively a private high school - for non-UK users). HMC is their national organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. However, as I said above, the chairmanship of HMC changes every year. It's effectively a "buggins' turn" system. Merely an honorary post that will eventually be held by any head who is a member for any length of time, just like a town councillor who serves for some time in a British town is one day likely to be mayor for a year. Just a figurehead and doesn't really mean anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I didn't find a whole lot during my cursory search. This would suggest that perhaps a listing in Who's Who is not always an indicator of notability. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable individual. Rcsprinter (state) @ 10:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hard to believe that Who's Who isn't considered a sign of notability, given the plethora of nobody college sportsmen Wikipedia is infested with, but even so - coerage in this position as headmastership of a notable public school confers notability in itself imo. As for the fact that the chairmanship of the professional body changes annually - I fail to see how that's an argument against notability; however it's decided he *is* chairman. StuartDouglas (talk)
- I should have thought it was patently obvious why an annual "my turn next" chairmanship doesn't make someone automatically notable. It would surely mean that anyone who was a committee or board member for any length of time of any organisation deemed notable by Wikipedia that had this sort of chairmanship would be considered to be themselves notable, as they have probably served as chairman at least once. I think that's been disproved by quite a number of AfDs. After all, we don't generally even consider chairmen of local councils to be automatically notable, and they're often pretty big organisations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Technically, it is 7:4, which is below the conventional consensus threshold. The arguments of both sides are revolving against WP:N. Those who propose delete argue that since no sources have been found, the player is non-notable. Those who propose keep argue that he meets WP:NHOCKEY (based on RS) which is an indication that he might be notable, but the sources are difficult to find since he retired a while ago. Both arguments are valid, and since there is no strong prevalence, I close the discussion as no consensus defaulted as keep. There is no prejudice against checking the new consensus say a year from now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Willie Levesque[edit]
- Willie Levesque (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 violates WP:N, particularly failing to meet WP:SPORTCRIT. Article subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player. --NINTENDUDE64 13:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NHOCKEY #3 "Ice hockey players are presumed notable if they...[p]layed at least 100 games in fully professional minor leagues such as the American Hockey League, the International Hockey League, the ECHL, the Mestis, the HockeyAllsvenskan or other such league." Per [23] he played 98 games for the Cleveland Barons of the AHL and 31 games for the Johnston Chiefs of the ECHL. Thus, his total of 129 games in fully professional minor leagues shows he meets this standard. While this creates a presumption that can be rebutted, I do not think a simple assertion of '[a]rticle subject is a non-notable retired minor league hockey player' without any further rationale, evidence, or other convincing information overcomes this presumption. RonSigPi (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If you fail to meet WP:SPORTCRIT, which is the basic criteria, then it doesn't really matter that you satisfy a condition of WP:NHOCKEY which does not explicitly say that notability is guaranteed. And more importantly, the article doesn't meet WP:N. There is a single citation for the article which says he's a doctor in Connecticut -- and it's not actually a source, it's a link to a doctor's web page and there's no evidence that it's the Willie Levesque from the article. And based on your last sentence, it seems like your saying this article is a keep because I have a short explanation for deletion. Personally, my criteria for my !vote consists of more than that and I examine the article and evaluate it against the policies and guidelines. --NINTENDUDE64 18:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only do I not agree what you said, but I think what you wrote goes against WP:CIV. It is completely unnecessary to explain to me your personal standard for review to imply that my standard is not sufficient and I do not look at policies and guidelines (despite the fact I cited the WP:NHOCKEY guideline). Back to the matter at hand, WP:SPORTCRIT is no different than WP:NHOCKEY from a functional standpoint - both create presumptions and not meeting one does not mean that the other is not met and/or valid. However, it is clear that WP:NHOCKEY is met. There is no question on that. Now that it is met, there is a presumption of notability. In my keep note I made it clear that this can be rebutted and thus is not a guarantee, so i don't know why that needs to be pointed out. However, since the presumption is now established the burden shifts to those wanting to delete such an article to establish that the presumption is invalid. The two delete votes below seem to have done some level of research to reach their conclusion that the presumption should be overcome. Your Nom, however, merely says that the subject is non-notable without any evidence or rationale as to why the presumption should be overcome. My last sentence was stating that if you want to nominate an article that has a presumption of notability, then you need to provide more evidence to overcome that presumption then a simple conclusion statement that is uncited. And as far as the doctor link/source, that relates more to the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject. The hockeydb external link shows enough evidence to establish that the presumption of notability is met. RonSigPi (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It is completely unnecessary to explain to me your personal standard for review to imply that my standard is not sufficient -- That's because it isn't based on what you said. AfD eligibility is not based on the nomination text, which is one of your discussion points. It's based on whether the article is appropriate. Editors may make more in depth explanations if they choose, but I believe it's evident from just looking at the article that it's a candidate for deletion. And even though you did review policy guidelines, it appears you haven't interpreted it the correct way. You read that a subject is presumed notable and believe that means that there's some sort of burden of proof shift which is not the case. What is actually meant by presumed notability means that it's likely that reliable sources exist, but you still have to put the reliable sources in the article. But none exist in this case. The HockeyDB is not an independent source and it's not grounds for establishing notability. If a trade-specific database were grounds for notability, then every single actor would be on Wikipedia because they have information about them on IMDb. --NINTENDUDE64 20:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia "[t]he invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the opposing party..."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption). Dictionary.com says "2. Law. to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Presume?s=t). While both these are legal definitions, they are the most appropriate here. So here there is a presumption that appropriate sources exist unless shown otherwise. The two deletes attempt to show this - your nom did not and just stated opinion. RonSigPi (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're not quoting Wikipedia policy or guidelines. That is all. --NINTENDUDE64 00:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No I am not. I am looking at a dictionary and wikipedia to interpret what a guideline means, specifically to determine what is intended by the word 'presumption' in the guideline. RonSigPi (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RonSigPi, instead of arguing, can you provide the sources that makes him meet WP:GNG to be considered for WP:NHOCKEY? No sources = no article, as GNG trumps anything in WP:ATHLETE as ATHLETE only presumes automatic notability and in this case, it is a gray area anyways because he played 34 extra games. Secret account 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're not quoting Wikipedia policy or guidelines. That is all. --NINTENDUDE64 00:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only do I not agree what you said, but I think what you wrote goes against WP:CIV. It is completely unnecessary to explain to me your personal standard for review to imply that my standard is not sufficient and I do not look at policies and guidelines (despite the fact I cited the WP:NHOCKEY guideline). Back to the matter at hand, WP:SPORTCRIT is no different than WP:NHOCKEY from a functional standpoint - both create presumptions and not meeting one does not mean that the other is not met and/or valid. However, it is clear that WP:NHOCKEY is met. There is no question on that. Now that it is met, there is a presumption of notability. In my keep note I made it clear that this can be rebutted and thus is not a guarantee, so i don't know why that needs to be pointed out. However, since the presumption is now established the burden shifts to those wanting to delete such an article to establish that the presumption is invalid. The two delete votes below seem to have done some level of research to reach their conclusion that the presumption should be overcome. Your Nom, however, merely says that the subject is non-notable without any evidence or rationale as to why the presumption should be overcome. My last sentence was stating that if you want to nominate an article that has a presumption of notability, then you need to provide more evidence to overcome that presumption then a simple conclusion statement that is uncited. And as far as the doctor link/source, that relates more to the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject. The hockeydb external link shows enough evidence to establish that the presumption of notability is met. RonSigPi (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NHOCKEY presumes notability, but does not guarantee it. There really is not much in the way of coverage aside from routine game reports. Fails WP:GNG. Resolute 13:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NHOCKEY only presumes notability it does not confer notability. And as far as I can find in new sources there isn't enough (or anything really) about him to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Former pro hockey player has played more than 100 games in the AHL and ECHL and therefore specifically passes criteria #3 of NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:GNG trumps WP:NHOCKEY Secret account 17:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per RonSigPi and Dolovis. --Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 17:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the sources that makes him meet WP:GNG to be considered for WP:NHOCKEY? No reliable sources = no article, and stats doesn't count Secret account 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you have it backwards. By meeting the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject is presumed notable unless proven otherwise. Not all reliable and independent sources will be found on-line, so meeting NHOCKEY creates the presumption of notability (i.e. that GNG can be established – even if not immediately identified). Per WP:PRESUMPTION: "A "rebuttable presumption" is an assumption that may be accepted as true until contested and proven to be wrong." In this case, the rebuttable presumption that he is notable has been established by the fact that he meets NHOCKEY. It is now upon you to rebut that presumption by proving that subject is, in fact, not notable (i.e. that you can demonstrate that you have concluded a thorough, but fruitless, search of all sources, on-line as well as other media) to rebut the presumption. Dolovis (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dolovis, WP:NHOCKEY only presumes notability, but it's not a guarantee that the individual is notable just because he passes WP:NHOCKEY. If a player passes WP:NHOCKEY, chances are that there are enough independent sources that establish the player's notability; in this case there aren't, unfortunately. Heymid (contribs) 09:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NHOCKEY only presumes that there are sources until challenged at which point it is up to those who believe it does to prove that it does. If you read NSPORTS it even indicates that. It is just a rule of thumb to quickly judge something and that is all. It still has to be capable of being proved to have sources. As I am sure you are aware you can't prove a negative. You can't prove something doesn't exist. Which is why its up to the people who believe there are sources to prove they do exist. -DJSasso (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you have it backwards. By meeting the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject is presumed notable unless proven otherwise. Not all reliable and independent sources will be found on-line, so meeting NHOCKEY creates the presumption of notability (i.e. that GNG can be established – even if not immediately identified). Per WP:PRESUMPTION: "A "rebuttable presumption" is an assumption that may be accepted as true until contested and proven to be wrong." In this case, the rebuttable presumption that he is notable has been established by the fact that he meets NHOCKEY. It is now upon you to rebut that presumption by proving that subject is, in fact, not notable (i.e. that you can demonstrate that you have concluded a thorough, but fruitless, search of all sources, on-line as well as other media) to rebut the presumption. Dolovis (talk) 04:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide the sources that makes him meet WP:GNG to be considered for WP:NHOCKEY? No reliable sources = no article, and stats doesn't count Secret account 23:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – WP:NHOCKEY won't—nor should—guarantee notability, although it does presume notability. In this case there aren't enough independent sources that make him pass the general notability guideline (GNG). Heymid (contribs) 09:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This player last played in 2004, so 9 years ago. A lot of webpages are not archived from that long ago on the Internet. Just because sources are not on the Internet does not mean they do not exist (and in turn GNG may be met even with a weak online presence). For those saying that there are not enough sources, is this based merely on Internet searches, such as through Google, or are they actually checking non-online sources (e.g., physical newspaper archives in Cleveland and Johnstown of their local newspapers)? RonSigPi (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dolovis. Rcsprinter (talk) @ 10:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet the criteria for hockey players or GNG.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- False Clearly meets criteria for hockey players by way of WP:NHOCKEY. The question would appear to be if the presumption caused by meeting such criteria is rebutted such that GNG is not met. RonSigPi (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This isn't a court of law -- By meeting the criteria of NHOCKEY, the subject is presumed notable unless proven otherwise -- it's a written encyclopedia. If there is not significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the Willie Levesque topic, then there is not enough available information to summarize for a written Wikipedia article. Presuming notable/importance still does not provide source information for the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rohrbach Hornets[edit]
- Rohrbach Hornets (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)
Rugby stub from 2007, unsourced. Article talks about a team, that will play the next year. No evidence found that the team/or club currently exists. Ben Ben (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed the delsort Rugby Union, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heidelberg Sharks There is also a statement from the creator of the article, that both can be deleted.--Ben Ben (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Searching for references for the Heidelberg Sharks, which was put up for deletion first, I found at the Wayback machine that that team became this one, so I would recommend making that article redirect to this one, but I can't find enough on either. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This link shows that players from the Rugby Union club Heidelberger TV used the name Heidelberg Sharks to play Rugby League matches also: [24] --Ben Ben (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rana Ali Hasan Chauhan[edit]
- Rana Ali Hasan Chauhan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. He is published by an advocacy group, has no citations at JSTOR, gets only a mirror hit and a single catalogue entry on GScholar and a couple of minor mentions on GBooks. Worldcat shows little and suggests the possibility that his book was initially self-published (Chauhan Publications). The guy seems to fail WP:AUTHOR, WP:ACADEMIC as well as GNG, although maybe this is systemic thing - I have no means of checking non-English, offline sources. Sitush (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One book written does not a notable person make. 3/4 of the results on Google are WP mirrors; all of the rest are listings of his book or forums. King Jakob C2 16:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Writing one book does not usually make a person notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one would almost think this is prod material. It's a one sentence article about a guy who wrote a book. We could just call it a WP:GNG fail without even moving further up the ladder. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. The nominator rescinded their nomination, and no delete !votes are present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 01:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Balochistan Rural Support Programme[edit]
- Balochistan Rural Support Programme (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)
near-total absence of WP:RS to establish notability. Was unable to find any via either GNews or google itself, though there are lots of directories, links to non-RS, self-sourcing. In talkpage discussion with article creator and sole author, they acknowledged that there were few if any RS available. The only potential RS is the Pakistan Press International reference, which I have a query at WP:RSN about. If that is deemed reliable enough to establish WP:N I will be happy to rescind my nomination for deletion. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 10:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found a German source from the Auswärtiges Amt (Office of foreign affairs) that it funded via the KfW the BRSP in 2009.[25]. Added it to the article. --Ben Ben (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A number of reliable sources exist about BRSP operation activities and activities during flood in Balochistan province of Pakistan. Here: [27], [28], [29], [30]. Nabil rais2008 (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because it contains a number of reliable sources, some of them at news and other website. It is a recent in news that the NGO is also helping in rehabilitation of Mashkail, a sub-division of Washuk District in Balochistan after a big earthquake. But I'll say it has other problems though like lack of neutrality, written like an advertisement and etc. But I don't think of taking it here at AFD. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ( T - C - G ) 17:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the article is well referenced with reliable sources, and one can easily find them on Google, and it should not be deleted, however the content of article can be further improved to meet the criteria of Wikipedia article. Blog123 (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Step back from nomination. Better sources found, so i'm happy. rescind nomination, though article needs to reflect sources rather than current ad-like form. Thanks folks. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 19:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Serena Karnagy[edit]
- Serena Karnagy (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)
Initially CSD'd it under A7 but since there is at least a claim of notability it's not a valid A7. The subject doesn't meet WP:NMODEL. Cabe6403(Talk•Sign) 10:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't see any evidence of notability. She's not there yet and from a quick look at the very few news hits, it seems her career died almost before it started in 2006/07. Mabalu (talk) 03:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This model does not pass the notability guideline the nom linked, as she doesn't seem to satisfy any of the criteria. TCN7JM 09:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tekken 7[edit]
- Tekken 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is based on speculation and oblique references in an interview (here). No reliable information available that states clearly and categorically that the title is in production. Fails WP:Crystal and WP:V. X201 (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I will explain my deletion rationale by directly quoting the article itself: "The current development status of the game is completely fan speculated." Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 13:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sourcing, and as mentioned above, doubt over whether this will even exist. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, above, and previous AfD. Ansh666 20:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KO - "The current development status of the game is completely fan speculated." That pretty much sums it up. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adema. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Chavez[edit]
- Mark Chavez (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 notability independent of his band Adema. (note that his other band is not notable, the blue link is just a redirect to Adema). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No real opinion on this one, but if it's not found to meet notability standards, it's a no-brainer to redirect, rather than delete. --BDD (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Adema per WP:MUSICBIO. Plausible search term but does not, in my view, have sufficient notability independent of the band to warrant a separate article. Not much worth merging, as the Adema article adequately covers this person's exit/return/re-exit from the group. Gong show 06:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Gambia–Philippines relations[edit]
- The Gambia–Philippines relations (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 relies on factoids rather than a real bilateral relationship. only one high level visit in its history of relations, and lots of promises to co-operate more rather than real action. the agreements are merely "cooperation agreements" and not binding. LibStar (talk) 07:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nature of the relationship, whether binding or hot air, has no impact on general notability WP:GNG. I assume there was some press about a treaty of any nature being signed. Plus, deleting this article would result in an inconsistent policy for the structure of Foreign_relations_of_the_Philippines. I suggest discussing, on the talk page there, how to pare down and restructure the page for conciseness. Juxtaposition - this article covers more ground, at least, than Tonga–United_States_relations, an article which lists literally no treaties nor high level visits. romnempire (talk) 16:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as nom states, there are active relations (or attempts at relations), which can be sourced reliably. Just because the two countries have only been talking and have not actually done anything yet isn't any sort of a reason to delete. Ansh666 20:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Their presidents met in person one time, they made agreements on oil development, they helped each other out in decades past with agriculture. Notable relationship established. Dream Focus 16:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of state visits to the Philippines[edit]
- List of state visits to the Philippines (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)
whilst visits can be verified, this list serves little encyclopaedic value and be easily covered in relevant bilateral articles. If we had List of state visits to the United States, it would be several thousand entries. If a single visit is notable it is best served in articles like Ngo Dinh Diem presidential visit to the United States. also nominating:
- List of state visits to India LibStar (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I completely fail to understand your rationale. Both of the two articles are well sourced. (10 and 29 respectively, greater than most average stub articles). Your other rationale that "If we had List of state visits to the United States, it would be several thousand entries" is also incomprehensible. We do not judge a article by the criteria that it has a US counterpart or not. Hence speedy keep. The Legend of Zorro 09:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- state visits worldwide are almost a daily occurrence, is it Wikipedia's job to record every single visit? My 2nd point is this series of articles just creates a precedent for other similar class of articles. Perhaps next List of overseas visits by Queen Elizabeth II. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're too late, see List of state visits made by Queen Elizabeth II Siuenti (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- May be we should start making List of state visits to the United States also. The Legend of Zorro 10:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that people would be surprised at how comparatively rare they are. --AJHingston (talk) 11:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- May be we should start making List of state visits to the United States also. The Legend of Zorro 10:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're too late, see List of state visits made by Queen Elizabeth II Siuenti (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- state visits worldwide are almost a daily occurrence, is it Wikipedia's job to record every single visit? My 2nd point is this series of articles just creates a precedent for other similar class of articles. Perhaps next List of overseas visits by Queen Elizabeth II. LibStar (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a natural grouping of moderately notable events. Trying to find these by navigating bilateral articles would be extremely inconvenient. Siuenti (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep State visits have a diplomatic significance that distinguishes them from other sorts of diplomatic encounter, or the relevant head of state deciding that they would just like a holiday somewhere. The question of which heads of state have made one to any particular country is a reasonable search topic for an encyclopaedia. There are problems with the List of state visits to India article in that the two lists include visits that are not actually state visits in the formal sense, but that can be cleaned up. --AJHingston (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I fail to understand the relevance of the proposed US list. Different countries may merit different article structures to convey notable information thoroughly and effectively. romnempire (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gavin Andresen[edit]
- Gavin Andresen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Borderline notable and on the wrong side of the border. The article's references are primary sources except an interview about Bitcoin which was with the subject of the article. That is the only element that takes us close to the border of notability. All else is from Bitcoin itself and a blog Fiddle Faddle 06:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as lead developer of a very important phenomena. Otherwise Merge with Bitcoin. JASpencer (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a quick Google search reveals multiple reliable, secondary sources for this person, a search on Google news reveals even more. Here are a few examples: 1,2,3,4. Cliff12345 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Bitcoin - WP:NOTINHERITED applies, and while there are sources, they fail GNG because they are not independent of the subject, and possibly not neutral, either. The technology may be notable (and I'm skeptical of that because it only has market penetration in very specific areas; it's still very much a fad) but notability is not inherited. If everything Andresen is mentioned in is Bitcoin-related, than it's really about Bitcoin, not about Andresen as a biographical subject. Note that WP:BLP guidelines are very different than people seem to think - interviews with a subject published in a newspaper are reliable, but as the majority of the info is coming from the subject directly, reliability is questionable (Andrew W.K. is a good example of what can happen there), and most certainly the sources are not independent of the subject. MSJapan (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to "they are not independent of the subject", aren't the example sources I linked above (1,2,3,4) independent of the subject, as well as (with the possible exception of link 2) neutral? I agree that the current sources in the article are not very good, but we could easily add the ones I have listed above. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect. I found this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators but he does not seem to be even close to the notability guidelines in WP:PROF. WP:GNG is closer, but the Forbes article used as a source here has very little about Andresen himself, and although there are other sources of similar quality out there (e.g. in Google news archive) I didn't find anything more substantial. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources found by User:Cliff12345. There is multiple coverage by RS about the person -the fact that he's famous because of Bitcoin and he's asked about it doesn't change this fact. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! Delete! Okay, not really. I just really wanted to say that. The real result is redirect to The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who), because redirects are to cheap as bowties are to cool. As always, the page history remains available to those interested in performing a merge. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fish fingers with custard[edit]
- Fish fingers with custard (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 GNG. No secondary sources showing coverage or significance. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Who trivia, no third-party references. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick search on Google produces pages of references to this, many substantial. For evidence of it passing into at least elements of the national culture, see this blog. So I think the nomination fails on a literal interpretation of the rules and the question is whether this is a case for merging or whether there is a proper article in it. The feeling at the back of my mind is that as a concept it actually pre-dates the use in Dr Who - the writers delight in placing obscure cultural references, but I cannot pin-point it. --AJHingston (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are correct, and I have found some basic references. I am sure this is more. FishFingersCustard (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sheer trivia. A small plot detail. There's no WP page for far more famous fictional-character foodstuffs: Lembas bread is mentioned in List of Middle-earth food and drink; Tea, Earl Grey, hot is a redirect; for marmalade sandwiches you have to read Paddington Bear (although to be fair Shaken, not stirred does have a page, but that's a little bit more well-known). I don't think there's much to be said about this beyond what's in the episode plot summary: you could I guess redirect to The Eleventh Hour (Doctor Who), the episode which contains the fish fingers. But is this really a plausible search term? The stats page currently says it's been viewed 18 times in August[31] - though I guess this will rise due to this AfD - and there are no incoming wikilinks from main article space. There is a significant number of Google hits but almost all are unimportant non-professional blogs, comments on blogs, or internet forums, and all mention Doctor Who. So I can't find any evidence to support AJHingston's suggestion that this precedes Doctor Who. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - totally non-notable trivia, no evidence it pre-dates Doctor Who or has gained any notability through its usage therein -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only reliable sourcing I can find for this is from a Doctor Who trivia book. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Search term Try entering fish fingers and custard into Google and you will get a very different result from the result using the search term at the top of this page! Try also customising a Google search for references prior to 3 March 2010 when the episode first went out - zazzle were selling a range of t-shirts bearing that slogan since at least 2009 for example. I do not really care either way, but we should not be conducting the discussion based on a misleading Google result (a frequent problem at afd, BTW). --AJHingston (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nonsensical trivia that is much less well-known than such other fictional foodstuffs as Colapeninsula mentioned. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the episode per WP:ATD. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the current contents should be deleted first--there's nothing particularly important there, but also there is nothing harmful or controversial. I agree with AJHingston that the alternative version of the name is more popular, and should also be redirected to the episode. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:AJHingston and User:Jclemens I would think that a merge to Fish finger would be more appropriate. Would you agree? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am at a bit of a loss to know what to say about this because clearly other people are getting different impressions from a Google search to mine. But although very many of the Google hits are to food related sites I do not think that is the central point. If there is to be a redirect it ought to be to the Dr Who episode, but in fandom it seems to be used as a code for the current (and soon to end) incarnation of the title character. In the wider meaning it is about improbable combinations and the individuality of taste. There is the clear evidence that it had a currency which pre-dates the Dr Who reference. Somebody could make an effort to track that to source, because it is relevant to an encyclopaedic entry (I have an uncomfortable feeling the allusion might be sexual) but I will leave that to others. Notwithstanding the promotional efforts of the brand leader in fish fingers, I do not think that it has ever been about either food as such. --AJHingston (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:AJHingston and User:Jclemens I would think that a merge to Fish finger would be more appropriate. Would you agree? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 07:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the episode. JASpencer (talk) 08:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Trivial plot detail with no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. No redirect is necessary because it's not a plausible search term. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Researching on Google Books reveals this to be a significant part of the show's mythology, and the phrase is referenced somewhat often. I added a lot of references and some backstory. FishFingersCustard (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC) — FishFingersCustard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Is this above user a sock or a single-purpose account? I fail to see why anyone would register under the moniker of "FishFingersCustard" and instantly begin editing a brand-new article with a similar title. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 22:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I ran a quick little check, and it does appear to be a single-purpose account, not a sock. I can confirm that with CU data this does not appear to be a second vote from anyone else involved in the AfD discussion, even though I agree it's suspicious enough to investigate. Jclemens (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- alternative merge to Fish Fingers or create disambiguation to Fish Fingers and Doctor Who incorporating all information from this article. FishFingersCustard (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A trivial plot detail. None of the sources added qualify as substantial coverage, with most of them simply being fleeting mentions. A redirect would be non-germane as I don't foresee anybody searching this. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand Dr. Who, do you? Redirects are cheap, so "I can't imagine anyone searching for this" is not a good reason to not have a redirect. While we seem to be mostly agreed a standalone article isn't warranted, comments like this demonstrate that some users either don't understand the appropriate use of redirects or don't understand why such an element would benefit from one. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not watch Doctor Who, but I can tell when something related to it is notable. This clearly is not. I don't oppose a redirect either, but from the article it seems this is a running gag, so I can't imagine a one topic this should point to. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 02:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't understand Dr. Who, do you? Redirects are cheap, so "I can't imagine anyone searching for this" is not a good reason to not have a redirect. While we seem to be mostly agreed a standalone article isn't warranted, comments like this demonstrate that some users either don't understand the appropriate use of redirects or don't understand why such an element would benefit from one. Jclemens (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redirects are cheap, but there comes a point where WP:ITSVERYSILLYSTOPIT needs to be written to cover why, well, it's very silly, stop it - and this is it. (Not notable, not a plausable search term, 'significance' comes only from WP:GHITS.) - The Bushranger One ping only 04:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would like to point out that the article now mentions references to fish fingers and custard that predates the Doctor Who series. It seems to be a minor part of English culture. FishFingersCustard (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Either with the episode or the Eleventh Doctor and Amy Pond's articles. It's not really notable enough for it's own article. Angel of Mischief Talk 18:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Soap— 02:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aspie Quiz[edit]
- Aspie Quiz (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 WP:GNG. No independent reliable secondary sources cover this. The sole source provided is by the author of the "Aspie Quiz" itself, Leif Ekblad, who also happens to be the self-identified owner of the account that created the article. Searches on Google Scholar, JSTOR and PUBMED all turn up nothing, Google Books search turns up a few links to the webpage where it exists but no discussion. Zad68
02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Negligible content, no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. The reference on Aspie Quiz is to Sage Open which is a peer-reviewed journal, and all their content is made available on Google Scholar. Has also been posted on research gate. Since the article was made available 2013-08-07 it might not yet be available on Google Scholar. In addition to that, Aspie Quiz is also mentioned in a radio program: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/458/play-the-part (see act two) so has multiple sources. Mentioned on many blogs like http://musingsofanaspie.com/2012/11/20/taking-the-aspie-quiz/, http://www.lifeonthespectrum.net/blog/?page_id=1188, http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/2007/10/online-aspergers-quiz.html. Well-known since at least 600,000 people all over the world has done it. Rdos (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Clearly a feature on This American Life is insufficient to establish notability of a psychiatric diagnostic. Independent sources in the peer reviewed scientific literature instead are required. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the only sources are dubious, blogs, open access "journals" or related to the author of this "quiz", long discussions at WT:MED about the problems with these open access "journals", no meaningful content here, and google scholar turns up nothing else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. SAGE Open seems to be respectable (despite being open access). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have thought this was obvious, but: it's published by Sage Publishing, a publisher with a good reputation in academic publishing. Many Sage journals have their own Wikipedia articles about them. A random sampling of these shows that Sage journals are typically held by several hundred libraries in the US. Most of the dubious open access journals that should be immediately written off have publishers listed in Beall's list (which of course Sage Publishing is not). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When it comes to journals, being a known publisher isn't an indicator that the journal is any good. Just look at Elsevier. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion that all or most Elsevier journals are unreliable is bafflingly stupid. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Folks, I think this thread is drifting away from the purpose of the AfD, which is to make policy-based arguments for why the article should or should not be deleted. See also WP:AFDEQ. Cheers. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The suggestion that all or most Elsevier journals are unreliable is bafflingly stupid. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- When it comes to journals, being a known publisher isn't an indicator that the journal is any good. Just look at Elsevier. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should have thought this was obvious, but: it's published by Sage Publishing, a publisher with a good reputation in academic publishing. Many Sage journals have their own Wikipedia articles about them. A random sampling of these shows that Sage journals are typically held by several hundred libraries in the US. Most of the dubious open access journals that should be immediately written off have publishers listed in Beall's list (which of course Sage Publishing is not). Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Before we even need to get into a discussion of the quality of the journal itself, the WP:GNG requires that the significant coverage be independent. In this case, the journal article was written by the author of the Aspie Quiz itself, so the coverage is not independent, and cannot be used to satisfy WP:GNG.
Zad68
13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, I agree with this. I am uncertain to what extent the SAGE article is "independent" (of the subject). The article serms to suggest that the Aspie Quiz was around prior to that publication, but the origin seems obscure and folklorish. Since the author of that paper also seems to be the quiz's main champion, I am inclined to think that it is not independent per our guidelines. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the degree you're going to here to WP:AGF, but: The quiz is hosted here: http://www.rdos (dot) net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php , at the bottom it says "Copyright Leif Ekblad, 2004-2013", Ekblad is the author of the journal article, the name of the domain hosting it is "Rdos.net", a WHOIS lookup shows the owner of that domain is Leif Ekblad, the name of the Wikipedia editor who created the article is Rdos, at User:Rdos it says "Name: Leif Ekblad"... I can't come to any other conclusion than the owner of the quiz, the author of the journal article, and the creator of the Wikipedia article are all the same person. (By the way, rdos.net is spam-filtered (I wonder what the story is behind that?), so I had to replace the .net with (dot) net.)
Zad68
14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- It's a very old (2007 at least) and long story, that I don't have time to go into ... an extensive cleanup of a walled garden of unreliably sourced and UNDUE autism articles occurred years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The neanderthal theory will probably be published as well in a peer-reviewed publication so your undue treatment of it might fire back. Rdos (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not sure to whom you are directing this comment, but I was not a Wikiepdia editor the last time articles created by you based on your research were deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asperger's self-identification and one of several ANI discussions (which is some of the history of how rdos domain came to be blacklisted).
In the eight years since you wrote that, and created several articles to promote the Aspie Quiz, it appears that the only published account of the Aspie Quiz is one written by you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]Of course. I will reintroduce it as the results of the Aspie-quiz are published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Rdos 13:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
- I am not sure to whom you are directing this comment, but I was not a Wikiepdia editor the last time articles created by you based on your research were deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asperger's self-identification and one of several ANI discussions (which is some of the history of how rdos domain came to be blacklisted).
- The neanderthal theory will probably be published as well in a peer-reviewed publication so your undue treatment of it might fire back. Rdos (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very old (2007 at least) and long story, that I don't have time to go into ... an extensive cleanup of a walled garden of unreliably sourced and UNDUE autism articles occurred years ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so what you say is that if somebody else mentions Aspie Quiz in a peer-reviewed publication then WP:GNG would no longer apply? I find that really strange, but this will probably happen fairly soon as there is another study on it's way to peer-review that used Aspie Quiz for data. Rdos (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the degree you're going to here to WP:AGF, but: The quiz is hosted here: http://www.rdos (dot) net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php , at the bottom it says "Copyright Leif Ekblad, 2004-2013", Ekblad is the author of the journal article, the name of the domain hosting it is "Rdos.net", a WHOIS lookup shows the owner of that domain is Leif Ekblad, the name of the Wikipedia editor who created the article is Rdos, at User:Rdos it says "Name: Leif Ekblad"... I can't come to any other conclusion than the owner of the quiz, the author of the journal article, and the creator of the Wikipedia article are all the same person. (By the way, rdos.net is spam-filtered (I wonder what the story is behind that?), so I had to replace the .net with (dot) net.)
- Yes, I agree with this. I am uncertain to what extent the SAGE article is "independent" (of the subject). The article serms to suggest that the Aspie Quiz was around prior to that publication, but the origin seems obscure and folklorish. Since the author of that paper also seems to be the quiz's main champion, I am inclined to think that it is not independent per our guidelines. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Before we even need to get into a discussion of the quality of the journal itself, the WP:GNG requires that the significant coverage be independent. In this case, the journal article was written by the author of the Aspie Quiz itself, so the coverage is not independent, and cannot be used to satisfy WP:GNG.
- You've misunderstood. Please read WP:GNG. It requires significant coverage in independent sources, i.e not you, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are the one with reading comprehension problems. I wrote if somebody else cite or refer to Aspie Quiz, then WP:GNG no longer would apply. And it already has significant coverage in blogs, but apparently that's not enough for people here. Rdos (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG is not the best guideline to cite. See WP:SPIP for clarification on this point. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are the one with reading comprehension problems. I wrote if somebody else cite or refer to Aspie Quiz, then WP:GNG no longer would apply. And it already has significant coverage in blogs, but apparently that's not enough for people here. Rdos (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've misunderstood. Please read WP:GNG. It requires significant coverage in independent sources, i.e not you, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' So now peer-reviewed open access journals are "dubious" on a topic that is not even medical (neurodiversity)? Is this a wikipedia or a joke? 194.237.227.134 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IP 194.237.227.134 from Sweden. Per the info from Zad68 above, it appears we may have a COI situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most open access journals are rubbish as a general rule. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true of many open access journals, but certainly not all of them. In particular, not this one. A certain amount of investigation is needed to ascertain whether the journal is respectable or not. See my reply to WhatAmIDoing above. I disagree with the tone of "rubbish unless proven otherwise". Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG. Not enough discussion devoted to this quiz in reliable sources. I ran across some blog mentions and bulletin board mentions, also a bare listing in a book titled Autism and ADHD Diet, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources beyond Leif Ekblad's own paper. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No coverage in reliable independent secondaryt sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not pass WP:GNG at this time. The self-authored article is fine to cite but it does not contribute to notability. This American Life contributes marginally to notability. The blogs do not really contribute to notability. Let's keep in mind this is a medical test. What is really needed is coverage in independent scientific/medical sources. I wish the originator of the quiz all the best of luck with this interesting line of work, although I am somewhat uncomfortable with him voting here due to the obvious WP:COI. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note At least the article is on Google Scholar now, which means the above argument about that is false. Rdos (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, still fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. BencherliteTalk 10:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greg McDermott (footballer)[edit]
- Greg McDermott (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Still fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 01:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - per WP:CSD#G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not eligible for CSD by the way, it's too different I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 08:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subground[edit]
- Subground (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 music genre, no GHits other than social media, no GNews hits. Too soon, if it is a developing genre and not merely promotional. GregJackP Boomer! 01:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NOTE at this time.--SabreBD (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this genre exists at all, it doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground, and none of the supposed artists affiliated with the genre even have articles. (It doesn't help that the article is written like a journal entry.) Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 05:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This genre is really small if it exists. It's WP:TOOSOON right now. If it gets more of a following, it could probably claim notability. TCN7JM 09:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.