The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 00:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A NXT Rookie that was fired and disappear. In his brief stint in WWE, he does nothing notable and in the indy is like a ghost. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As far as this article and the Google Test show, he didn't accomplish anything in wrestling of note other than flubbing on NXT and disappearing into obscurity. Because we can't speculate that he will do anything of note in the future, I think it's best we delete the article. Feedback☎ 02:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as much as this is going to sound like opinion, the only thing Jacob Novak accomplished was doing precisely nothing interesting. WWE even flat out admitted that he sucked both times that he was eliminated Crisis.EXE 12:14, 23 March 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 article says "short lived". No notable HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Very good observation. The article basically admits to the lack of notability right off the bat. Should be a speedy delete, IMO. Feedback☎ 02:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with The Corporation (professional wrestling). Have to agree with those above, Union was a short part of that particular storyline and probably isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article.LordMaldad2000 (talk) 04:38, 27 March 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. I have to take issue with Isarra's claim that WP:N does not really apply. It most certainly does apply, in particular WP:ENTERTAINER is explicitly indicated as the relevant guideline by WP:ATHLETE. However, no argument was advanced that this article does not meet that guideline. The shortness of their existence is not an argument based in policy. Length of the period of notability is not one of the guideline criteria. SpinningSpark 01:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A controversial article. ShoMiz won the unified tag team titles and defend it in WM, but the tag team lived for 3 months only. I think that is is a short lived tag team that we can redirect to the articles of the wrestlers. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagreed entirely with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air Boom and I still do now. Winning a title doesn't make a team notable. They need a credible run with enough information to warrant a subject. Most of the information in this article fits in their individual articles. In fact, most of the information is repeated anyway in those articles which makes ShoMiz a perfect example of cruft. It needs to go. Feedback☎ 16:44, 24 March 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, Keeper | 76 02:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-covered, won an apparently somewhat important thingy, and while WP:N doesn't entirely apply to this sort of thing there's probably enough here to merit keeping especially on account of the winningness. If anyone searches for 'showmiz' they'll probably be wanting this instead of an article on one or the other of the guys regardless. -— Isarra༆ 19:38, 30 March 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.
Oppose - they were around for the best part of a year during the time when WWE television ratings were at a peak. McPhail (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "were around" is wrestle minor matches in Metal and Heat between july and January? 7 lines of article, no PPV matches, notable feuds or memorable matches. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They still got a lot more exposure than virtually any indy tag team by virtue of being on global TV. "Notable feuds" and "Memorable matches" are both pretty subjective. McPhail (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And both wrestlers have his own article, but we're talking about his career as tag team. 6 month, 7 lines. We can put 7 lines in the articles, but create an article about a tag team like this is too much. Also no notable feuds or memorable matches aren't subjetive. time in TV (no minor weekly matches), time and matches in PPV, awards by the critics... Lo Down had two or three matches in 6 months in the tertiary tv show of the promotion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's certainly a marginal case, but on balance I would favour keeping the article given that the WWF was so highly viewed at the time. McPhail (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Maybe 6 months around isn't that much these days, but back then it was worth a lot more Crisis.EXE 12:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This article seems to be notable due to their exposure on television and their significant coverage, but let's look at what WP:GNG says: significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article.
Key word there is "stand-alone article". This is the perfect example of an article that doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should instead be mentioned in the individual D'Lo and Chaz articles. Keeping this article is an example of WP:CRUFT as well as WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Feedback☎ 16:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MergeDelete A lot of people saw them, sure, but a lot of people saw them do not much at all. After trimming the wordiness, what's here can easily fit into each member's article as a few sentences, if it's not already there (it is, so I changed my vote). InedibleHulk(talk) 06:47, 26 March 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. Please note that The Chickbusters article did not have the afd notice tag on it, and as it was the only one discussed here that had any "doubt" as to whether to delete, therefore I did not delete it. Recommend relisting individually to open discussion. UPDATE, I see here that an IP removed the tag at the same time as adding substantial information to the article. Still, it was a couple of days ago. With the additions to the article, including several references (I didn't check to see if they were at all notable or help the article meet WP:GNG), it should still be relisted individually, if at all. Keeper | 76 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather quite silly that we have these articles in the first place. Not only were they only active for a little over very small timespans, they literally did nothing of note. I would have speedied this if I didn't know better than to make such a rash and immediate call. Being perfectly frank, I don't see how someone can convince me that this is notable. Then again, AfD is exactly the place for me to find out. Feedback☎ 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Never did anything notable as a team. The first two were never even officially tag teams unless I missed something. STATicmessage me! 03:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 1 and 3 Both are hardly notable, and there was never any official recognition of the name for Kelly and Tiff. It was just a name used by Matt Striker in commentary I think. Comment 2 This one on the other hand might be salvagable. However it's a bit of a shoot because it's based on the real life friendship between the two, and that's hard to source. I'll abstain on it for that reason. BerleT (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is a friendship notable enough to be the basis of an article? I'm pretty sure many friendships are formed backstage in all of wrestling, we can't have articles for each one. Feedback☎ 21:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, not enough notability to be a separate article, I bet the info is already in the main articles and this is totally redundant. MPJ -US 13:12, 25 March 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.
Presumably a youtube video. No attempt made even to link to it, still less to show that it is notable. (Disputed prod.) — RHaworth (talk·contribs) 23:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ceza#Discography. This is a rap single with words applied to Piano Sonata No. 11 (Mozart). This article would indicate that the single does indeed exist. I am not competent to search sources in Turksh, but it does appear to that is unlikely to meet the notability requirements for a song. -- Whpq (talk) 16:07, 20 March 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 NAC procedural removal, page is nominated by its creator and only editor. Redirect is fine but if nominator wants it deleted it can be easily G7'd. Not necessary to go through AfD procedure for this. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 19 March 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. Keeper | 76 00:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not meet WP:NMMA since he has only 3 MMA fights, none for a top tier organization. The references are not significant and independent--they're for his seminars, school, and fight record. Merely being part of the Gracie family is WP:NOTINHERITED and running a BJJ school doesn't show notability. Papaursa (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization, and I'm not finding any significant coverage from reliable sources to allow him to pass WP:GNG. Just being a Gracie doesn't contribute to notability. CaSJer (talk) 14:40, 22 March 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. Please note that The Chickbusters article did not have the afd notice tag on it, and as it was the only one discussed here that had any "doubt" as to whether to delete, therefore I did not delete it. Recommend relisting individually to open discussion. UPDATE, I see here that an IP removed the tag at the same time as adding substantial information to the article. Still, it was a couple of days ago. With the additions to the article, including several references (I didn't check to see if they were at all notable or help the article meet WP:GNG), it should still be relisted individually, if at all. Keeper | 76 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's rather quite silly that we have these articles in the first place. Not only were they only active for a little over very small timespans, they literally did nothing of note. I would have speedied this if I didn't know better than to make such a rash and immediate call. Being perfectly frank, I don't see how someone can convince me that this is notable. Then again, AfD is exactly the place for me to find out. Feedback☎ 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Never did anything notable as a team. The first two were never even officially tag teams unless I missed something. STATicmessage me! 03:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete 1 and 3 Both are hardly notable, and there was never any official recognition of the name for Kelly and Tiff. It was just a name used by Matt Striker in commentary I think. Comment 2 This one on the other hand might be salvagable. However it's a bit of a shoot because it's based on the real life friendship between the two, and that's hard to source. I'll abstain on it for that reason. BerleT (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is a friendship notable enough to be the basis of an article? I'm pretty sure many friendships are formed backstage in all of wrestling, we can't have articles for each one. Feedback☎ 21:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, not enough notability to be a separate article, I bet the info is already in the main articles and this is totally redundant. MPJ -US 13:12, 25 March 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.
Unsourced list that contains nothing but a list of names. This could be easily accomplished with a category. If this article were a table that gave some meaningful statistics, okay, that's useful, but just a list is not useful. B (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeWP:CLN says it's permissible to have lists and categories duplicating each other. While the list exists, there's the possibility of expanding it with meaningful statistics or at least dates, but if you want something to be improved, deleting it is the wrong course of action. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad nomination, no valid reason given to delete this article. The list shows people who are notable for one thing, linking to their various articles. More information would be nice, but even without that, there is no valid reason to delete this. DreamFocus 13:36, 19 March 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.
This one might be a little controversial, but that's what AfD is for.
I am a firm believer that not every WWE tag team should have its own Wikipedia page. Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks are a fine example of a tag team which had longevity (11 months), but didn't accomplish anything of note. Their crowning moment was probably a backstage segment at WrestleMania. They were mostly booked at the bottom of the undercard and rarely had a feud. Their very few exposure was on NXT Redemption where they had one or two feuds which didn't really amount to anything.
My point is, there's nothing in this article that isn't talked about in both Curt Hawkins and Tyler Reks' individual articles. And with Rek's retirement, it doesn't seem like they will be adding anything anytime soon.
There's also the fact that this article has way too many week-by-week results of trivial developments in minor feuds which aren't very encyclopedic. This level of detail matters to very little people and shouldn't be in every article. If we cleaned it up, the article will probably end up a stub anyway.
It's time we make a precedent that not every tag team needs an article. Hawkins and Reks' deletion should be an example for others to follow. Feedback☎ 22:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable as a tag team. No championships, no feuds. --2.136.171.116 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If points were given for effort to get the team over, this would be a speedy keep because they tried. But that's not what this is about. BerleT (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it was nominated before. After the AFD closes, we can move both AFD pages to their corresponding names. Feedback☎ 22:32, 26 March 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.
Keep. Awesome movie (LOL kidding) that starred Sharon Cuneta (the "Megastar") and Andrew E. ("gamol" or the misfit) at the height of their popularity in the mid 1990s. Let's see if I can come up something from the Google Newspaper Archive. –HTD 03:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't take long to check out the Google News archive, as automatically linked in the nomination statement. Only one of the hits is for this film, the others being for some software with this name and a shopping mall. That one hit has a bad link from the search results, but I found a copy here which shows that the film only has a passing mention. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I actually saw the Manila Standard's newspaper archives but it only went into July 1994, when the movie opened in August 1994. The entertainment section is a single page and it's pretty much of no use for entertainment news. As you've said below, it's next to impossible finding any contemporary info about this online... –HTD 19:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When a "find sources" assigned by an AFD template proves problematic, we try to refine our search parameters. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 17:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As this film had involvement of multiple Philippine notables, this topic requires input from Philippine Wikipedians with access to 19-year-old hard-copy sources not online. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 17:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree. I was just pointing out in my comment above that Google News isn't the place where we will find sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're on the same page Phil... I just expanded my position a bit. As the sources below purport the film as a "hit" and one that was released commercially (television) 9 years after theatrical release, we need an assist from those able to do to dig out hardcopy or book sources. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 01:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got this one, in 2006. It's mentioned in passing, saying that "the movie was a hit." In this one, a 2003 TV airing was the 22nd most-watched once-a-week show from Feb. 28 to Mar. 1. The other movie in the list was released in 2000, or there was a 3-year gap from screening to airing; it did quite better (it was 6th). (If you'd compare it to daily programs, it's 10th.) –HTD 19:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has the Megastar, Sharon Cuneta, of all people! But seriously, although this movie was released before I was born, it appeared to be a hit, so it's notable. Note that coverage for Philippine films before around 2001, especially online, is extremely difficult to find. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 06:33, 23 March 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 Minori (company). Atlantima - be bold!. Feel free to redirect these "easy calls" when you see them. No need to bring them here. If you get reverted, discuss on talkpages, and maybe bring to discussion if that doesn't work? Keeper | 76 00:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable video game with no reliable third-party sources. Delete or redirect to Minori (company). --Atlantima (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG in the total absence of reliable third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage. The GameFAQs site should probably not be linked to from Wikipedia articles given the large amounts of copyvio images held there. --DAJF (talk) 05:42, 20 March 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.
I think Richard Gastin Lado should be deleted/ redirected because the article Richard Justin is up-to-date, has more informations and the real name seem to be Richard Justin (for example in the BBC report about the first match of the South Sudan national football team). --Benny 23 (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. It's pretty clear that these two articles need to be merged under one of the names and the other needs to be a redirect. None of this requires deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 19 March 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.
This isn't really a trail, that is, it isn't a pathway constructed in its own right like a hiking trail or the Oregon Trail. It's nothing more than a walking tour in San Francisco which is sponsored by the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society. While they managed to get the city to allow permanent markers of the sites on the tour, it appears to be privately run, and I have not been able to get information about the path or specific points on the tour from any source other than the tour's own website, which apparently is separate from the SFMHS. At any rate you seem to have to pay to get a map. External references all seem to be tourist info books/sites saying "in SF, take the Barbary Coast Trail for a tour pof the historic sights." Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
further comment Article was apparently created by "trail founder Daniel Bacon" (as it says on the SFMHS website), who has no other edits. Mangoe (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do have an article on the 49-Mile Scenic Drive in S.F., which has been well-known in the city for years. This is newer, but I think it is something that visitors do - I've shown parts of the trail myself. There may be a COI problem; at the moment I've no opinion. BPMullins | Talk 01:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a significant body of historical writing on the latter, so I don't see any notability doubts about it. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News Archive search shows extensive coverage in many major newspapers, including several far from San Francisco. It meets WP:GNG. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did find some such documentation, as I said. I didn't find anything that went beyond a "when visiting SF" travel pages level of material. Mangoe (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That could be said of the sources on the majority of notable topics that can be called "tourist attractions". But when we see that sort of coverage, much of it fairly detailed, in a wide variety of newspaper, magazine and book sources, then that adds up to notability, in my view. I understand that others may see matters differently. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cullen's research shows that the trail has been covered in depth by multiple newspapers, some very non-local. I have no doubt that this trail is also covered in depth in many travel books about San Franscisco. For instance Frommer's San Francisco Free and Dirt Cheap has about a page on it and there is the 250-page book devoted to the trail: Walking San Francisco on the Barbary Coast Trail. The topic is well above general notability thresholds. The article does need more citations and better referencing, but these are surmountable problems WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A notable topic and surmountable problems suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like the Freedom Trail in Boston, MA, it constructs through the city historically. -FriscoKnight(talk) 8:44 pm 19 March 2013 (PCT)
Keep per RightCowLeftCoast, FriscoKnight, Mark viking, and Cullen328. Based on significant coverage in multiple sources, it is presumed to be notable. While not exactly as notable as Boston's Freedom Trail, it's well known enough by travel junkies around the United States. Mark viking and Cullen328 have found lots of sources to add to the article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 20 March 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.
Speedy delete as no credible assertion of importance under A7 and I have so tagged. Safiel (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 19 March 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 and move to Death of Marco McMillian. I wouldn't consider a mayoral candidate a public official, but consensus seems to agree that this meets our rather strict BLP1E guidelines, but not as an individual article. If nothing continues in this case after a few months, feel free to renominate it for AFD. Secretaccount 21:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As of right now, what we have here is an unelected candidate (thus not qualifying for an article under WP:POLITICIAN) for the mayoralty of a small town (a political office not significant enough that he'd necessarily qualify for an article under WP:POLITICIAN even if he'd been the actual mayor), who is thus notable only for having been murdered (thus violating WP:CRIME). While it's possible that the incident might accrue greater notability in the future (e.g. if it ultimately turns out to have been a properly verifiable anti-gay hate crime), Wikipedia does not keep articles about news stories just because they might become genuinely notable someday — we only allow them after permanent notability has already been demonstrated. That isn't yet the case here — as of right now, unconfirmed speculation about possible motives for the murder is all that exists in any media source whatsoever. Accordingly, this is a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER violation as things currently stand. Delete for now; we can recreate it in the future if genuine significance as anything more than a passing news story ever actually materializes. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He's received international coverage[1][2] though it's too soon to show lasting historical significance. Not opposed to move to article about his murder if that's judged more appropriate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Death of Marco McMillian; subject has received significant coverage in multiple non-primaryreliable sources; that being said the majority of the coverage is about the subject's death, and therefore this article falls under WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:BIO1E. Therefore, the question is, does the event of the subject's death continue to receive coverage so the event doesn't fall under WP:NOTNEWS, that is something only time will tell. Therefore, the article should be refocused on the event, and if the event does not receive continued coverage a AfD should be refilled at some later date (say two to four months).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't even have an article about the event until the event has been demonstrated to have attained lasting, permanent encyclopedic notability. If "only time will tell" whether it has lasting significance or not, then we properly shouldn't have an article about it at any title until after time has actually told. Bearcat (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Flat keep here, no rename necessary. Murdered public official with copious news coverage. The incident is part of his biography. Carrite (talk) 17:41, 26 March 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.
Only reference present is not about the subject but simply lists the mascot along with others from the Bay Area. Does not appear to be interdependently notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see why this should be at AfD since the only possible outcomes of this discussion are Keep and Merge to San Jose Earthquakes#Mascots. That being said, I don't oppose a merge because I can't find much coverage and don't expect to find much now or in the near future. On the other hand Q almost got into a fight with Beckham [3] and was busted for PED use [4]. How many mascots are that badass? :-) Pichpich (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per Pichpich; while the name "Q" is hard to Google, at minimum, content about the mascot belongs in the Earthquakes article, also meaning that the listing for this mascot should be maintained at Q (disambiguation).--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's an AfD because it could be delete. There is currently no RS to indicate notability. Other teams in the MLS also have mascots and those mascots are not included in the team articles (Q already has an entry under an unreferenced Mascots section in the club article). So delete is a very real possibility. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that there shouldn't be a redirect from Q (San Jose Earthquakes mascot) to San Jose Earthquakes#Mascots? What could the benefit of that be? Multiple sources clearly establish the fact that the blue gizmo in the picture is indeed the team's mascot and is called Q. We shouldn't hide that fact just because we don't think Q merits a standalone article. Pichpich (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
San Jose Earthquakes does as well but that would be a circular reference and would have to be removed. Since so few pages actually link there, the only really relevant one (List of association football mascots) could simply be pointed directly to the San Jose Earthquakes article. However if you can show that the mascots that don't have articles have similar dab entries, I'll be happy to allow a dab to exist on the Q dab page. There's nothing to hide since the subject is clearly not notable written about. The lack of any sources that confirms the subject is notable. If there were multiple sources, that would be a reason to keep. Since you're argument is merge (WTF are you planning to merge?) and redirect, you don't even believe that the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 19 March 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. Keeper | 76 00:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch statistics provide no details for cities, only for municipalities and (statistical) neighbourhoods. To compile these list, someone has to make a definition of the city involved (= WP:OR) and than calculate/estimate the population (= WP:OR). For what it is worth: even the Dutch WP has removed the page due for WP:OR... The Bannertalk 19:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree this article is not needed. The lead basically states that the information provided is not for cities, the cut-off of 100,000 is arbitrary at best and the population data is also available in Table of municipalities of the Netherlands. CRwikiCA (talk) 19:46, 18 March 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 Withdrawn. GiantSnowman 21:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PROD contested by article creator, no rationale given. The original rationale was "No evidence of notability; minimal sources available, and I cannot see any that cover the subject in great detail" which, despite some minor improvements to the article, remains valid. GiantSnowman 16:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Polish Wikipedia article is detailed and has some sources. The Google machine translation is here, for whatever it's worth: [5]. Will wait for comment from someone who can actually read Polish and comment on that content and sources. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fully symathise with the lack of rationale for contesting the WP:PROD tag, because notability is so blindingly obvious from a simple Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop embarrasing yourself like this and withdraw the nomination. When you nominated the article for AfD it already had a reference to a whole book about Łaski, and even when you PRODded it it had a reference to a web site that, although itself self-published, cited three cast-iron reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, if sources are so readily available, then feel free to add them to the article to improve it, and I'll then happily withdraw this AFD. As it stands, I will not. GiantSnowman 15:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you read my last comment? There is a reference to a whole book about Łaski already in the article. Got that? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great. How do we know it's not a 2 page pamphlet which mentions him (in passing) once, as opposed to a 600-page biography? You seem to enjoy removing PRODs/challenging AfDs without ever improving the article(s) in question, quite a feat.GiantSnowman 15:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is completely untrue, and unbecoming of any editor, let alone an admin. Take it back. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We know what type of book this is in the standard way, by following the ISBN link from the citation. And we know that it doesn't just have a passing mention of Łaski from the very fucking title. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your swearing is unbecoming of any editor. Take it back. GiantSnowman 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My words were a totally appropriate response to your obtuseness and unwillingness to look at the evidence. I will not take them back. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I've responded on your talk page rather than us disrupting this AFD any further. GiantSnowman 15:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Only AGF prevents me from wondering whether this is a vexatious deletion. Clearly Łaski has an entry in both Polish and Roumanian Wikipedia, secondly having added more material I feel it was a Giant mistake for Snowman to pursue this. In fact anyone with a passing knowledge of Renaissance hermeticism would know that Łaski was important if for no other reason than that he persuaded John Dee to visit Poland. He was also tied up with the family of love, a significant international mystical association. Also there's several pictures of him in commons.Leutha (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, kudos on the complete lack of AGF there! I'll admit that I have zero knowledge of 'Renaissance hermeticism', whatever the hell that is, but describing my nomination as "vexatious" (which is precisely what you have done, whether or not you put 'AGF' in the same sentence or not) when I PRODded an article that looked like this and AFDed one that looked like this, after failing to find any sources, is extremely poor form. GiantSnowman 20:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you AFDed an article that had a reference to a 234-page biography of the subject. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but am just as sure that you did so with gross incomptetence. And what analysis of the thousands of Google Books results led you not to find any sources? Why don't you just stop digging? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 19 March 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. The article was deleted in 2008 according to the closing admin's deletion log. I believe that the closing admin userfied the article by restoring it but then neglected to redelete it, but there are some technical wrinkles I can't explain. In any event, the article, as deleted, is not that different from the article as it currently stands. Therefore, I see no reason to relist this discussion to obtain more !votes. Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article Survivor Sucks appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The article is about a forum based on the show Survivor, the references are not independent of the subject, and need to be to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. Paul "The Wall" (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. That's really odd that it failed the 2nd AFD but doesn't seem to have been deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:22, 18 March 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. Michig (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Article consists of instructions to build a clock based on this kind of display. Would not be averse to userfying this, but if this has a place anywhere in Wikimedia that would be Wikibooks. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:48, 18 March 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, author blanked page. Yunshui雲水 10:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. The only thing that would save this article from a speedy A7 is a vague mention of "international awards". Since the article is not specific about those awards, this cannot be verified. Also, plenty of sources used in the article, but all of them are primary and consist of pages on Facebook, Youtube, and the like. -- Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Optimistic schoolboy. Johnbod (talk) 18:44, 18 March 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. Keeper | 76 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AfD was closed, mistakenly I believe, as a "no consensus". He fails WP:NMMA with no MMA fights for a top tier organization and the coverage I could find of him was just routine sports reporting (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) or PR. The most notable thing I could find was a 2nd place finish at the IBJJF European championships, but it turns out there were only 3 competitors so he may not have even won a fight if he got the bye. That result does not seem to be enough to meet WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - As I said in the previous AFD, there needs to be better sourcing for him to pass WP:MANOTE. Also, there is some confusion between him and another Bruno Carvalho who fought in DREAM. Luchuslu (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the coverage presented in the previous AfD is enough to pass the WP:GNG. And when a subject passes the general notability guideline, the article should be kept even if the subject fails the subject specific guideline. Why has no-one in this discussion discussed if he passes GNG or not? Mentoz86 (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage presented in the previous AFD was mostly for a different Bruno Carvalho. Also, the sourcing isn't good enough for this Carvalho to pass WP:GNG. Luchuslu (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage presented in the previous article is indeed information tied with this Bruno Carvalho, the only notability garnered from the other Bruno is the fact he fought for DREAM, other than that (even in Grappling) he holds no notability at this time. and certainly not as much as this Bruno Carvalho. Sepulwiki (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What coverage? I see two references from the same site and the home page of his uncle. The only sources of the correct fighter presented in the previous AfD are a pre-fight interview for a Cage Force event, all the rest are for the other guy. This is the Welterweight/Middleweight Bruno, not the Lightweight Bruno. There is also no sourcing for his grappling titles. Luchuslu (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he definitely fails WP:NMMA, and I'm not seeing enough coverage from reliable sources to allow him to pass WP:GNG either. The sources in the article aren't even close, and the stuff I see on Google is just routine results reporting. CaSJer (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It took some work to separate out the two Bruno Carvalhos (neither of which meet WP:NMMA). The best source mentioned in the previous AfD discussion (from mmajunkie) was about the other (lightweight) Bruno. Luchuslu mentioned the only significant source for this Bruno and I don't consider that an independent source since it was on fightnetwork.com which was broadcasting the fight being discussed. Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 23 March 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. Keeper | 76 02:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly talented but ELs and Ghits do not meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps too soon, but I don't see that he meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:MUSICBIO. No problem reversing my !vote if someone can show proof that he is very popular in Macedonia, because as far as Australia is concerned, that doesn't seem to be the case. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But let's not confuse "popularity" with "notability".--ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly talented, but also clearly not notable yet. If they come to the attention of a wider audience, then of course the article should be recreated. Lankiveil(speak to me) 02:02, 24 March 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. Michig (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG, as a Google search fails to turn up any more in-depth coverage sufficient to justify a biographical article like this. The sole source used in this article is an unreliable fan-generated source. --DAJF (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've tried to search using multiple parameters and have found no record of this person beyond this one game. And not even Japanese blog reviews of this game mention his name. Fails WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. Even my little turtle is more notable (much more) than this "Muchiuchi". I afraid that in the future, the creature who created this page will create one Wikipedia article about his ownself... --Cuoralho (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above comment was written by an account blocked for sock-puppetry. --DAJF (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was going to say he fails WP:1EVENT, but it's worse than that: He doesn't even appear notable for this one game! Searching the name in kana yields no relevant results; I can't even find anyplace that has his name in kanji, so I can't search for that.--Atlantima (talk) 13:33, 19 March 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 - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by Nominator: I've still got a lot to learn about Article Deletion and AfDing this was clearly a mistake. Someone close this thing as a Speedy Keep. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 09:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sources in this article and something about the External link screams 'not allowed' (of course I could just as easily be wrong about the second part) and correct me if i'm wrong but isn't there some rule that hty must have a gold before they are considered notable? Even if my hunches are wrong it still lacks sources and could possibly have gone for A7 instead of an AfD. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her real IAAF profile can be found with at Google search. She meets criterion #1 of WP:NTRACK (has competed at a senior IAAF world championship). • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, the rule is actually that all competitors at top international level in non-league sports are notable, and this is a World Championships silver medalist. Geschichte (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, verified, and silver medalists in WC are clearly notable. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't feel bad about this (and I am not really an experienced editor). But if you find it right, you can withdraw the nomination and close it yourself as a speedy keep. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:01, 19 March 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.
Been tagged for notability since Dec 2010. Besides being the first black female pilot I cannot find sources for her. Suggest it be deleted Gbawden (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would suggest that being the first black female air force pilot in a country that has lived with Apartheid for much of its history makes her significant. Particularly since I would suspect she is also one of the first female air force pilots in Africa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that she is South Africa's first black female pilot has been covered here, and even better, here.KingJakobC2 20:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, provided it can be referenced she is the first black pilot overall in the SADF (i.e. there were no fast-jet or trash hauler pilots before her). If so, however, this is a definitively notable achievement. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See the headline of this. It's already a reference in the article.KingJakobC2 21:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much as I love the BBC I must point out that that source contradicts itself. In the opening paragraph it announces, "A 21-year-old air force lieutenant has become South Africa's first black female pilot, media reports say", but lower down it says, "Ms Molawa is one of only a few female pilots". If she was one of a few when she got the appointment then she can't have been the first. I think that the all-important word "helicopter" must have got lost from the headline and opening sentence during the editing process.Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says she's the first black female pilot, not the first female pilot. South Africa is a multi-ethnic country. No doubt the other female pilots are white. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the problem is is thats it - this is all the info on her you can find. This article is never going to expand beyond these few lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbawden (talk • contribs)
Even if it's true that this can't be expanded beyond a few lines how is that a problem? Surely it's better to provide readers with a little information rather than none at all? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 19 March 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.
Keep Reasonably notable fictional character. this Google News Archive search (adding the series name to the character name) filters out enough of the reams of false positives to show that the character has as much coverage as other notable fictional characters. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (and edit) to List of Spooks characters. This article is pure 100% plot. All the media coverage of her from the above link is in plot summaries or brief mentions, and you need more than that, as WP:PLOT says. There are a lot of similar articles about Spooks characters with little or no sourcing. As I understand notability rules, characters should only be included if there is substantial WP:RS discussion of the character beyond plot: this would include character analysis ("was Hamlet mad?"); the creation and development of the character (outside the fictional universe); casting; how actors played the character; critical judgments about the character; cultural impact. If someone wants to add some encyclopedic content to the article, then I may support keeping it, but currently the article fails to meet Wikipedia policies. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am not going to defend keeping relatively minor character articles like these, and I really hope people will similarly not try to delete the material.
Merge to th combination article about the characters in the work--the best compromise solution. Butthere should be preservation of a reasonable amount of content.
Any significant character in notable fiction should get a one or two paragraph description. Any non-trivial character in a notable work should at least have a single line description in a list, and a redirect to it. (It doesn't matter how many characters there are--the more complicated the story, the more need to explain it fully and properly). We're here to provide encyclopedic information--and if the main work is worth covering in the first place, people are likely to want some degree of detail. Why else would you use an encyclopedia in the first place, if you didn't want detailed coverage? And, there is no valid reason why there should not at least be a redirect, so deletion is inappropriate. Anything anyone might rationally want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 25 March 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.
Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdwtalk 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, otherwise I would not have nominated it for deletion if I thought it was notable and would not have cited WP:BRANCH. Mkdwtalk 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep printed references sufficient In ictu oculi (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 20:20, 15 March 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, TBrandley 13:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. Church buildings or local congregations are not inherently notable, and must satisfy WP:N and WP:ORG, respectively. Every church I have been associated with has its own history of fundraising, development of ministry, activities, and building projects, the same as this one. The refs provided are not independent of the congregation, or are passing references. Edison (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, no doubt, but has every church you have been associated with had a choir recording for WEA and singing at the Vatican? I don't see how the refs relating to the Risen Christ Choir (not just re. the papal visit) can be considered passing references, although inevitably the choir isn't independent of the congregation, but Billboard, the Straits Times and Singapore Times are independent. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that notability is not inherited. An otherwise non-notable church with a fine choir which was associated with it years ago does not inherit the choir's claimed notability. Choirs and college choruses have not had much success at AFD, even if they have performed before famous persons or issued LPs. How many choirs around the world have sung for a Pope or issued recordings, but do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (music)? A great many, I would expect. And even if the choir satisfied notability, that notability would not be inherited by every institution they were associated with, though it should be mentioned in the articles about any such institutions which themselves satisfy notability. Edison (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you mentioned that notability is not inheritable, but the fact was that the church choir was what it was described as. As in, it is the church choir and not an independent choir within the church. It only gained a separate and independent identity when it moved out of the church itself. In that case, shouldn't the notability of the choir be credited to the church itself instead? I am of the impression that since notability is not inheritable, but since it is also not temporary, then should it not be the case that the church has acquired notability as well? Pretty Pig (talk) 13:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, I believe you are incorrect about what constitutes notability for choirs. Choirs which have issued 3 LPs with WEA would not be deleted at AfD. If you show you me where one has been then I request userfying so I can source and restore it.
I believe you are also incorrect to apply not inherited to an element of the church's history. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable parish. Reasonable and significant refs. – SJ + 05:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Peter Low Choir and cut out most of the rest. Agree with In ictu oculi's assessment that the choir is notable but not seeing it for the church itself. J04n(talk page) 21:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more inclined to support a rename and change of the article topic to the choir, but you're almost looking at a fundamental rewrite at that point. Mkdwtalk 23:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- I assume that a parish of 8000 refers to members/adherents/worshippers, not merely the population of the area where it is. That makes it a large congregation. WP has no clear guidelines on what churches are (or are not) notable, except in relation to tbe building. I am inclined to err on the side of keeping (1) size (2) LPs recorded by its choirs. If the latter is used, then any separate article on the choir should be merged here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 30 March 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. This is close to a keep, but several of the keep arguments make no reference to policy, and seem to invent their own criteria for notability. Some of the delete arguments, however, fail to address the fact that there are sources and thus at least a possibility of notability. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Text book case of WP:BRANCH where the organization is notable but the local church building is not inherently notable. No WP:SIGCOV to suggest otherwise. Mkdwtalk 06:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is the only 1 of 6 AfDs where sources did not immediately pop up in Google Books. Presumably because it is new 1988, even though "13,720, the largest parish in Singapore" - it seems silly to delete this simply because it is newish. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the Straits Times article isn't overwhelming, it seems pretty pointless deleting 1 out of the 6. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I challenge the nominator to prove beyond reasonable doubt that this entry and others that have been nominated for deletion are not "inherently notable" enough to be on Wikipedia. There are many sources abound and the real question is this, has any research been done to warrant such a nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pretty Pig (talk • contribs) 05:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I accept. Nothing is inherently notable on Wikipedia. Mkdwtalk 20:20, 15 March 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, TBrandley 13:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Local church congregations are not inherently notable. Edison (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the largest Catholic congregation in Singapore, plus one of the largest church buildings in Singapore with a distinctive $8m 1988 building complete with waterfall reported in the Straits Times is not just any church congregation. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N and WP:ORG do not grant inherent notability for the largest, smallest, newest, oldest, or shiniest X in location Y. "Ooh, they spent 8 million for their building" (not that much for an institutional building) and "It has a waterfall" (or a trapeze, or an alligator pit) also do not guarantee a Wikipedia article, any more than "ILIKEIT!" does. Please stick to arguments based on relevant guidelines. Edison (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems regionally notable, with local coverage. Systemic bias. Largest and oldest in a region do reflect on notability. Shiniest, less so. Having the largest congregation in the region is certainly relevant. – SJ + 05:22, 25 March 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Has lots of titles but none are signifinant tiles, Gelinas lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, listings and passing mentions only. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search found nothing to show subject meets WP:MANOTE or WP:GNG. A high rank is not sufficient to show notability and I didn't find significant independent coverage of him.Mdtemp (talk) 22:31, 21 March 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. Those sources need to be (selectively) cited in the article. Looks like you've got some work to do, SwisterTwister! (and others, of course...) Keeper | 76 02:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
no real claim to notability almost an a7, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, listings only. original research. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You must not have searched very well because my first Google News search as shown below provided several links and so did a second News search. SwisterTwistertalk 19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google News archives found some minor mentions here, here, here (mentions her three times, not substantially), here, here (doesn't provide much in the preview), here (blog of questionable notability), here, here (mentions her a couple of times), here (brief mention for collaboration) and this (brief mention and website of questionable notability). I also found an MTV article here about having a music video banned and it also mentions she's lesbian. However, despite mentioning that she's Jewish, gay and from Detroit, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a birth name. I found two reviews for her debut album Shapeshifters, here and here (HipHopDX, a well-known source in the hip hop world). ThisWashington Post piece decribes her and mentions she performed at the Can A Sista Rock A Mic festival. With Google Books, I found a SPIN magazine entry here (briefly continues after the advertisement, reviews her and mentions she was considered the female Eminem). This other Google Books result doesn't provide much so it wouldn't be useful or notable but at least it mentions her. In another Google Books result, I found this which does not seem to be useful at all. This mentioned she and another artist won a "Best of Detroit Award" so I searched and found this (Detroit Music Award for Best Female Hip-Hop Artist/Group, although I can't find any evidence at the award's website). I found an old dotmusic.com link here but because the website doesn't exist anymore, I can't recover it and I'm not having an easy time finding it at archive.org. This says she performed at World Cafe Live in Philadelphia and this says she directed a hip hop documentary called Revival. I also found a brief mention in a French blog here. I found another review here which also supports her work with the U. S.-Palestine Youth Network. I also found this which talks quite a bit about her even mentioning her real name (Illana Weaver). My last Google News search here provided more news articles including local. The Detroit Music Award and these links suggest she is notable. If other users agree, I'd be more than happy to start reconstructing the article. SwisterTwistertalk 19:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update per SwisterTwister. Those are all great refs and details. – SJ + 05:28, 25 March 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. Keeper | 76 02:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-WP:notable surname. PROD removed by author. Although there may be any number of people in the world named Avsharyan (or its variant Avsharian), none of them appear to have articles in the English Wikipedia. The present article lists redlinks to two people that the author felt worthy to include, but there is no indication that either of them would actually meet the criteria for inclusion. When (if) such article exist, there might be a need for an Avsharyan (surname) article, but not before then. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you can write an article about Avsharyan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seim Dak (talk • contribs) 06:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated in the original nomination, there is no dispute that there are people named Avsharian in the world (which is about all Seim Dak's links prove). But the fact that none of these people yet have Wikipedia articles makes it unnecessary to have an article about the name, if it doesn't apply to any articles in the project. (See WP:LISTPEOPLE.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is simply no policy based rationale for keeping this. J04n(talk page) 00:53, 27 March 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.
I would be the last to want to delete an article about Puerto Ricans, but I don't think they meet the general notability criteria. They teamed for less than half a year in a small developmental territory in Florida. Whatever is covered here can be covered in the individual articles. Feedback☎ 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Feedback☎ 11:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tag team in a small promotion, non notable.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been said in the nom. BerleT (talk) 04:03, 19 March 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. J04n(talk page) 00:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable album, referenced only to the website of one of the musicians. A google search throws up no independent sources to expand the article, so if it is kept it will re main remain as a permastub sourced only to its creators.
The title is too convoluted to be a plausible search term, so no need to redirect anywhere. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A bit of a bizarre (non-)article this one. Digging around on the internet, it appears to be an album based on a show that the four musicians toured (which should be added as a lede in the unlikely event that this is kept). I found an article in the Waterloo Record that appears to mention the album/show, but I can only see a preview. I certainly don't think a standalone article is justified here, and the title as it is seems unlikely to be useful as a redirect - the title as it appears on the album cover is Hell Bent...Heaven Bound II MONEY, The Final Frontier. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 17 March 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) 11:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like WP:A9, but regular deletion will work since there is not enough reliable source material to provide content to the article. -- Jreferee (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't an A9 because we have articles on three of the four artists concerned. --Michig (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't what A9 is for - it's for albums where the artist has no article at all, not where only one of four artists doesn't have an article. --Michig (talk) 19:30, 19 March 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. Michig (talk) 17:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This book is actually has huge value in philosophy and literature fields. Please do not judge based on awards or popularity. And it can be improved a lot. — Preceding Killerlxt comment added by Killerlxt (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 March 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) 11:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is not enough source material independent of Bruce Lee's book to provide content to the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article itself mostly is made up of a Wikipedian's selection of passages from the book. I found a few sources, such as The Business Insider, but there's just is not enough from which to write a Wikipedia article. The closer can redirect to Bruce Lee.-- Jreferee (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What remains of the article is largely direct quotes from the book. Is it a copyright violation to have a mass of brief quotes like that? If not, how about moving the quotations to Wikiquote as WP:NOT recommends? ("If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote.") I didn't find any reviews in the Google news archive. [6] —rybec 11:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Non-free content has stricter requirements that copyright and WP:QUOTEFARM goes into some detail as well. Either way, the article cannot overuse non free quotes any more than it can overuse non free images. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and deleted the Quotes section. —rybec 20:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. Gamaliel (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 150 holdings in worldCat. This is trivial for a popular culture topic like this by an author as famous in their field as Lee. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 25 March 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. Since only the nominator commented, and it's already run for 2 weeks, I'll treat this as a WP:SOFTDELETE (meaning it's like a WP:PROD, so if anyone objects after the fact they can request undeletion) Qwyrxian (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Completing nomination on behalf of an IP editor, whose rationale (as posted on the article's talk page) is included verbatim below. On the merits, I have no opinion. I do note, however, that the most recent edits from User:Bcjmarketing were very recent and didn't change much - large parts of the article have been in place since 2011 and before. They may be a marketing account for BCJ (and I have cautioned them not to edit this article on that basis), but they did not introduce the problems cited by the IP - else, we'd just revert and be done. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 20:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article reads like an advertisement. Shouldn't it be deleted? --74.0.166.140 (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will be participating in this forum within the next few days after I establish my formal Wikipedia account. I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bjcmarketing". I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company. I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I don't know if I have the right to vote on this nomination prior to establishing my Wikipedia account. If I am allowed to vote, I would vote to DELETE the article. When I do formally establish my Wikipedia account, I will identify myself on this page and merge this comment into the comment that I leave with my new name. Thank you for your time. --74.0.166.140 (talk) 14:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly comment and !vote, if you wish. IP votes are usually discounted if they're obviously sockpuppets or tied to the subject, such as an IP that resolves to ABC Publishing voting Keep on the AFD for ABC Publishing. Reasonable comments, such as yours, are taken into account by the closing admin. UltraExactZZSaid~ Did 13:20, 13 March 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) 11:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, please let me say that I was the person who brought this issue up in the first place. I just started my account today; I am now a registered user here! Anyway, let me repeat what I first said: I stumbled upon this article by accident; when I read it, I felt that it was a fluff piece for the company. I noted that it was recently edited by the account "Bcjmarketing". I would be willing to bet that this user is the public relations firm for the company. I don't feel that there is any notability for this entry; the Wikipedia article is more like a company page on Facebook that users there could "like". I do enjoy using Wikipedia as a source; I feel that Wikipedia should not be used as an advertising piece. Thank you for letting me have a say.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to get no coverage beyond the routine you'd expect for an app listed in an app market. — daranz [ t ] 16:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As original PRODer. This does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE/WP:PRODUCT and the company doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP where we would have an article on it and I could recommend a redirect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable software article with no RS references; created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:48, 19 March 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. Michig (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to me, since I clicked on the Soccerway link present in the article, that he has in fact played several matches in leagues listed as fully professional within the meaning of WP:NFOOTBALL for several of the clubs he has been signed to. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For information to those who may not be acquainted with football stats sources, Soccerway is published by Global Sports Media, which according to their about page is "the Sports Information Division of the PERFORM Group" (their about page) and supplies digital content to other media organisations, sports governing bodies, clubs, etc. As such could reasonably be presumed to have the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required of WP:RS. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and I am sure it can be brought up to WP:GNG should a Spanish-language editor be so inclined... GiantSnowman 12:28, 18 March 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. In its revised format as a disambiguation page, this seems to have overcome the original deletion rationale; if someone feels the dab should be deleted, it should be conisdered under its own merits. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Total garbage. The word "word" isn't even spelled correctly. Just a dictionary article with no encyclopedic content. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remand to Wiktionary? Anything here salvageable for Wiktionary? If so, send it to them. If not, simply delete. Sven ManguardWha? 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've tidied up the poorly designed dab page. It originally pointed to Organization XIII but the term 機関 can refer to different things, as the page explains. This probably is a translation of the ja:機関, which coincidentally also has a Wiktionary tag on it. I've removed the dicdef translations since Wikipedia is not Google Translate [7], reformatted the layout and added another redlink entry - based on its Japanese page. There's also Fujiwara Kikan, Iwakuro Kikan and Hikari Kikan but I'm not sure how notable they are. They seem to be sub-branches of the parent redlink, though active in the Indian sub-continent. If anyone feels like adding them, feel free. FunnyPika! 08:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The disambiguation page could be valuable to some users now that formatting is in line with Wikipedia policy. Marechal Ney (talk) 22:53, 25 March 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. Consensus seems to be that this article is a coatrack for non-NPOV comments about a broadcasting company. One possible alternative to this article would be to start an article on Australian Broadcasting Corporation controversies to document controversial events related to the company, rather than a random list of cherry-picked negative comments about the company. That would, of course, depend on whether there actually have been documented controversies, and if the description of those controversies are too long to fit in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation article itself. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 17:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based only on an editorial. It is clearly an unremarkable WP:EVENT. I am One of Many (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Allegation of bias within the ABC is always a topic of remarkable attention regardless of which side a person belongs to. Let wiki contributors add SUBSTANTIATED evidence as they see fit. What is remarkable is that user "I am One of Many" wants to delete a page that was created less than 20 minutes ago and pre-determines a deletion before the page can be completed. Sub judice comes to mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 07:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:COATRACK designed solely to drive readers to an anti-ABC blog to find out more. All three sources are to op-ed pieces, one behind a paywall. Certainly doesn't meet WP:NPOV by any yardstick. Nate•(chatter) 08:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC
The page was created only 20 minutes ago and there are still citations to be added. It is amazing that in that time there are already calls for the page to be deleted before it is even completed. Is this the usual behaviour from people not wanting the truth to be seen? Or should we have all the information collected before creating the page? I thought it usual for Wiki to have a "page under progress" at the top of a new wiki entry?
An account created just 5 minutes ago making the same point as ABCWatch...hmm--I am One of Many (talk) 08:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The person making this accusation is steadfastly lying. This wiki page is most certainly not built on an editorial. In fact it is in the process of being built and added to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.73.19 (talk) 08:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — 124.191.73.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The other page that was created earlier had a wrong title; please feel free to delete as this was created in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.232.65 (talk) 09:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC) — 60.224.232.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
This is not an editorial as the ABC have investigated these claims as well. Their former Chairman has also complained about bias and the issue has been the note of many academic papers; it is relevant, current and contentious which makes it perfectly fit for a wiki article.ABCWatch (talk) 09:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"*An account created just 5 minutes ago making the same point as ABCWatch...hmm--" Well yes that's true given I have to create a Wiki account to add information into the Wiki page. And given I have never created a Wiki page before I wonder why the paranoia about a new account?
Snow delete - Clear Coatrack - just get it out of here. Mdann52 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is a WP:COATRACK apparently set up to attack a media organization by assembling opinions of politically motivated sources. It consists mostly of original research by an editor who seems to have a close connection with a blog. I have attempted to clean up the article by removing potential BLP violations and content that is not supported by the sources. - MrX 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This seems completely analogous to the Fox/BBC etc controversies pages and should be transferred to an analogous page in my opinion. The title as it currently exists seems rather tendentious.Markbenjamin (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We do have Fox News Channel controversies, an article which might suffer from the same problem this one does, although there certainly are quite a few critics. We have an even more extensive list of BBC controversies. But then this is my US-centric viewpoint: my actual point is that a major, national news organization is almost certain to have critics whose views get reported in reliable sources, and the ABC probably qualifies. And yes, WP:OTHERSTUFF: but there does seem to be precedent for an article of this kind. My inclination is to move this to something like Australia Broadcasting Corporation controversies and keep it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Moving it to Australia Broadcasting Corporation controversies seems reasonable in principle, but it only has one reliable source as of now and that is an editorial. The articles cited in the comment indented above this cites articles with an average of at least 50 sources. So, I don't think the article would be notable yet. Another option would be to move it Australia Broadcasting Corporation controversies and then userfy, which would give the editor time to accumulate sufficient examples of controversies to make such an article notable. I still strongly lean towards deleting it since if sufficient controversy is eventually generated about Australia Broadcasting Corporation, then such an article could be created, but as of now, we have no such evidence.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and definite keep. The article's been expanded at least a little since it was nominated. As it stands now, it no longer relies on a single editorial. I did do a rather perfunctory search for opinion pieces about the broadcaster in the Australian papers. What I discovered, mostly, was the depth of my ignorance about Australia's lively politics. I am not the right person to interpret these texts for Wikipedia. What I will report is that useful material exists. The right person to present this material will follow Australian controversies more attentively than I do: fortunately we have a volunteer. They may not be disinterested; but they may be able to learn to move towards neutrality, and we should help.
What I am convinced of is that there is for better or worse an established precedent that major news outlets have separate articles about controversies and criticisms. All of these articles could be called coatracks for attacks, for the same reason. Reporting the news attracts controversy and accusations of bias. There will be so much material on notable ones in relatively free countries that smooshing all of the verifiable facts back into the articles in chief would give rise to undue weight problems. I'm not a fan, but these articles are probably inevitable. And I am also convinced that the ABC is a media outlet and news source of enough consequence that lack of the article modestly begun here would look like bias. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think it is a definite keep given the fact that, as I intended, the page is to show both sides of the argument and only substantiated evidence (not editorials) should be used. It is not a page for trashing the ABC but informing people of this lively debate through authoritative sources User:ABCWatch—Preceding undated comment added 02:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think MrX has done a good job of cleaning up the BLP's. I think that fact that user User:I am One of Many says "we have no such evidence" is a rather subjective viewpoint and that creation of such a page will only help inform readers of the ongoing debate. It is multi-sided after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.130.37.17 (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have tidied up some sections with quotes and MADE SURE to include the ABC Director's comments that he thought claims such as these were "insulting." The page has to be substantiated!!! I keep saying this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 00:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
--202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)— 202.0.15.181 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: Allegations of ABC bias is a long running political issue, with both sides of politics accusing the other of undue influence at "Aunty": for instance, in the Howard conservative government, allegations were made of "Board Stacking", as a reference refer to the Labor Party's 2010 legislation to reinstate the position of a Staff-selected director. "Under the new process, recommendations for the appointment of ABC and SBS directors will be made by an independent panel who will provide a short list to the communications minister, currently Stephen Conroy, who will hand down the final decision." (ibid). Clearly, if allegations of bias and conflicting interests were not an issue at the ABC (ie, just "a matter of opinion") such legislative actions would have been unnecessary and unwarranted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.0.15.171 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC) — 202.0.15.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete This seems like an unnecessary fork - the Australian Broadcasting Corporation currently covers this material, and could potentially be expanded to include anything worthwhile from this new one. To some extent, the History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation also covers some of this issue, although the main ABC article seems a better place. If there was more to build on I'd agree with Smerdis of Tlön that a more general controversies article may prove to be the way to go, but for the moment I'd merge any relevant material back into the main article and stick with that. - Bilby (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my !vote above, in watching this article develop over the last few days, it seems to have become clear as to where the problems lie. The article was created specifically to push an agenda, which was to demonstrate the perceived bias in the ABC's coverage of certain issues, and this has become a bit more pronounced now that we're had a request from Andrew Bolt's blog to save the article. The problem is not that we shouldn't cover the topic, but that the article is relying on a lot of original research, unsourced general claims, and claims not supported by the sources. If we pull out the essence of the article, and bring it down to reliably sourced and relevant considerations of the topic, the result is probably only three or so paragraphs, at best, which could be easily kept in the main article. The concern here is, to use a cliche, that of putting the cart before the horse - if we improve coverage in the main article, in relation both to bias and controversies in general, we can spin out an article when we have the content to warrant it. By spinning it out now, when there is insufficient valid content make it viable, will, at best, do little more than remove or duplicate material best covered in the main article. And at worst, we're creating a magnet for original research, biased claims, and fluff, which is pretty much where it has been heading over the last few days. - Bilby (talk) 12:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on how you look at it. From my perspective, questions as to the bias of a major media outlet are important, and if well sourced should be a significant part of making the article on the media outlet neutral. As such, I'm not comfortable with shunting them off to a separate article, effectively moving them out of direct sight, unless there are other reasons why it is necessary. A spin out article puts a lot of emphasis on the question, but at the same time removes it from the main flow. I don't think that the amount of content we have here justifies that. - Bilby (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not an unnecessary fork: the article is about allegations of bias and other controversies - not about substantiating actual bias or otherwise. Further, the article could serve as a summary of said allegations. Again, it is not about providing evidence of bias, since the allegation of ABC bias is a noteworthy political and historical issue in itself. The page should be kept and the notice of possible deletion removed.--202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Keith Windshuttle appointment in 2006 created quite a lot of controversy on its own and was another shot in the long runnig "culture wars". I think the depth of discussion possible on this topic will be lost in the ABC main entry or history entry.--202.0.15.181 (talk) 04:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAllegations of bias of Foo would require thousands of articles. Wikipedia does, often, tend towards FACTS with sometimes a controversy section down towards the bottom where the content of this article belongs Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bias (in the title) pretending to be a proper noun could be a dead giveaway? Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless collections of vague criticisms do not belong here. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far this article doesnt have any substance. If the creator wishes to develop the content into something credible, they should do it in WP:userspace. John Vandenberg(chat) 22:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:John Vandenberg I would like to ask: Since when is Australia's Parliament, its committees and reports not credible? Or what about the ABC's own internal reports and reviews on bias? I think it is a little premature of you to be calling for a delete when the page has just started and will require more additions. Every other news organisation has a similar page so why not the ABC? Or, as is being advocated here, are they above such scrutiny? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs)
ABCWatch, I did not say that "Australia's Parliament, its committees and reports [are] not credible". It is this article which I believe isn't credible. "are they above such scrutiny?" is frankly ridiculous - Wikipedia obviously has no problem with articles containing criticism of the media (and articles containing criticism of Wikipedia). The fact is that criticisms of the ABC are far and few between (in comparison to some other media providers), and those criticisms are already documented in several Wikipedia articles where the criticism is most relevant (such as ABC Board). Little effort has been put into pulling the criticisms together into a unified topic, so all we have is a quite short and not comprehensive section at "Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Politics and criticism". It is probably possible to tie the criticisms together into a separate page, but will require significant effort to be properly contextualised and neutral. The point that people are making here is that Wikipedia has a high-bar to accepting articles devoted to criticism, and the people voting delete here think that this article that you started doesn't yet meet that high-bar, and "Australian Broadcasting Corporation#Politics and criticism" needs to be expanded first. Please read "WP:POVFORK". Also, a "Allegations of bias in the ABC" topic is (I believe) not a useful scope for a new page. Compare with CNN controversies, where "Allegations of bias" is just a section of the broader topic. I think you would be better able to justify a separate topic under the title "Criticism of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation", but you'll need to do quite a bit of work to demonstrate that there are enough criticisms to warrant a separate page. While I dont believe this article is currently good enough to be part of the main area of Wikipedia, I do think you should be able to continue developing this topic in "wp:userspace" (please read that page). IMO you would be better off writing articles about a few specific controversies which are well documented, such as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's coverage of the Iraq war which is what the 2011 research paper from the Parliamentary Library focused on (see History of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation#2000s). Once a few controversies have been written about, it will be easier to demonstrate that there is a need to have an overarching topic to pull them all together. John Vandenberg(chat) 23:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Include mention of critics that the ABC is too right wing, such as Andrew Leigh and that Labor Senator I can't recall.GuyIncognito (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the various points raised by John Vandenberg - and noting very carefully that the article content as it stands is better framed in the ABC article section Politics and Criticism. sats 10:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not that "Little effort" has been pulled together to complete the page - but as with many pages, remains a work in progress. There have been 3-5 internal ABC reports on themselves and allegation of bias over the last 15 years which could all be included in here (some of which find left bias, other right bias). It can remain under the umbrella ABC page but I think it will expand in which case you'll be arguing that it is not relevant to that umbrella page! I note again that every other media outlet has a "controversy" section - why not the ABC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCWatch (talk • contribs) 01:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Vandenberg's argument above. An article on 'allegations of bias' has a much too narrow focus, and is basically set up to promote one view (it's a bit like having an 'Allegations of John Smith mistreating his dog' article; no matter what the different views are and the truth of the matter, the 'allegations' are going to be the focus of the article). If people want to write about this kind of topic, it would be best to start off with an article on 'Perceptions of the ABC' or similar which presents all sides of the story rather than to start off with an article focused on one side (eg, if you want to write something on this topic, you need to trace the history of how the ABC has been seen, and note its fairly solid standing as a news outlet - as demonstrated by polls which typically find it to be the most trustworthy news source in Australia). Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you want to quote the authoritative source of the poll which shows that you can post it! It helps the relevance of the page!!!
Delete, a classic WP:COATRACK article, clearly intended to promote the author's view that the ABC is a hotbed of lefty bolshie brainwashing. The "source" of this is a whole bunch of inane bleating by right-wing commentators on the payroll of the ABC's commercial rivals. It is potentially a valid topic for an article, but if so the article would have to be junked and rewritten anyway to remove the bias. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
I think this page is very relevant and definitely needs to stay. I think the only people here with a suspicious motive are those wanting to close it down. This page should stay.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.13.238 (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that it has generated so much conversation is proof of it being needed as a page!!!!!!!!
--202.0.15.181 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC) I'd settle for an "ABC Controversies" page with "Allegations of Bias" as a significant section (if there is enough to go on). Keep this page until the "ABC Controversies" page is ready to go, with a notice that this page is to be shifted sometime into the future once a volunteer fills out the broader topic. In the meantime, you have a volunteer for at least the "Allegations of Bias" section.
Also, the Allegations of ABC Bias page should include reference to the fact that the creation of the page itself was jumped on for deletion within 5 minutes by ABC sympathisers on Wikipedia.
Comment: I think that the page should be given time to develop. There appears to be the basis of an argument that is supported by material from both sides. As it grows there is enough information around to be cited covering both sides of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Richards (talk • contribs) 05:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As there is no empirical evidence at all to back up the claim. The allegation of political bias is based solely on the confirmation bias of those making the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Door 2nd (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
--202.0.15.181 (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Keep: Read all of the comments on this page, Bill. The Labor government itself passed legislation to address what it saw as bias in the appointment of board directors. Further, are you saying that all and any accusations of political bias are based in confirmation bias? Do you have research to support that claim. It seems your own comment is unsubstantiated by empirical evidence.[reply]
Keep: This page seems a wholly reasonable article for Wikipedia. There are accusation of bias, as there are retorts of balance. This appears to be a prominent debate in Australia, one that various institutions including academia, parliament and the press have tackled, as such it should be kept and developed. Ddragovic (talk) 08:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The board was stacked by a conservative government with conservatives. This stacking had no effect on ABC content. Unless of course you want to argue that the ABC has a Left wing bias. Recent polls showed that more than 70% of Australians believe that ABC funding is either right or in need of an increase. This would indicate the most Australians do not consider the ABC to be bias.
Keep: The article is on 'allegations of bias' not bias so many of the above arguments wanting proof of bias fall. Similar pages exist for other broadcasters, the material would swamp the main ABC article if included there, issues with the text can be dealt with by editing, and the topic passes all Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion.
Rsloch (talk) 09:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep I am writing an assignment on media bias in Australia and more pages like this would be very helpful.
≠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.224.232.65 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The ABC is a taxpayer-funded entity and must be open to public scrutiny. Removal of articles related to this scrutiny can only be regarded as malicious censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.128.31.147 (talk) 12:04, 26 March 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.
This page should be deleted, because it is not a real diet. It promotes promiscuity. Lucy346 (talk) 06:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep topic seems to have garnered enough coverage in reliable sources to have an article. Also the nominator's arguments for deletion are not valid ones, especially the claim that it promotes promiscuity. Per WP:NOTCENSORED that is not a reason for deleting. Valenciano (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Probably skirting the notability guidelines, but "not a real diet" and "promotes promiscuity" are not valid in a deletion discussion. IgnorantArmies 07:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does need a lot of work to flesh it out (no pun intended) with more reliable sourcing and to address all of the various stances and claims of the diet, but the thing is that sources do exist. Here are just a few that mention this diet, books that cover the diet, or go over the diet itself: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. These are just the ones I found straight off, so it is notable. As far as issues of this diet encouraging promiscuity, that's ridiculous and not a valid argument in any case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was easily able to find over ten (10) different books with "Sex Diet" as the very title of the books themselves. — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - this article says its a lifestyle, like its a lifestyle decision to womanize or maneat. A diet is a food choice not a sex choice. I would understand an article the benefits of sex, but not this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucy346 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lucy, you may want to read up on how to contribute to AfD discussions and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular: "Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." and "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted." --Atlantima (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
changed to comment. Lucy346 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to something less gimmicky/neologoismistic like "Health benefits of sex." Borock (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically a health-related or medical topic, but none of the references rise to the quality needed for such an article. Edison (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and rewrite per Borock. The term "sex diet" can be mentioned in the renamed article as appropriate.--Atlantima (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose rename, name itself is the subject of noteworthy commentary from numerous books of which the name itself is the title of those books. — Cirt (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do the books have "noteworthy commentary" on the term "sex diet"? Or are they "noteworthy commentary" on the concept of sex to improve and maintain health, which they call a "sex diet"? I'm guessing it's the latter.--Atlantima (talk) 21:35, 19 March 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.
One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum.
This particular one is one of many modern mass-produced copies of a sculpture.
This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This argument for deletion is ridiculous. This is a well-written and well-referenced article about an artwork at a major US Museum that is part of a the historic fabric of a National Historic Landmark. By DGG's same argument, there should be no articles about any MLB player, except the ones that he things are good. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteor merge into Oldfields. Of the seven references one is Wikipedia itself, another three are the museum where this statue is located, the remainder focuses on Oldfields, not on this statue. There's no indication it has been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Not every object discussed in publications on Oldfields is independently notable. Huon (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone point to the notability standards for individual artworks; they exist in no substantial or individualized category. This deletion is at best coming down to personal taste, which is absurd.
Delete. "It is likely that Diana with Dog is one copy of a mass-produced form". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is absurd. These artworks are part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. Plus this article meets all of the general notability guidelines. Just because the editors here don't see its value based on their personal opinion, doesn't make it any less valuable. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not absurd at all. The standard that is being applied is not editors' personal opinions, but whether this statue has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources—a standard documented in Wikipedia's notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are obviously primary. Being a part of a notable entity means nothing without independent secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced, seems generally notable as outdoor art. Thought the article should be about all instances of Diana With Dog, if more than one exists -- as per some of the examples (list of X statues) listed in other related AfDs. I disagree with the nominator's premise - anyone interested in this artwork would be interested in its history and production; no less if there were two or eight copies made than if there was only one. Copy of Diana of Versailles has to deal with this explicitly. – SJ + 06:46, 25 March 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.
One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular item is a modern mass=produced 19th century garden object. If it is of any particular importance, the article does not indicate so. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This along with a number of other articles DGG is trying to delete because he does not find them important enough. This is a ridiculous argument. They are all part of the cultural fabric of the Oldfields Estate, a National Historic Landmark on the grounds of the Indianapolis Museum of Art. This is a well-researched and accurate article on an important part of this estate. Deleting this article and the others is highly unproductive and without basis.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the five references, three are the museum where this fountain is located, the remainder focuses on Oldfields, not on the fountain. There's no indication it has been the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Not every object discussed in publications on Oldfields is independently notable. Huon (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone point to the notability standards for individual artworks; they exist in no substantial or individualized category. This deletion is at best coming down to personal taste, which is absurd.
Delete. Its maker is unknown; so is its significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. These artworks are part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. Plus this article meets all of the general notability guidelines. Just because the editors here don't see its value based on their personal opinion, doesn't make it any less valuable. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a long-winded, hopefully helpful, polite note to paraphrase the viewpoint that promotes deletion: the particular individual items within the collective cultural fabric of Oldfields are not automatically independently notable. By analogy, not everybody in the US is quite as "encyclopedically notable" as... e.g. George Washington. The position of those editors who are exploring deletion, a position which I am merely paraphrasing (perhaps wrongly to some extent, as hair-splitting can go on down to the minute subatomic level!) to assist you in looking at this matter, is that each article MUST on it's own merits, establish notability (for reference, see WP:GNG). The editors exploring deletion are contending that the article doesn't meet notability (see Huon's explanation) because there are no WP:RS, as defined, within the article in its present form that look to, or substantially discuss, this specific fountain. You MAY hypothetically have several powerful solutions to this: is there, in fact, a WP:RS for the fountain? For example, in the documentation for the National Historic Landmark listing for Oldfields, was this item in some way highlighted or given special mention? What was that, and was it referenced? Can the reference be incorporated here? Or, hypothetically, has the fountain itself specifically been written up or commented upon in a WP:RS? Even if it was a substantial part of a broader review that would help. If there isn't a WP:RS for the specific article topic, it is going to be much tougher to keep it. If that's the case, you may have to consider alternatives: merging to the Oldfield's article, or perhaps going left field and pulling all the articles they are questioning, collating them, and dare I say it publishing it (e.g. Kindle or many, many others)? Wikipedia may be a good venue for this if you have the type of tartly citrus sources that satiate the deletion fetishists' fangs; if not, maybe self-publish electronically? I hope this helps a bit; there's obviously a lot of nice effort gone into these articles so I hope you find a happy home for them, here on Wikipedia if feasible. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Oldfields. Too much puffery here. Has any source unconnected to the museum or Oldfields ever mentioned this as a significant piece? In related news, please look forward to my article on the staircase at the Tampa Museum of Art. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 20 March 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.
One of a great many such articles about minor artworks in the collection of one particular museum. This particular one is one of many miniature modern mass=produced copies of a famous Roman copy of a lost ancient Greek sculpture. The original work very properly has an article. This is a misuse of an encyclopedia--nobody except the visitors to this particular museum would care about this particular copy DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - difficult to see any justification for this sort of thing, as nom says. Please delete the others also... I suppose a note of major copies in the original work's article could just about be argued for, but even that is marginal. There would have to be a significant amount of 'local story' (not just one event, either) around a copy to make it a keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep.. Your argument for deletion is completely biased and ridiculous. You have failed to complete even the most minor bit of research as to the historical importance of this artwork, but have simply offered to delete it and other because you personally don't think it is important. This artwork, which is over 100 years old, is part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. I suggest you either begin to research the artworks you are trying to delete or leave them alone. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (the other nominated works as well). I don't see the supposed "historical importance of this artwork" at all. It is a relatively recent copy which hasn't received significant attention as a work of art in any relevant magazines: it has only been included in lists of outdoor sculptures at the Indianapolis museum. We should do the same: keep List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, and only create articles for truly notable individual artworks there (not even all the modern original works, and certainly not this copy, nor the Landon-Era Birdbath (Indianapolis) and so on. Fram (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please someone point to the notability standards for individual artworks; they exist in no substantial or individualized category. This deletion is at best coming down to personal taste, which is absurd. (R McC)
They come under WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." - "Significant" and "independent" are the key issues in cases like this. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A copy is unnotable. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. These artworks are part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. Plus this article meets all of the general notability guidelines. Just because the editors here don't see its value based on their personal opinion, doesn't make it any less valuable. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oldfields is not up for deletion (and would never be deleted): but notability is not inherited, not every aspect of a notable subject is notable as well. Take e.g. an important art museum: many of the paintings will be individually notable, but etchings, prints, lithographs, ... not: what I mean is that an etching by Rembrandt is a notable subject, but the particular copy of that etching in the Louvre, or the Rijksmuseum, is not notable, even though that individual copy will be mentioned in both works on the Rijksmuseum and works on Rembrandt. Here, you have a run-of-the-mill copy of a notable sculpture, which is part of a notable estate; but the specific copy which is up for deletion is not notable. Fram (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and questions. If this is 160cm tall, then it may be smaller than the original but it is hardly a "miniature" as I am used to seeing the word used. (Though yes, the article itself so describes it.) Yes, this is part of the cultural fabric of Oldfields, a National Historic Landmark. But surely many copies, whether fastidious or loose, are part of the cultural fabric of many national historic landmarks. That (i) X is part of Y and (ii) Y is notable does not, I think, entail that (iii) X is notable. But very possibly this is notable. Is there commentary on it, or its siting? It's clear that care has gone into the article, which is soberly written. I particularly appreciate the candor of it seems to be one example of a sculpture mass-produced for estate grounds decoration, and I don't think that being a single example of something produced in quantity necessarily makes it unencyclopedic. (Of the hundreds of examples of "first folio" of Shakespeare, some may merit their own articles -- though as far as I am aware none has its own article.) I'm willing to believe that its survival is rare or remarkable or both. Persuade me. -- Hoary (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep as effectively a sample article for a significant type of object, that we don't have a general article on, namely 19th century decorative copies of sculpture. I accept the article isn't really written that way, but it can be so taken. We don't cover the decorative arts, or copies of art, at all well, & while general articles like Replicas of Michelangelo's David or Replicas of the Statue of Liberty are ideal, articles on specific copies can still serve a useful encyclopedic purpose. We are unlikely to see a flood of these articles from outside Indianapolis. Johnbod (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even assuming that were so, this isn't the article to do it with; such an article would at most mention a copy among the List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art, the Louvre, the Victoria and Albert museum, the fine collection of plaster casts at the Fitzwilliam museum, etc, but essentially none of the current text would survive, so this would be a clear case of WP:TNT and start over. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly where I disagree. There is a place for detailed accounts of representitive fairly common objects, and exhibition catalogues and for example in A History of the World in 100 Objects about 50% of the objects were essentially representative rather than individually important. We have generally far too many mentions in lists of things with nothing to relate them to. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're surely right about the lists, but that isn't the point here: we can benefit from precise citations and references and photos of specific items, but all that would have nothing to do with the current article, barring perhaps a shared citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you there - references to things in lists are much less use if there is no context anywhere to relate them to, not that this article is good on the context, but it could be made so. Johnbod (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (redirect to list): this is a modern (relatively) mass-produced concrete copy of a classical statue. It might be useful to add to the Diana of Versailles article that copies of it were made in the 20th century for US gardens (a miniature copy on The Titanic gets a mention already), but one individual such copy is not notable. We do not need description of the level of "Her proper left leg is slightly forward and bears her weight as she steps off her right leg, extended a bit behind her on a supportive rise of the base." - David (Michelangelo) scarcely gets such detail: admirable in a museum catalogue but undue detail for an encyclopedia. We do not have, or need, articles on every art work in the gardens of Chatsworth House or the Palace of Versailles, especially if they are not original works. The list at List of outdoor artworks at the Indianapolis Museum of Art seems admirable and adequate, and I suggest that this title should redirect to that list (until someone needs to use the title for another copy, in which case a dab page can link to that list entry). PamD 14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
this blokeComment As for multiply- (though not mass-) produced originals, we do have List of Thinker sculptures: well intended, but a ghastly mess. Anyone with time and energy and references to write up me-too statuary could do a lot worse than work on this list-article, which surely has considerable unrealized scholarly potential. (And some comic potential too, I suspect.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC) ... PS We also have the fascinating but dreadfully scrappy "List of statues of Vladimir Lenin" (quotation: The Kremlin Bar, one of the premier Gay Bars in Europe, has a statue of Lenin welcoming partygoers over the main entrance). The student of the generic statue has plenty to do in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources either refer to the original, or are obviously primary. Abductive (reasoning) 16:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's inappropriate to criticise museum websites or catalogues etc as "primary" - there may be an issue over their independence, but they are typically, other than over matters of interpretation, the best & often only source for the basic information over size, materials, provenence etc, and should be regarded as the best source for these for their own objects. Nor do they actually meet the definition (rather an odd one when you examine it closely) at WP:PRIMARY. It would be perverse to prefer the account of an independent art historian of, for example the size or materials of an object over the museum's own account, when there is no way he is allowed to bring his own tape-measure and stepladder into the museum, let alone take samples for analysis. Johnbod (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. We are discussing notability here, not reliability: you are arguing that the museum catalogues c.s. are the most reliable, which may be correct, but that's not the issue here. Primary sources, even very high quality ones, cannot be used to determine notability of subjects. Fram (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then, as I said, "primary" is the wrong criticism of the sources - "not independent" would be the correct one. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No one has proven anything close to a notability argument here or elsewhere, and everyone has based their decision entirely on their own subjective decision if this piece is notable to their personal taste. You simply cannot judge artworks by general notability guidelines, because artworks are not general -- they are highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context. These artworks have received comparatively "significant coverage", considering the fact that, unlike every single sporting event that by itself gets significant coverage no matter how significant the event, it has been published in multiple scholarly locations. How is the museum's reference not the definitive reference for this artwork? How is the museum itself not reliable? It is a public charity. There are as many sources for this work as can possibly be acquired for an artwork -- the fact is that many have written about it. But this is not a fact of its significance, but rather a fact of the lack of interest in sources to write about art in today's society. Of course the information is independent of the subject. Take an honest look at these articles. Be deleting them you are basically saying that there is little room for articles about cultural heritage in this Encyclopedia because their is comparatively more interest in other subjects. You simply cannot judge artworks by general notability guidelines, because artworks are not general. Of course, we already know that, but the ones wanting to delete it would be the ones responsible for proving this. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There are as many sources for this work as can possibly be acquired for an artwork" That's just it, that simply isn't true. For notable works of art, many more sources, and much more clearly independent, can be found. The works will be exhibited outside their home ground, be discussed at length in the exhibition catalogue, be discussed at length in a catalogue raisonnée, monographies, thematic studies, ... Take e.g. The Three Graces (Rubens), currently a rather poor article: but what a wealth of information about this picture is available, how many independent studies and commentaries can be found! Or if you want a more recent example, we don't even have an article yet on Barnett Newman's Who's Afraid of Red, Yellow and Blue series, but that's a work of art which has independent sources and easily meets the GNG. Fram (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All right, works of art "are highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context". First, then, the matter of specificity. To what degree is this a copy? The article says that it is a copy, then describes what it depicts, and then repeats that it's a copy. The article neither qualifies "copy" nor elaborates on the meaning of the word. If the statue is a copy (or to the degree that it is a copy), why isn't the descriptive material -- clad in strappy sandals, a flowing, Doric chiton terminating above her knee, a very short himation, a rounded tiara, and a quiver oriented toward her right shoulder, etc -- instead in the article about the original? Where (or to the degree that) this "copy" is actually not a copy, has anyone remarked on its original touches, on its liveliness, on its humdrumness, or whatever? And if this is a member of the class of "highly specific things that are located in time and space to give them context", then can one say anything about the space? As it is, we learn that it hasn't been moved, although the surrounding foliage has changed. Does it look different in this garden in Indianapolis from the way it would look in other gardens that have copies of classical statuary? -- Hoary (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Johnbod that this is useful and notable information in a topic area that we do not cover well. Another possibility would be to merge with the article on the original - perhaps creating Diana of Versailles#Copies. Either way, as Gamaliel notes, this should be broadened to cover the series of Copies of Diana of Versailles. – SJ + 06:51, 25 March 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.
Article already had significant issues (WP:NOTABILITY, WP:COMPANY and WP:ORPHAN). Subject company now appears to be out of business, with nonexistent website. It's unlikely that problems with the article will be fixed, so deletion seems like the simplest and best solution. Jmozena (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sign this ever had notability. Need to avoid confounding USA beverage company, but after that, no news items at all. It won't achieve notability now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferencedadvertising: Phosphorix have extensive experience in web-based software and ideas development. The Phosphorix founders are keen advocates of Open Standards and the company soon adopted the principles of Open Source Software, Rapid Application Development and eXtreme Programming to meet its development needs....Phosphorix have made and continue to make significant contributions to educational and 'not for profit' organisations with the launch and release of a range of interoperability middleware solutions known as ioNode servers. This grew out of repeated calls from the UK education sector for methods of making disparate systems and applications communicate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company still exists [17] but I can't seem to find any in-depth sources about the company for it to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I also agree with what Ihcoyo highlights - most of the prose appears to be a paraphrase of their website, which includes quite a bit of sales-speak. FunnyPika! 15:40, 26 March 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.
An MMA fighter with no fights for a top tier organization and the article's only link to his fight record, thus failing both WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:41, 18 March 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.
An MMA fighter with only 1 top tier fight so he fails WP:NMMA. There's also a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NMMA with only one top tier fight, and there's not enough coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 17:00, 25 March 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.
Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception. It should perhaps also be noted that in the French system, such a joint CNRS-University lab (UMR) only exists for a limited time (up to 15 years maximum). In any case: No independent sources about the laboratory. Does not meet WP:ORG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To take these arguments one at a time. "Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception" is not an argument; it is an assertion backed by no evidence regarding this particular laboratory, or about the notability of laboratories in general, for that matter. The statement about UMRs existing for a maximum of 15 years is clearly false when it comes to this laboratory, established 16 years ago, and giving no signs of disappearing any time soon. Nor is it clear what the relevance of limited lifetime might be to whether there should be an article about an institution or not. Regarding "no independent sources", nothing could be simpler to find for a major laboratory. Such institutions are subject to regular independent evaluation. See the report now cited in the Further Reading section. Finally, WP:ORG is merely a guideline, not policy, and not even mentioned in the Guide to Deletion, so perhaps a little judgement is called for? (And in any case, since there are these independent reports, WP:ORG is met.) In my opinion, better arguments would be needed for deletion. Incredible, by the way, that this article was suggested for WP:PROD just now, in explicit violation of WP:PROD rules: "It must not be used for articles PRODed before or discussed on AfD", the article having already been subject to deletion review. A more appropriate response by experienced editors would be to encourage improvement (see this article for an example of such an approach), rather than just trying to delete an article about an institution that has produced thousands of scientific papers and hundreds of books, and that therefore might reasonably be expected to be notable. And indeed, such a response is mandated by policy: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". --MyPOV (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My, that's a lot to respond to... I'll follow the order of your arguments. When proposing an article for AfD, I generally start with a short description of the subject and that is indeed not an argument for deletion, nor is it intended as such. You're absolutely right (as attested by the CNRS Annuare des laboratoires) that this lab has now existed for more than the usual 15 years (until recently, that was 12 years). I don't know why, but the organisation of research is changing rapidly in France at this moment. I have struck that comment. Of course, laboratories are regularly evaluated. The AERES had as mission to evaluate every lab in France, large or small (I say "had", because the latest news seems to be that this agency will be abolished). It produced internal evaluation reports that are available on their website. It is debatable in how far this is an independent source as we see that here in WP, but whatever may be the case, it doesn't establish notability. You claim that it "nothing could be simpler" than finding independent sources for a major lab like this, but don't produce any. If you object against WP:ORG being used here, I'm fine with just using WP:GNG, which is not met either. As for the previous PROD, this, too, is debatable. There was indeed a previous AfD, but it applied to another article that was speedily deleted for being a copyvio, so the AfD did not run its normal course. A DRV was not really necessary after such a CSD, I think, but again, whatever may be the case, we're now here at AfD. As for the GS links that you provide: the hits on GS are not all articles and none of them seems to be about this lab. The "hundreds of books" translate for me to 94 results, most of them book chapters contributed by LIP6 authors to edited books. Again, none of this is about this lab. In short, I still see no evidence at all that this lab meets our notability requirements. --Randykitty (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kindly explain how a public report, commissioned by an agency fully independent of the laboratory, and furthermore produced by independent reviewers (as opposed to, say, the agency's own in-house reviewers), does not establish notability. Sure, if the report had been silent regarding the laboratory's significance, that would be one thing. But it said: "Sa notoriété scientifique nationale et européenne est globalement très bonne" ("Its national and international scientific reputation is overall very good"). This is the very definition of notability. This is also why, incidentally, the hundreds of books and thousands of scientific papers produced by the lab are pertinent for the discussion here. Sure, they do not establish notability, and I never made that claim. What they are, however, is a sign that the lab might well be notable, and that the appropriate action would be to look for the documentation of that notability. Coming back to the question of the independent source, here, again, is an assertion without any evidence to back it up: "It is debatable in how far this is an independent source." The AERES was established as an AAI, or "Autorité administrative indépendante", meaning "independent administrative authority", and this is reflected in its statement of founding principles, the first of which is Independence. It is independent of the Ministry of Education and Research, and it is independent of the two institutions that control the laboratory, UPMC and the CNRS, and of course it is fully independent of the laboratory itself. This can be verified by looking at the text of the presidential decree Décret n°2006-1334 du 3 novembre 2006, which establishes the agency. If there is evidence to the contrary, it should be presented here. Incidentally, in my opinion, the new government would prefer to replace AERES with a less independent agency, which is a factor in its announcement that it intends to abolish AERES. But raising the possible abolishment of AERES in this discussion is a red herring, just like the 15 year issue that was raised above. It is a rhetorical means to cast uncertainty and doubt, by association, on the notability of the lab, while in fact not having anything to do with Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Here is another statement that is backed up by no evidence and that is false: that the AERES produces "internal evaluation reports". Exactly the opposite is true. These evaluations are of no value internally (i.e. to AERES). And while they are certainly of value to the laboratories being evaluated (which are external to AERES), they are emphatically not limited to that use. The future of a research laboratory is a matter of public policy, and these reports are commissioned for public consumption, as stated among the objectives of AERES: to "provide civil society with reliable and transparent information about the activities of higher education and research institutions". Finally, regarding WP:PROD, the following statement is also a red herring: "There was indeed a previous AfD, but it applied to another article that was speedily deleted for being a copyvio, so the AfD did not run its normal course." While it is true that there was a prior article that was deleted, the relevant point is about this present article, in very much the form it is today, which was deleted and then restored. --MyPOV (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The AERES produced reports on any laboratory in France, no matter how large or small. Does this mean that you think ALL of those labs are notable? And a more constructive approach would be to give a few of those simple-to-find sources. Instead of all this arguing about PROD rules and such, come up with some good sources and I'll withdraw the nom and we can save everybody's time here and be done with it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The stated reason for nominating this article for deletion was: "No independent sources about the laboratory." I have identified a very easily located independent source, the AERES, that produced a nine page report about the laboratory. The objection to the AERES then was: "It is debatable in how far this is an independent source", without providing any evidence about why this would be debatable. I have demonstrated, I believe conclusively, that the AERES is indeed an independent source (and the authors of the report even more so). Now there is a move to shift the terms of the debate to something along the lines of whether every laboratory written about by this particular independent source is notable simply because this source writes about it. Let's just be clear here that this is a new issue, and not the one that was the basis for nominating this article for deletion. Furthermore, we do not need to answer the question for all laboratories in order to know whether this laboratory is notable. An independent source has said about this laboratory that it has a good national and international scientific reputation (see the quote cited in my previous comment). It is confirming what we should already have suspected, given the hundreds of books and thousands of scientific articles produced by the laboratory. What more does it take for a laboratory to be notable, under Wikipedia policy, if not a good international scientific reputation attested to by an independent secondary source? --MyPOV (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much more indeed. See WP:GNG. If it's so simple, then why is this AERES report the only thing that you can come up with? --Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure how to respond to vague handwaving towards policy documents. What are the arguments? Where is the evidence? As best I can tell, the current argument is that AERES reports say about all laboratories, large and small, that they have good international reputations. But even looking at this one report, we can see that it differentiates between the international impact of some teams (the RO team, for instance, on page 7) and the lack of visibility of others (the ACASA team is an example, on page 8). No evidence has been presented here, just a generalized fear, to back up the slippery slope argument that if we were to allow an article on LIP6 we would have to allow an article on every French lab. To come back to the original objection that was raised about this article, "No independent sources about the laboratory"; this has been conclusively rebutted. I'm not sure why there's an attempt to move the goalposts now, to ask for yet more documentation. Everything that was asked for has been provided. --MyPOV (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC) 15:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In short, the AERES report is the only source that you can come up with. I'm happy to leave it to the closing admin to decide whether an internal agency document is a reliable secondary source. --Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In what sense is the AERES report an "internal agency document"? Of what possible use would such a report be to AERES internally? Is the suggestion that AERES evaluates laboratories for its own pleasure? There is a failure here to engage the evidence, provided above, which is that these reports are public documents whose role is, among other things, to "provide civil society with reliable and transparent information about the activities of higher education and research institutions". In what sense is the AERES report not reliable? No evidence has been presented here to back up this implication. In what sense is the AERES report not a secondary source? The agency's methodology, explained on its website, is to review primary sources, which are documents and other information presented to it by the laboratory, and reach its conclusions on that basis. Arguments, please. Evidence, please. The closing admin needs these in order to come to a sound decision. --MyPOV (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*An AERES report is written by a committee that visits the lab to be evaluated, talks with the people there. Based on that visit and on the activity report prepared by the evaluated lab the final AERES report is drafted. At the "president's conference", the presidents of these committees grade the different labs on a scale from A+, A, B, to C, basing themselves on the different reports. C grades almost invariably result in a lab being closed down. In recent years, the same goes for B grades. Only labs that score "excellent" on most criteria (A or A+) are maintained. Do you think that this is enough (and correct) information for the closing admin? --Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above does indeed seem to be evidence of some kind, but it needs to be put in the context of a coherent argument. Is it being used to argue that the AERES report is an "internal agency report"? If so, how does it show this? Is it being used to argue that the AERES report is not a "reliable secondary source"? Again, how? Furthermore, what is the provenance of this information? --MyPOV (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To summarize the lengthy exchange above, in my opinion the article did indeed need to cite at least one source that would make clear why the subject of the article, the laboratory, is notable, and this has now been done, even if the article could still be further improved with more or better sources. Again in my opinion, this outcome could have been easily achieved by following Wikipedia policy, "[c]onsider[ing] whether the article could be improved rather than deleted", and adding the {{notability}} cleanup tag. Instead, this article was first proposed for deletion (also ignoring Wikipedia policy, since the article's deletion had been discussed before and a nearly identical version of the article had been deleted and restored), and then, when the proposal was removed with the comment "Kindly advise on sources", the article was promptly sent to AfD. Following the addition of the source, the editor who nominated this article for deletion has insinuated in various ways that the source is unsatisfactory, but without, in my opinion, making a case backed by convincing argument or evidence. For example, the editor implies that having only one source is grounds for deleting the article, by writing: "why is this [...] report the only thing that you can come up with?" But there is no hard and fast requirement concerning a number of sources, and one can be sufficient (if perhaps not ideal) if it is a good source. That is a question for discussion and debate, but we have not been able to have that debate here. Another example concerns whether the source is properly a secondary source, as I believe it is. The editor who wishes to delete this article implies that a report by an independent agency is not a secondary source, perhaps tainted by interactions between the report's authors and the subject of the report. Again, we could have a reasoned discussion on this question, but none has been forthcoming. I ask that the article not be deleted and that discussions on how to improve the article take place on its talk page. --MyPOV (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sigh. You really like wikilawyering, do you? The AERES sends a group of experts to a lab. They examine its production, organization, how much grants they got, etc. and based upon that information produce a report. To me, that's almost the very definition of a primary source. I may be wrong and the closing admin may agree with you and close this as a keep. But if I were you, who apparently feel very strongly that this article should be kept, I would not take the risk that the closing admin is going to agree that this is a primary source and that the article should be deleted. Given that you claim that it is simple to find good sources on this lab, I really fail to understand why you don't just come up with some, it really is in the interest of your position. In addition, that would save us a lot of discussion here and we could get this closed soonest. Or have you perhaps been unable to find any other sources? --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To address three points raised:
Primary versus secondary sources: Here on page 5 of the AERES report is a list of the primary sources that were evaluated by the independent reviewers: "rapport d’activité à 4 ans, mise à jour au 1.1.2008, présentation des projets, copie des transparents, fiches des démos, plan de formation, fiches individuelles des chercheurs..." ("quadrennial activity report, updated as of January 1st, 2008, project presentations, copies of slides, training plan, individual researcher forms, ..."). When the AERES report states that the laboratory's "national and international scientific reputation is overall very good", it is acting as a secondary source with regards to these primary sources. This is not undermined by the report acting as a primary source in other ways, for instance when it says, also on page 5: "La qualité des documents fournis [...] était très bonne" ("The documents that were provided were of very good quality"). It is not at all unusual for a source to be a secondary source for some things while at the same time being a primary source for others. For example, a biographer does not become a primary source simply because she meets with her subject. She remains a secondary source for assessments, based upon her archival research, like "he was a major innovator" even though she might also make some primary source assessments, based upon her own direct observation, such as: "he has a pleasant manner". Similarly, newspaper and magazine stories are often used to establish notability in Wikipedia, even though reporters see things and talk to people, and produce a mix of secondary and primary assessments. To come back to the current case, the independent reviewers were not first-hand witnesses to the laboratory's national and international scientific reputation. Those first-hand witnesses are the laboratory's own scientists and their peers who read their scientific papers and hear their presentations at conferences. The AERES report's independent reviewers' assessment of the laboratory's reputation is second hand, based upon the documents mentioned above.
Number of sources: The criterion for depth of coverage for organizations is: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability". Examples of coverage that is not substantial include "sources that simply report meeting times", "brief announcements of mergers or sales", and the like. By any measure, an independent report devoted purely to assessing the quality of an organization qualifies as "substantial". One source is absolutely sufficient to establish notability. Of course the article could be improved through the addition of other sources, but that is another question.
Wikilawyering: This happens when there are good and obvious reasons not to stick to the precise letter of Wikipedia policy, but someone is nonetheless a stickler for the rules. One can tell that wikilawyering is occurring because it is easy to explain why, in that particular case, the standard procedures shouldn't be strictly followed. So far, we have seen no explanation about why normal practice should not have been followed. It would seem that the only justification is that the editor who put this article into AfD simply didn't wish to follow clear and simple guidelines, such as: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted". If it is "wikilawyering" to object to such obvious violations, it's not clear how Wikipedia's well thought out policies can be enforced at all.
You misunderstand the distinction between primary and secondary. If the AERES committee would read all those articles and then write a synthesis about the scientific content (in other words, a review article), that would be a secondary source. Instead, these publications are their "raw data" about the productivity of this lab. Hence, this is a primary source. It's like doing an experiment in chemistry: your measurements are your data, your article with your conclusions drawn from them is a primary source. I find it telling that you keep spending lots of time to post large walls of text instead of using the same time to come up with some easy to find sources and be done with this... I think we're turning in circles now here, so I won't react to further postings from you any more and will await other !votes and/or the decision of the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will not attempt to meet requirements that are not there. The requirement is substantial coverage in a reliable independent secondary source. Above, I have shown, through specific references to Wikipedia policy and through evidence about AERES and quotes from the report (sorry if this has been lengthy), that the AERES report is in fact substantial, reliable, and independent. To see that it is indeed a secondary source, we can look at how secondary sources are described in Wikipedia policy on the question: "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." Check. The AERES report does not produce the science or the laboratory's resulting international reputation; it is at least one step away, analyzing reports and other documentary evidence about these things and providing the thinking of the independent reviewers on the quality of the laboratory. "It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." Check. It is an analysis of exactly such primary sources provided by the laboratory. To be clear, the "raw data" was not a pile of scientific papers. The primary sources consisted of the following: "quadrennial activity report, updated as of January 1st, 2008, project presentations, copies of slides, training plan, individual researcher forms, ...". Continuing with the definition of secondary sources for Wikipedia: "Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources." In this case, the secondary source is an independent third-party source. All the better. "They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them. For example, a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research." Check. The AERES report absolutely relies upon the primary sources and analyzes and evaluates them. "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences. A book review too can be an opinion, summary or scholarly review." This is what I was explaining above. In this case, the report is a secondary source when it evaluates the primary sources and says that the international reputation of the laboratory is good, which is what makes the laboratory notable. It is a primary source when it says that that the documents furnished by the laboratory were of good quality, because this detail is something that the independent evaluators see first hand. --MyPOV (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no case for deletion as our editing policy would be to merge into the parent institution, which is the foremost university in France. The institution is known by a variety of names and abbreviations. The French language wiki has a much larger article and we should follow their lead as they will be more able to understand and use French language sources. Warden (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem is that the this article does not indicate the actual notability of this laboratory. It is notable, however, and it needs someone who knows French to work on it.--I am One of Many (talk) 19:23, 10 March 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, J04n(talk page) 18:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @I am One of Many, it would be helpful if you could indicate why this is notable and how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. @Warden: unfortunately, the -indeed larger- French article has no sources apart from the lab's homepage. --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still thinking about it, but in this case I think comparisons between a number of similar articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) may ultimately be an important part of the argument. :-) --I am One of Many (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that @I am One of Many is addressing the claim that was advanced as a basis for deleting this article: "Single laboratories are rarely notable and this one is no exception." The fact that LIP6 is part of a larger class of notable individual laboratories is pertinent in this context. One cannot very well argue that single laboratories are rarely notable and at the same time imply that comparison to other notable single laboratories is somehow off topic. Unless the editor wishes to strike that part of the original claim. --MyPOV (talk) 14:22, 18 March 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, Secretaccount 03:28, 18 March 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 01:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out what the notability consists of . A local high school teacher, and local historian, well known in her own community and unknown elsewhere. The relevant policy is NOT MEMORIAL. DGG ( talk ) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is a nicely done biography of an upstanding citizen known only in her community. I have several such individuals among my ancestors. I do not intend to write Wikipedia biographies of them. I do not believe that routine local newspaper coverage makes an ordinary hardworking person notable. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete. Here is a remarkable woman who was head and shoulders above almost everyone else. With perseverance, courage, and kindness she literally held this rural town together spiritually, despite the burden of debts owed on the farm which was a legacy from her husband.PIAM54 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Admirable and worthy person but does not meet notability requirements. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
delete not notable, sort of thing to send to a local library for local studies, not Wikipedia. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete No words can capture the greatness of this woman, whose character, courage, and compassion were an example to all whose lives she touched. She gave to lost souls of her village the shelter of her home and heart, and from the air of everyday life she fashioned the timeless reverence of eternity. I have been privileged to know a great many remarkable people in my nearly four score years, ranging from Nobel Prize winners to Olympic gold medalists. None of them shine brighter in my book than this humble, loving school teacher, farmer, and spiritual leader from rural Maine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KKSR1903 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC) — KKSR1903 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
delete Most sources for the article aren't reliable (e.g. ancestry.com, FamilySearch) and there is no evidence that this person is notable by the standards of wikipedia. Star767 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Some of the hagiographic language has to go, and there's far too much genealogy cruft and bad sourcing that would be better removed but the Bangor Daily News coverage (ref 23 of this version, together with (taking on good faith) the four-part Houlton Pioneer Times profile (refs 19–22), looks like enough for WP:GNG for me. But it's only a weak keep rather than a full keep because the coverage is too local. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:57, 20 March 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.
Delete. Lists of bus routes are routine information that is often subject to change and they are, in fact, travel-guide-like information, not encyclopaedic information. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Often it doesn't change that much, 3-4 times a year of which most are very minor changes. And so are airport and airline articles listing destinations and are encyclopaedic information. Mark999 (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no indication that this subject meets WP:GNG. It also fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and as it is entirely copied from a single primary source WP:PRIMARY.--Charles (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is unsourced, it's only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain. The Transport in Cornwall article could have its section on buses improving however, with a summary of major operators and important routes and any external links necessary to take from here. That would allow the useful content to remain - and might be a good Redirect target in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
http://traveline.info/ is the correct source and a secondary source the bus operators. Mark999 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC) It is NOT impossible to maintain services dont change that often! Mark999 (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't understand how the source you give can possibly be cited to provide details as it seems to require a search based, I presume, on an underlying database rather than providing information directly. I'm not convinced that's citable.
Secondly, I tried to bring one of these articles up to speed and update it fairly recently. It had been updated within the previous six months iirc. It was littered with omissions, routes that had been closed or changed this route, routes which had, seemingly, been renumbered and ones that had been added. The thought was that it was up to date - it wasn't. The experience, for a small article with only 20-30 routes iirc, convinced me that these articles can never be reliably up to date given standard wikipedia activity patterns. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Cornwall, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 11:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:05, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus has swung towards Delete in recent months for these sorts of articles. Notability is dubious and the ability to maintain a reliable and up to date set of routes supported by reliable third party sources is limited. A prose article Buses in Essex is entirely suitable however (or even Buses in Colchester). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with all the other lists created by Adam Mugliston it is not notable. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Colchester, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. 12 similar pages have been deleted or merged with a more notable article. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 16:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:05, 25 March 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.
This is an orphaned page, with no incoming links except from Stem (a disambiguation page). It has not been significantly edited since 2008. It does not have any references, and has been tagged as such for five years. Its content consists of a dictionary definition and a paragraph that discusses legal technicalities. Wikipedia cannot provide legal advice, and this paragraph is unsourced anyway. —Bkell (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to crack cocaine and merge any useful content to a paraphernalia section. Crack pipe already redirects there. There aren't many reliable sources that address crack stems directly and in detail (this one's okay) though they are sold in convenience stores in urban areas and it is a plausible search term. Gobōnobō+c 03:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I can find references using the term, there's not much defining it. The article Love rose is also related (the rose's tube is used as a crack stem). Possibly merge both into Crack, or merge/redirect this to Love rose, which is referenced a little. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:42, 19 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - consensus has swung towards Delete in recent months for these sorts of articles. Notability is dubious and the ability to maintain a reliable and up to date set of routes supported by reliable third party sources is limited. A prose article Buses in Lancashire is entirely suitable however (or even Buses in Chorley). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Chorley, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain using proper sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Chesterfield, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 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.
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Also for reasons given by others on similar noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Calderdale, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable with significant maintenance issues meaning it's reliability is never going to be as good as an external link from the Caldedale page to the bus timetable link which is currently being employed as a reference on this article. Caldedale could use a Transport section with a sentence or two about buses in it if anyone's interesting in writing prose about buses. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 21:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Buxton, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:13, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain. Transwikification is up to someone at Wikia. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Bury, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:13, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. The best place to obtain this information should be the Passenger Transport Executive's website, which THEY can be sure to maintain. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Burnley, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:14, 25 March 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.
Creator contested PROD. Notability not established. (Note: I am opening this as a favor to the PRODder who had attempted to re-tag. I have no opinion on the merits.) Sperril (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim of notability ("pianist" is not notable per se) and not a single source. Creator is a WP:SPA that appears to be writing articles on the Wheaton College Conservatory of Music faculty, e.g. R. Edward Zimmerman (already notability tagged) and Gerard Sundberg. Not commenting on these other cases, but they should perhaps be examined. Agricola44 (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No independent sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
It's an ad for goods for sale. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 22 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Bradford, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:14, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossibly to reliably maintain. People can look up a bus route elsewhere. By all means let's provide them with an article on Buses in Lancashire (or Buses in Bolton or Public Transport in Bolton) which includes lots of interesting historical and operator details in a prose format. And provide an external link to the list if bus routes that operators or the council maintains. That's much more efficient than duplicating lists here which will inevitably contain errors or be out of date. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Bolton, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:15, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. This deserves a sentence, possibly two, on the Bolsover page, nothing else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Bolsover, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:14, 25 March 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.
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's referenced, it's in scope, it's not acting like a travel guide. Further justification for deletion please. Rcsprinter(warn) @ 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said it's referenced to primary sources that are not suitable for establishing the notability of a subject. All articles should be based primarily on Secondary Sources or to a lesser extent Tertiary sources. If It's not guiding me to travel, then why is it telling me which route I can take to get to Derby, Bakewell, MatlockRipley or others? The level of detail does not stop it being a guide to travel and it is directly comparable to lists of hotels or restaurants mentioned in the policy. No further justification is required as you fail to rule out the policies already mentioned. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:PRIMARY which says material only from primary sources should be avoided. Further justification for deletion needed? I don't think so.--Charles (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwiki, for all the reasons above. The best place for content like this is Wikia in, for example, the UK Travel Wiki. --Bob Re-born (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to maintain using reliable, third party sources. There are already two sentences on the Belper page about buses. They even have their own little sub-section. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do the second option.... Rcsprinter(shout) @ 17:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No technical reason why it couldn't be done, but it would require permission of the Admins on WikiTravel to access Special:Import, better to transwiki to a foundation or wikia project. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I read that as WikiVoyage; that's what isn't allowed. Rcsprinter(Gimme a message) @ 11:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who said it's not allowed? The discussion I had on their village pump seemed to show a slight consensus for such lists with two situations mentioned specifically - If they're going to be expanded into an article on popular tourist routes. (For example, an article explaining exactly which bus numbers, stops, and transfers to use to get to Wicked Awesome Tourist Site from Well-Known and Easily Accessible Landmark.) or if the information is difficult to find, spread out over many pages, confusing, or not available in English on the bus operator site. But as I've said before Wikivoyage is still operating under a tight scope which was the scope of WikiTravel, The foundation's stated aim is far wider than that (to make all travel information available) and at some point they will need to consider aligning with the foundations aims. Either way lots of wikivoyage articles have bus route information that could be suitable merge targets if the information is cleaned filtered so that only essential information remains. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Belper, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 10:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:15, 25 March 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.
Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:GNG which also fails WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. These type of lists are almost impossible to keep up to date and are not encyclopedic content. They do not make a stable encyclopedia.--Charles (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain. A sentence or two on the Ashbourne article would suffice to summarise the content probably. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus to or from Ashbourne, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus.Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 11:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:15, 25 March 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.
No policy is quoted to support the assertion isn't a travel guide.
The list is valuable to users, it has been visited ~4-5 times a day before the nomination, which is reasonably often for such a location.
The list has existed for 3 years without previous attempts to afd. It is presumably at least a bit welcome on Wikipedia.
A discussion of the idea of moving these lists to Wikivoyage on talk:WikiProject Buses was generally unenthuseastic. This looks like an attempt to force the issue without consensus,
Not withstanding the view that other pages are no guide to notability, it seems odd to pick on this list when the project at Template:Bus routes in the UK is already so well filled and obviously encyclopaedic. Looks like an attempt to pick off a soft target first. Why not afd List of bus routes in London first?
I can't find any 'list of bus routes' style articles on wikivoyage. (There aare a few bus route subheads, but the page seems more like an electronic lonely planet than an electronic bradshaws.) The articles mainly seem to be about destinations, and largely mimic the location articles here. No-one has suggested moving Skegness there
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the first response for retaining isn't much better.
Being visited ~4-5 times a day doesn't count for much when the google bot scans all articles at least once a day as do various other webcrawlers so you're lucky if 1 actual human visits per day and they're probably looking for information like timetables that they'll have to follow up with a visit to the bus company website.
Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually.
The list at Template:Bus routes in the UK is full, but very few of those articles comply with policy - Specifically this article is unsourced, it's only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. The latter point also apperas to fall short of the other stuff exists argument of AfDs.
there is Bus travel in Israel on Wikivoyage but the problem is that WV's content has been operating on a very tight scope as part of WikiTravel now that it is part of Wikimedia it can adopt the foundations wider aims and including useful travel information as well.
Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki. Stuart has summed up the situation admirably. The article fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Also probably WP:PRIMARY which says material only from primary sources should be avoided. If Wikitravel do not want these lists UK Transport Wiki at Wikia is a good place for them.--Charles (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, transwiki, for all the reasons above. The best place for content like this is Wikia in, for example, the UK Travel Wiki. --Bob Re-born (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the possibility of a redirect to Transport in Lincolnshire - non-notable and impossible to reliably maintain list. Wikia seems to be awfully keen to have these lists as far as I can tell - that becomes SEP when they become out of date. The Transport in Lincolnshire article already has a fair bit on buses in it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Lincolnshire, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 11:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:15, 25 March 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.
Comment Wouldn't it be better to combine them into one AfD? Also, there have been a lot of similar AfDs recently, so if someone can provide information on the usual outcome, that would help. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier discussion at Requests for Comment resulted in consensus that each article should be treated on its own merits or lack of. Consensus at these AfDs has shifted substantially since then though.--Charles (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable subject failing WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. This information is better found at bus company websites where it is more likely to be up to date. It is not stable content for an encyclopaedia.--Charles (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Transwiki to Wikivoyage or Wikia, or otherwise remove from Wikipedia. This is an omnishambles of a nomination but the policy Wikipedia is not a travel guide does apply here, as does "Wikipedia is not a directory" on the same policy page. Various routes have been to AfD but there's no real strategy as to which are taken to AfD and which we retain. Because of the pendulum swing from editors voting keep and delete there was an RFC at the village pump which equally could not draw a single consensus for keeping or deleting but advised that each list should be nominated individually. This article is unsourced, it's only likely to ever be sourced to primary sources (either 1st party the bus company, or 3rd party the local authority) it's unlikely that any secondary sources will be found to establish either the individual routes or the list of routes as notable and meeting the GNG. London is the rare alternative where there are reliable secondary sources but even it should be replaced by a prose article rather than a list with a list only to specifically notable routes, but the debate for that is probably some way off. Also broadly through nomination, there has been a clear consensus formed for deletion with multiple bus route list articles deleted in the very recent past (past 6 months) this compares to prior to that time when there was no consensus whatsoever with most AfDs tied and the occasional few closing either way. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and impossibly to reliably maintain. A paragraph on the Surrey article, or possibly an article on Public transport in Surrey or even Buses in Surrey if there is sufficient content, would be a very good idea and well worth someone with an interest in buses pursuing. Recent consensus seems to be very much veering towards deletion fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Kill off this and all other bus route articles - or transwikify to Wikitravel. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It is not clear that this article could ever be particularly useful to people interested in taking a bus in Surrey, given that one would have to refer to the bus company's web site to confirm that the bus service still exists, what days it runs, what time it runs, and where to get on the bus. Wilbysuffolk(Talk to me!) 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979→ 01:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are notable equally to other forms of transport which are never deleted. Primary sources are perfectly valid for this as they are more reliable. It isn't a subject that secondary sources would mention but are still notable. Adam Mugliston talk 20:16, 25 March 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. The nationality of an MMA fighter doesn't affect their notability. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's an Irish MMA champion. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He fails WP:NMMA but an Irish MMA champion is a bit rare so i say keep the page. Entity of the Void (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please show me where it says that Irish MMA fighters have different notability standards from other MMA fighters? Especially when they seem to lack significant coverage and have no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:NMMA and WP:GNG. Being the champion of a second tier organization doesn't show notability, even if you're Irish (which seems irrelevant to me).Mdtemp (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has no top tier fights, fails WP:NMMA, and fails WP:GNG. I tend to agree with Papaursa that whether or not he's Irish should have no bearing on his notability. CaSJer (talk) 14:50, 22 March 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. Michig (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially just a dictionary definition, and unlikely, I believe, to be significantly expanded. Most of the search results I see aren't precisely using it in the indicated sense, but simply as the simple combination of the words in the phrase. Open to a redirect to Person of interest or something better. Note that [18] appears to be taken from Wikipedia. j⚛e deckertalk 02:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "WP is not a dictionary." Once you explain what the three words mean together there is nothing much more to say. To write an article on the entities themselves (not the expression) you would have to cover anything a police department might be interested in investigating. That's a really limitless topic. BigJim707 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Person of interest is marginal too, but at least has some interesting (if you'll pardon the expression) history. BigJim707 (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more than happy with the depth in person of interest, heck, I defended (and still defend) chili burger as getting past NOTDICT. This, on the other hand.... --j⚛e deckertalk 18:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would not vote to delete Person of interest. However it's really about the history and implications of the words, not about the people of interest themselves. Borock (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a dictionary definition, and the meaning is far too general to write an article about it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, while designating someone a person of interest may have repercussions, legally and otherwise (as discussed in the article), that does not apply to objects of interest. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:53, 19 March 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.
Subject is an MMA fighter who fails WP:NMMA since he has only one top tier fight and I didn't find sources that show he meets any other notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 18 March 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. Will userify upon request. Lankiveil(speak to me) 08:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had a look for references and have to agree with the nominators analysis that this doesn't provide the coverage necessary to establish meets WP:NM --nonsenseferret 01:54, 4 March 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, Jenks24 (talk) 06:46, 11 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection towards userfying - He has associated himself with notable people every year but there isn't much aside from brief mentions. Searches including Google News rounded back to that WordPress link but I did find a list of charted songs that mentions him here and here (brief mention for Adam Lambert). I also found this list "Top 20 Songwriters of 2011" that lists him and provides a photo but I doubt this is notable. As mentioned above, I have no objection towards userfying or a future article. SwisterTwistertalk 22:40, 20 March 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. Keeper | 76 01:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam. Adds nothing to the existing material on ultrasound-assisted liposuction already in the article Liposuction. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 20 March 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. Michig (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this is basically an ad added by a SPA. An earlier version of the same article was Speedily Deleted when, after it was nominated for deletion, the creator blanked the page[19]. There do not appear to be any reliable, independent, third party WP:MEDRS compliant sources whatsoever. Fladrif (talk) 02:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is hopelessly out of date (the method "will be presented" at a meeting in 2007) and the references are inadequate and in some cases deceptive. The most impressive looking reference, from BBC News, is not even about this noninvasive technique; it is about using ultrasound in connection with liposuction. The only other mainstream independent reference, from Business Week, is 10 years old. If this procedure hasn't become more notable in 10 years, it doesn't belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources fail to advance a strong degree of notability considering the limited lasting consequences. Mkdwtalk 21:10, 25 March 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.
Contested PROD. Proprietary technology only used on "one" phone (pun intended), not yet independently notable. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's "featured" in a "flagship" product. I'm salivating too copiously to allow any further typing. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 26 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 4 March 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) 00:30, 11 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HTC One (device). It does have some press[20][21][22][23], but it's still not an independently notable technology, since it's only discussed in articles on the HTC One. If HTC use this in subsequent phones, it may end up deserving an article, but it's not uncommon for this sort of innovation to be nothing but a short-term marketing gimmick for a particular product, and the camera on the next phone to be completely different. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:25, 18 March 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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme(talk) 00:28, 11 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find anything good to merge it into. The only on-line reference in the article seems to be a dead link. Couldn't find any other references. Looks like non-notable theory and jargon. Dingo1729 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't seem to be a neologism; the MARS model is described in the book "Organizational Behavior" and slides based on the book. But I have not been able to find in-depth sources for the topic outside of this book or the author Steven McShane. It may be that the concept is not widespread. The book and slides count as a reliable source, as it is published by McGraw-Hill, a reputable publisher. But I could not find any others. At present it seems below the threshold for general notability. But there is no prejudice to recreation if more reliable sources become available. --Mark viking (talk) 18:10, 20 March 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.
This subject of this article has no significance whatsoever at this point in time. It has has not produced any records, and as of my submitting this, hasn't even played a single show yet, according to the article. I fail to see any notability here. If they release an album and tour, then fine. But for now, I see no notability here whatsoever. L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? - If Billy Milano and Dan Lilker are notable, and this band exists, then as I understand the guidelines this band is notable. And if we trust the references, which seem to be legitimate scene sources, the band exists. Ergo, I vote keep. But I am very open to contrary arguments, should any of my premises be shown to be false! squibix(talk) 17:10, 27 February 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, J04n(talk page) 17:43, 4 March 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) 00:23, 11 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 18 March 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.
A user opened this AfD page as his/her first and only edit, so I can't tell if the nomination is in good faith or not. My guess is that the user was trying to nominate the article for deletion on advertising/notability grounds. I am neutral and have no prejudice against an early closure of this AfD if the OP or any other user does not provide a valid deletion rationale. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:03, 26 February 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, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 4 March 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, Gong show 00:04, 11 March 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, Mediran (t • c) 02:20, 18 March 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. WP:CSD#G3blatant hoax. The article's claim that this 16-year-old was elected to a council office in 2016 is, unsurprisingly, not confirmed by the cited sources. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC) JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Teenager elected fantasizing about future election to city council in what is not one of a small state's larger cities; possibly self-created article fails WP:POLITICIANDaniel Case (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN -- there is a complete lack of significant press coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Appears to be a WP:HOAX. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G3. Clear hoax. Valenciano (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like a hoax (see photo), just someone who jumped the gun.--Aurictalk 11:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. A sixteen-year-old with delusions of semi-grandeur. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 19 March 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.
Redirect to Kentucky Secretary of State election, 2011. Subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources; that being said the significant weight of that coverage is about a single event which is the subject of the article Kentucky Secretary of State election, 2011. Therefore the subject, although passing WP:GNG, falls under WP:BLP1E, therefore a redirect is in order. Furthermore, the subject fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the common outcome for such a subject is to redirect the article to the article about the campaign. If the subject receives significant coverage for other campaigns, or outside the political realm, the article can always be recreated from the history that will be found in the redirect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything relevant can be moved to the article about the 2010 Kentucky Senate race or the 2011 KY Sec. of State election. After re-reading this article over carefully, it's simply not worthy of ever having been made. Con Rev Null (talk) 17:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Although a large part of the article is subject to WP:BURDEN, upgrading the article to our standards is an issue that can be resolved and has no impact on whether the subject of the article is notable. Furthermore, the subject has receivedsignificant coverage, but also falls under WP:BLP1E as I stated above. Therefore, outright deletion would be inappropriate IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kentucky Secretary of State election, 2011. The subject's most notable campaign was for the Secretary of State. WP:BLAR is the most appropriate outcome when the subject may become notable in the future. Enos733 (talk) 20:18, 20 March 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.
Restored article deleted per A7. There's still no assertion of notability in the article, and the group doesn't meet WP:BAND. The creator asserts notability because its members are notable, inasmuch as they each have articles, but two of them are tagged with {{notability}} and have very weak sourcing. The band's name gets no Google News hits and few general hits. --BDD (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or AT A MINIMUM redirect) - If Anna and Jeff are not notable, they can be taken to AfD. Until that happens, the band likely has three notable musicians. If Steven is the only notable musician in the band, then the article should redirect to him. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Coverage for this band seems pretty minimal as far as I can tell; thesewrite-ups are the most detailed I could find. Other mentions, likethesethree, are in passing only and within entries/articles about Redd Kross. Perhaps this "side project" could be redirected there, unless more significant coverage is presented here. Gong show 04:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a minor, brief side project with members related to Redd Kross. How minor is it? It isn't even mentioned in the Redd Kross article (if it was we could redirect it there). Doesn't pass WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band comes nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, so the article will be a perma-sub-stub. We're long past the point where Jax shoukd have stopped creating these useless sub-stubs merely to bulk out the navboxes which he likes creating. It's a severe case of WP:IDHT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. You want to redirect the title to a page which doesn't even mention that title? That wouldn't help the reader; it would confuse and frustrate the reader. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - "If Steven is the only notable musician in the band, then the article should redirect to him". --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Redd Kross. A side project containing several members of notable bands should obviously be included somewhere. There are several sources available to expand/source this, e.g. Classic Rock magazine, Kreuzer, MTV, Stylus, and mentions in The Rough Guide to Rock and Lights, Camera Soundtracks (the band had a track included on the soundtrack of Sugar Town). --Michig (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable per Stylus & Classic Rock. Kreuzer looks good too, though it's hard to find info about it. There is also the arts journal neuma [24], Ruta 66 2002 - Nº 178 [25], an origin story in BAM 21 Feb 1997 (about halfway down [26]) and some ziney stuff like [27]. 86.42.107.13 (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited. Assuming the members of this band are notable for other things (which may not necessarily be true), that doesn't mean that every other thing they do is automatically notable. Notable people can do non-notable things. And as far as I've seen from the sources given, this side project isn't notable. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 16:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Starblind, BrownHairedGirl, Scottywong, give me ONE good reason why this page should not redirect to either of the three musicians so long as their page(s) remain(s)? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Redd Kross. I looked at the sources cited by Michig and do not find them sufficient for a stand alone article. The sources do however all say how this is a side project, so a short section on it as a side project would be appropriate. J04n(talk page) 00:42, 27 March 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.
Article is advertising. Business Intelligence 3.0 is not used in any research/journal articles. Described features are already included in Business Intelligence 2.0 (e.g. Social Media). Cited sources go back to company Panorama or Forrester (Kobielus) working with Panorama. 85.180.132.85 2013-03-04T18:53:43 [28] (paperwork done by John Vandenberg(chat) 01:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. What would appear to be a substantial and referenced article is quickly deflated by the vague, promotional vaporings of the text:
....a term that refers to new tools and software for business intelligence, that enable contextual discovery and more collaborative decision making. BI 3.0 is socially enabled, which keeps it in line with the popularization of social media technologies and the demand for more intuitive self-service BI. Some executives, such as Venkat Iyer, the practice head of business information management for Capgemini, have called it the future of business intelligence in the face of new technology and rising data use.
The basic problem here is for gee-whiz promotional IT slogans, it's easy to get patent nonsense into print. The unreadable gunk of the article fails to persuade me that this term is anything other than a sales slogan for various self-promoters. Even if they manage to get the term into print, there's no 'there' there, no underlying thing for an article to be about. It's all about promising the moon and obscuring details, and hoping that if you spit out the patter at great enough length nobody will be paying attention any more:
Relevancy BI 3.0 solutions take user patterns and their individual profiles and use computational analysis to present the most relevant data and corresponding insights. Contextual information is easier to understand by users at all levels of the enterprise, and lets managers take actionable steps. The output of more relevant results is also more efficient, as users no longer need to sift through data or analyses which do not correspond to their job duties.
All I can get from it is that datamining personal information from social media is supposed to be a new "version" of "business intelligence", and this tiny idea gets spun into this TL:DR text designed to make this the Next Big Thing. Articles have to mean something. This doesn't. Articles should have a subject. This doesn't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fwiw, I agree with the nominating IP, and thank Smerdis of Tlön for the more detailed rationale for deletion. John Vandenberg(chat) 02:01, 21 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theory article with sourcing only to WP:FRINGE websites. Fails WP:GNG and no WP:RS seem to be available. There is one syndicated column I found, but it seems to be written by a journalist known for... less than truthful reporting. Needs coverage in multiple reliable sources, and it only seems to have coverage in one dubious source and multiple garbage sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has such severe problems with bias and lack of independent sources that I don't think it can be fixed. Besides, the article is self-contradictory, by claiming that the report was published in the Congressional Record yet also "suppressed for the last 53 years". The content of the Congressional Record may be largely ignored (most of it is not exactly fascinating reading), but it is available in numerous libraries. --Metropolitan90(talk) 01:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kill it with fire. Basically this was a "report" by a senate committee staffer, whose language quoted here indicates it was pure POV rather than evidence-based, and which has been rightly ignored (not suppressed; it's hard to claim suppression when something was actually published by the government) for 60 years. I'm disappointed to learn that this article has been lurking here for five years. Kudos to Sailsbystars for finding it and nominating it. --MelanieN (talk) 17:14, 20 March 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.
